1. A computer-implemented method for the recommendation of goods and/or services to potential customers over a distributed network based on customer buying history utilizing an information processing system containing processing means having transmission means for receiving and transmitting data, and database storage means for storing information in database files, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving customer commands specifying a particular good or service to be used as filter data;
storing information pertaining to goods and/or services purchasing history of previous customers;
comparing said filter data with said stored information and determining whether, for said filter data, corresponding entries exist within the stored information; and
if corresponding entries exist, displaying the identity of other goods and/or services purchased by said previous customers who have purchased the good and/or service used as said filter data.
Claim 7 is also independent and directed toward a computer-implemented method. Claim 16 is also independent and directed toward a statutory computer program which requires a tangible embodiment and interacts with a user.
The Sears catalog is not prior art. The average Slashdot reader has no idea what the words "prior art" actually mean.
Yes, this is a troll, but I don't exactly see where giving publicity to people who behead civilians is doing anything to contribute constructively to reconstructing Iraq or Islamic terrorism generally.
Irony, meet swb. swb, Irony.
Sure, Al Jazeera isn't protected by a Consitutional right to free speech, but on the other hand, they broadcast from some other sovereign nation. They might as well be covered by the First Ammendment, huh? Well, I'll let you an Irony get to know each other. I'll be over here bearing arms and stuff.
I believe the meaning of the colloquialism relates to an additional power in the radix of your number system - short answer, yes, it's a power of ten.
Computer scientists often refer to an order of magnitude when going from problem sizes of N squared to N cubed, which is again tied to an additional power in the "radix" of the problem at hand. Computer scientists also use the colloquialism, in base 10, so it really isn't a binding definition.
Computer scientists who deal in computability and algorithm analysis (like me) use crazy-ass non-math where numbers are pointless and an order of magnitude only really occurs when you go from linear to quadratic, from quadratic to cubic, and from cubic to exponential. The difference between N^4 and N^100 is basically meaningless when you're dealing with Big Oh or other algorithm analysis notation.
In summary, who the hell knows? It's one of those cliche quasi-mathematical things people say to indicate something is "super big" compared to something else. It's like English majors saying, "If you have X cars, you need Y tires," without realizing that they have told me nothing about how many tires I need, have apparently defined Y as an implicitly dependent variable which is ambiguously related to X. I don't know how many tires that works out to be, but it's at least an order of magnitude more than my unicycle.
I guess the new rule for presidential candidates is no malapropisms, no dyslexia, no gaffes, no speech disorders or impediments of any kind.
You can guess all day about candidates if it provides you with a necessary excuse. If you think it's unreasonable that the commander in chief of the only global superpower speak marginally better than a juvenile, let me suggest using similar reasoning to justify foreign policy, declarations of war, and domestic economic policy.
Insightful my ass. The man went to Yale and I'm a better public speaker when I'm completely drunk. Bush's supporters have no shortage of excuses, however, just like the man himself. You know what qualities I'd like to see in a candidate/President? Taking responsibility for the nation.
I ain't saying Kerry is the answer, but Bush has squandered his opportunity to be a two term president.
That's interesting. Do you know anything about the precision of the radar equipment? Could I look at the rather solid up-down pattern of the points on that graph and decide there are ocean swells or would that all be explained by the sensitivity of the equipment?
Of course, I don't really know what a reasonable swell size in a planet-wide (alright, moon-wide) methane ocean would be.. 100m? With the wind data they've recorded, I wouldn't be shocked.
But let me stress - I'm not even an amateur physicist or astrononmer, I'm merely fascinated by this story.
I'm not even an amateur astronomer but I've been GLUED to these news reports. Didn't Arthur C. Clarke land the Chinese on Titan in 2063 or 3001, only to be eat by a methane-sea monster? Of course, Imperial Earth has Titan colonized.
I've been entranced by these pictures and realizing, as have you, that this is not entirely unlike digging up a miniature monolith on the moon - we're exposing something to the collective consciousness of the only intelligence (we know of) in the universe. We've got our shovel stuck in untilled earth, about to turn over the soil for the first time in history, but there is a whole world sitting there on the blade of the shovel.
The scope of the mysteries these first data suggest only reinforces my awe. It's not like Mars - "These mysterious lines appear to be liquid erosion." It's like, "Pretty pictures, huh? The best and brightest of the world can't figure out what's in those clouds, but we detect dim rocks in distant galaxies by watching the stars wobble." Argh! I want to go to Titan!
I don't know, maybe I've finally just flipped out on something. I want to wallpaper my living room with pictures from Cassini. That's normal, right? I just gotta know what is down there. Put me on the slow spaceship to Saturn and I'll turn into the half-crazed captain who sacrifices everything and jeopardizes his whole crew to complete the mission. Hell, me and HAL would be best friends. Screw you naysayers, I MUST KNOW what's on Titan.
I'm practically counting down the days until the landing probe touches the surface.
It's a neat idea, but using a small-diameter, high-RPM cutting tool to carve a pumpkin essentially guarantees the immediate area will be coated in a fine orange spray.
And so I think the OP is correct: it does make the sender look like a moron, because she is a lawyer or representative for a lawyer, and yet she doesn't seem to understand a fundamental, basic premise of the law.
While I'm not privy to the details of email disclaimers (but take your word for it), I do share correspondence with IP lawyers on a daily basis. They often will write things that make themselves look like morons, but it's usually because they're trying to catch you snoozing on the job. You catch their moronity, they put forth the least possible effort to correct the problem.
In this case, I doubt the bot/lawyer/investigator was worried the slightest about "appearing" to be a moron. He/she/it was probably more interested in convincing the recipient, with likely no legal education, to keep the story under wraps. Sure, the recipient might have her own lawyer laugh at the disclaimer, but she might not - therefore the disclaimer could have been 100% effective despite being 0% enforceable.
You know, not the first psychological wreck of a pincushion that comes my way.
You can say that again. More power to SG and their site, but none of the pics enticing me to sign up were that enticing.
And not because I'm some hippie liberal who hates porn for objectifying women. Hell, some bleach and makeup remover will de-gothify those girls and I'm sure they're probably quite sexy - but that wouldn't fix the psychological wreck persona they're selling.
I guess this will get modded as flamebait at Slashdot, a real champion at respecting different opinions, but I'm just not into trendy shit. Again, more power to SG for their site, but the enticing pics didn't appeal to me.
In short -- know your place. A farmer gets to leave a legacy for his children. You don't.
As an amateur recording artist who would love to be be a professional musician some day, you hit the nail on the head.
What of the professional athlete? What legacy does he get to give his children? The police officer? The plumber? The teacher? They know THEIR places. They don't get to hand down a fortune in real estate by simple virtue of their profession. Why the hell should a musician be any different?
What makes the analogy false is that a farmer who passes down the farm is a business owner, to whatever extent the mortgage has been paid. If a recording artist forms a production company, well shit-bang he has something to pass down to his children. The police officer still has nothing, of course, same as the teacher and the plumber.
It might not go over well with the average Slashdotter, but neither to facts or well-reasoned opinions, in many cases. A creative work is not real estate. Until it is real estate, the idea that an artist could pass it down to his children is the pinnacle of ridiculousness.
My cat fits your ideal cat except for bringing you useful gifts - mine never brings anything.
I treated him like a dog right from the beginning and that's how he acts. He'll even follow me around the neighborhood if he isn't stalking something. He doesn't jerk me around because he knows I'll win - if he gets picky about his food, it'll look a lot tastier tomorrow. If he can't decide whether or not to come in, it's easier to decide 4 hours from now. If I piss him off, he wakes me up at 5am rather than make a mess, because he ends up wearing the mess and if he doesn't clean himself up, he takes a shower with shampoo.
I really don't understand why people baby their cats. I'm far from an expert on pets but I think a lot of a cat's personality is how they're socialized when young. Mine is pretty much the ideal cat because, I think, I made it really clear that I wasn't going to put up with the typical cat personality crap.
Worth a couple grand? I dunno - mine cost me $5 at the local animal shelter. Hell, maybe he just came to grips with his own tender mortality at a young age and appreciates how I feed him and play with him.
Re: Kerry is open to re-examining the DMCA... Hm, now I'm voting for Kerry, but personally, this sounds like Mom saying, "Well, let me think about it tomorrow." Sure, he's open to re-examine the DMCA. I'm open to re-examine my sexuality regarding barnyard animals, but I'm roughly 100% confident that my final conclusion is right where I started.
Except everyone who actually follows politics knows there is a big difference. Democrats use the courts to pass policies they know they could never be elected by supporting. So while Kerry wouldn't say anything in support, he would happily sit by while activist judges (of the sort he would be appointing) rammed it down our throats. Just like with abortion.
I'd really like to know when "Republican" came to equal "anti-Constitutional Revisionist". I know this is a troll, but I'm legitimately interested in hearing the answer.
Why is the "conservative" party so interested in rewriting the Constitution every time Frank and Bill hold hands? Why is it that the "conservatives" are so panic-stricken when the founding principles of the nation are upheld - such as the separation of Church and State? White people didn't come to North America for the scenery.
As a person who has participated in the apparently dangerous, treacherous act of reading a few books in his lifetime, I find it truly shocking that I'm voting for the "liberal" party in hopes of getting a government that sticks to its founding principles instead of redefining the whole operation every time two guys decide to live their lives together. I mean man alive, we are the global superpower and you're worried about butt sex.
So yeah, this is a troll and I won't apologize. I'd love to hear the answer anyway.
And just so there aren't any assumptions - I'm not gay, I don't have any friends or family members that are gay, I don't even particularly like gay people. I do find it incredibly insulting that my government is screwing around worrying about what gay people are doing while millions of people have real problems.
It's only irony if Kerry is not aware of the true nature of the situation. Go ahead, look it up.
Also, there is a long history of Presidents working with their respective party members in Congress to have laws initiated on their behalf. While Kerry will not be able to introduce laws in his name once he is elected President, he will nevertheless have incredible sway over his party members in both houses - quite possibly more than he ever had as a Senator.
The point that you choose to ignore is that the public is responsible for the state of the mainstream media. If people demanded better media, they would receive better media.
I understand your line of reasoning, but I argue that it's applicable. Isn't it poor people's fault that they're poor? If people don't have medical insurance, isn't that they're fault? If a woman is raped, isn't it her fault for being in a vulnerable position? If the people ask for corporate media, isn't it their fault that they don't know the issues? If a person drops out of highschool, isn't it his fault that he's uneducated?
Of those questions, I answer a few of them "yes" and a few of them "no". I don't see the media's role in America as wholly defined by the public's whims, detached from some higher, intrinsic responsibility. The Freedom of the Press exists so that the media can tell the people unpopular, important stuff about the government - something that almost by definition is going to be unpopular with many people. This is not analogous to fat people eating at McDonald's - the media has legal protections at the highest level specifically so that they can function independent of popular market forces. That the founders of the nation felt it necessary to grant a clear and specific freedom of speech imbues the media with an intrinsic responsibility, in my opinion.
While I don't mind fluff organizations reporting gossip and nonsense, if no organization steps up to the responsibility of information the public about the government, then the entire media community clearly deserves scathing criticism. The freedom of the press was established for the health and longevity of the nation. That the media should decide to abandon that principle is reprehensible.
I tend only to ridicule when the opposition's argument insults my patience. Join in whenever you like.
Yes, I do realize that. However, the vital right that the authors of the First Amendment had in mind was not the right to turn our media into a 24 hour gossip channel about how gay Mary Cheney is. If that's all they were worried about, I really doubt it would have been part of the Bill of Rights.
The crucial issue at hand was the ability of the media to act as a watchdog for the people against the government, making public the government's transgressions and political chicanery. That ability plays directly into an educated populace, a necessity for a successful democracy. While the First Amendment protects the KKK and mindless drivel, it was penned to ensure that the press had the ability to keep government honest by exposing corruption and contributing to transparency.
The fact that our current media is no longer interested in these things is a sign that the media has failed us. The rights they enjoy ought to come with a responsibility - ethically, at least - to avoid pandering for ratings and popular acclaim. While there is more money in selling something popular, there's more money in lots of other things. There's more money in East Asian child labor and the Thailand sex trade. It doesn't mean they should get their hands on that action, especially considering the privileged position the Constitution grants to the media.
Having said that, since you chose not do address my underlying point that the media conglomerates are not a monopoly, I must come to the conclusion that you agree with that, so thanks for affirming me.
You're a fucking anonymous coward. What the fuck does it matter if they're a monopoly or not - I didn't address you're point because it's the type of point a kid from the middle school debate team would harp about. It's immaterial, it's irrelevant, and it obfuscates the actual issue. Congratulations, you made a point but it was the wrong debate. You scored a touchdown at the NBA playoffs. You hit a homerun in the Super Bowl.
Holy strawman batman! The first amendment and freedom of the press were not created so people could pick their noses either. What is your point?
And here I thought you WERE a reader. The point was cleverly disguised as THE ORIGINAL POST where the conversation began. I don't know why I should need to point that out except this Anonymous Coward is an intellectual B list celebrity - he desperately wants to be smart, desperately wants people to think he's smart, shows up to all the debates and parrots stuff that smart people say, but the truth is that he's rather dim and ordinary. Yeah, that explains why I'd have to point out that my point was cryptically coded in my original post. Slap yourself for me, would ya?
There's a news article today about how a healthy majority of Bush voters think that Bush is popular in the rest of the world -My original post
Those studies do not attempt to claim that a majority of Americans believe those things; they say a majority of Bush supporters. -Your post
Well, I'm glad Hooked on Phonics worked for you.
The media simply gives people what they want, and they are doing a damn good job at it, so they are clearly not dysfunctional.
The first amendment and "freedom of the press" were not created so that the media could give people "what they wanted". I would have posted that retarded ignorance as an anonymous coward too. You know who looks stupid? You.
If people really thought that CNN failed them, they would dump them and move to another news outlet. Oh wait, whether I like it or not they already have; they moved to (yuck) Fox News.
But the problem is self perpetuating. Why would people think that CNN has failed them? They people who moved to Fox News did so because Fox News tells them stories with a spin or bias that they like, not need to hear. I listen to Mike Savage on the radio from time to time specifically because I think he's a tool. I want to make sure that his arguments still sound half-educated and nonsensical to make sure that I'm still certain about my convictions. We have way too many Americans who turn to the news for self-affirmation rather than to be intellectually challenged, and it's one of the most subtle yet critical problems I see in American society.
DO you actually think you came to these conclusions independently, though hours of careful research, and analysis?!?
2- The US military already outspends pretty well the rest of the world combined. They have plenty of options available that don't involve leaving behind explosives for years after a war has finished.
Hmm... I am the grandfather-poster, and I find myself wondering about your careful hours of research.
The United States uses landmines that are completely inoperative after a short period - adjustable between 6 and 72 hours. After that time, the device can be safely collected or destroyed, but it will not explode if "triggered".
These landmines do not "leave behind explosives for years after a war has finished" in the sense that low-tech landmines do. Those landmines will happily detonate 1, 10, or 20 years after being set.
The American landmines self-disarm specifically because of the risk for unintentional detonation. They are used in scenarios where they are effectively detonated within 3 days or they will never be effective at harming the enemy. They self-disarm to protect American soldiers coming through the area in the coming weeks as much as to protect the innocent children coming through the area in the coming years.
While I believe that the problem of landmines around the world is a serious crisis, I wouldn't justify discarding our American technology because we shouldn't leave behind explosives for years after a war has finished - indeed, our current practice makes this impossible. I would justify discarding our landmine technology because of its limited use, limited combat potential, and the gravity of the worldwide landmine crisis.
Hours of careful research indeed, anonymous coward.
I also do not agree with the Kyoto treaty. I realize that the landmine anti-proliferation treaty restricts our military's options, however our landmines are not the problem worldwide. I would prefer a treaty that more specifically targets the problematic landmines, however I believe that the scale and violence of the problem overrides our military's extremely limited use of high-tech landmines.
I wasn't trying to make a Bush/Kerry post and I certainly wasn't making a statement about ALL Bush voters. The article I read today was simply the most current and to-the-point example I had at hand of the abysmal state of American media. While I'm not voting for Bush, I'm sure any reasonable person can understand why I find it extremely alarming that a large portion of people who will vote for Bush have the issues confused. The same might be true of Kerry, but I didn't read that story today;)
Slashdot Mirror
receiving customer commands specifying a particular good or service to be used as filter data;
storing information pertaining to goods and/or services purchasing history of previous customers;
comparing said filter data with said stored information and determining whether, for said filter data, corresponding entries exist within the stored information; and
if corresponding entries exist, displaying the identity of other goods and/or services purchased by said previous customers who have purchased the good and/or service used as said filter data.
Claim 7 is also independent and directed toward a computer-implemented method. Claim 16 is also independent and directed toward a statutory computer program which requires a tangible embodiment and interacts with a user.
The Sears catalog is not prior art. The average Slashdot reader has no idea what the words "prior art" actually mean.
I can use Google
Irony, meet swb. swb, Irony.
Sure, Al Jazeera isn't protected by a Consitutional right to free speech, but on the other hand, they broadcast from some other sovereign nation. They might as well be covered by the First Ammendment, huh? Well, I'll let you an Irony get to know each other. I'll be over here bearing arms and stuff.
Computer scientists often refer to an order of magnitude when going from problem sizes of N squared to N cubed, which is again tied to an additional power in the "radix" of the problem at hand. Computer scientists also use the colloquialism, in base 10, so it really isn't a binding definition.
Computer scientists who deal in computability and algorithm analysis (like me) use crazy-ass non-math where numbers are pointless and an order of magnitude only really occurs when you go from linear to quadratic, from quadratic to cubic, and from cubic to exponential. The difference between N^4 and N^100 is basically meaningless when you're dealing with Big Oh or other algorithm analysis notation.
In summary, who the hell knows? It's one of those cliche quasi-mathematical things people say to indicate something is "super big" compared to something else. It's like English majors saying, "If you have X cars, you need Y tires," without realizing that they have told me nothing about how many tires I need, have apparently defined Y as an implicitly dependent variable which is ambiguously related to X. I don't know how many tires that works out to be, but it's at least an order of magnitude more than my unicycle.
Oh wait, that's not true.
I guess the new rule for presidential candidates is no malapropisms, no dyslexia, no gaffes, no speech disorders or impediments of any kind.
You can guess all day about candidates if it provides you with a necessary excuse. If you think it's unreasonable that the commander in chief of the only global superpower speak marginally better than a juvenile, let me suggest using similar reasoning to justify foreign policy, declarations of war, and domestic economic policy.
Insightful my ass. The man went to Yale and I'm a better public speaker when I'm completely drunk. Bush's supporters have no shortage of excuses, however, just like the man himself. You know what qualities I'd like to see in a candidate/President? Taking responsibility for the nation.
I ain't saying Kerry is the answer, but Bush has squandered his opportunity to be a two term president.
Of course, I don't really know what a reasonable swell size in a planet-wide (alright, moon-wide) methane ocean would be.. 100m? With the wind data they've recorded, I wouldn't be shocked.
But let me stress - I'm not even an amateur physicist or astrononmer, I'm merely fascinated by this story.
I'm not even an amateur astronomer but I've been GLUED to these news reports. Didn't Arthur C. Clarke land the Chinese on Titan in 2063 or 3001, only to be eat by a methane-sea monster? Of course, Imperial Earth has Titan colonized.
I've been entranced by these pictures and realizing, as have you, that this is not entirely unlike digging up a miniature monolith on the moon - we're exposing something to the collective consciousness of the only intelligence (we know of) in the universe. We've got our shovel stuck in untilled earth, about to turn over the soil for the first time in history, but there is a whole world sitting there on the blade of the shovel.
The scope of the mysteries these first data suggest only reinforces my awe. It's not like Mars - "These mysterious lines appear to be liquid erosion." It's like, "Pretty pictures, huh? The best and brightest of the world can't figure out what's in those clouds, but we detect dim rocks in distant galaxies by watching the stars wobble." Argh! I want to go to Titan!
I don't know, maybe I've finally just flipped out on something. I want to wallpaper my living room with pictures from Cassini. That's normal, right? I just gotta know what is down there. Put me on the slow spaceship to Saturn and I'll turn into the half-crazed captain who sacrifices everything and jeopardizes his whole crew to complete the mission. Hell, me and HAL would be best friends. Screw you naysayers, I MUST KNOW what's on Titan.
I'm practically counting down the days until the landing probe touches the surface.
October 27, 2004.
Another internet fetish is born.
Witness the magic people, this is how it happens.
While I'm not privy to the details of email disclaimers (but take your word for it), I do share correspondence with IP lawyers on a daily basis. They often will write things that make themselves look like morons, but it's usually because they're trying to catch you snoozing on the job. You catch their moronity, they put forth the least possible effort to correct the problem.
In this case, I doubt the bot/lawyer/investigator was worried the slightest about "appearing" to be a moron. He/she/it was probably more interested in convincing the recipient, with likely no legal education, to keep the story under wraps. Sure, the recipient might have her own lawyer laugh at the disclaimer, but she might not - therefore the disclaimer could have been 100% effective despite being 0% enforceable.
You can say that again. More power to SG and their site, but none of the pics enticing me to sign up were that enticing.
And not because I'm some hippie liberal who hates porn for objectifying women. Hell, some bleach and makeup remover will de-gothify those girls and I'm sure they're probably quite sexy - but that wouldn't fix the psychological wreck persona they're selling.
I guess this will get modded as flamebait at Slashdot, a real champion at respecting different opinions, but I'm just not into trendy shit. Again, more power to SG for their site, but the enticing pics didn't appeal to me.
As an amateur recording artist who would love to be be a professional musician some day, you hit the nail on the head.
What of the professional athlete? What legacy does he get to give his children? The police officer? The plumber? The teacher? They know THEIR places. They don't get to hand down a fortune in real estate by simple virtue of their profession. Why the hell should a musician be any different?
What makes the analogy false is that a farmer who passes down the farm is a business owner, to whatever extent the mortgage has been paid. If a recording artist forms a production company, well shit-bang he has something to pass down to his children. The police officer still has nothing, of course, same as the teacher and the plumber.
It might not go over well with the average Slashdotter, but neither to facts or well-reasoned opinions, in many cases. A creative work is not real estate. Until it is real estate, the idea that an artist could pass it down to his children is the pinnacle of ridiculousness.
I treated him like a dog right from the beginning and that's how he acts. He'll even follow me around the neighborhood if he isn't stalking something. He doesn't jerk me around because he knows I'll win - if he gets picky about his food, it'll look a lot tastier tomorrow. If he can't decide whether or not to come in, it's easier to decide 4 hours from now. If I piss him off, he wakes me up at 5am rather than make a mess, because he ends up wearing the mess and if he doesn't clean himself up, he takes a shower with shampoo.
I really don't understand why people baby their cats. I'm far from an expert on pets but I think a lot of a cat's personality is how they're socialized when young. Mine is pretty much the ideal cat because, I think, I made it really clear that I wasn't going to put up with the typical cat personality crap.
Worth a couple grand? I dunno - mine cost me $5 at the local animal shelter. Hell, maybe he just came to grips with his own tender mortality at a young age and appreciates how I feed him and play with him.
I realize that, however white people DID come here because of the union of Church and State in Europe.
that idea came along about 150 years later
During a silly period in American history known as "Writing the Constitution of the United States of America". Right.
Man, what a newbie.
laugh?
Re: Kerry is open to re-examining the DMCA... Hm, now I'm voting for Kerry, but personally, this sounds like Mom saying, "Well, let me think about it tomorrow." Sure, he's open to re-examine the DMCA. I'm open to re-examine my sexuality regarding barnyard animals, but I'm roughly 100% confident that my final conclusion is right where I started.
I'd really like to know when "Republican" came to equal "anti-Constitutional Revisionist". I know this is a troll, but I'm legitimately interested in hearing the answer.
Why is the "conservative" party so interested in rewriting the Constitution every time Frank and Bill hold hands? Why is it that the "conservatives" are so panic-stricken when the founding principles of the nation are upheld - such as the separation of Church and State? White people didn't come to North America for the scenery.
As a person who has participated in the apparently dangerous, treacherous act of reading a few books in his lifetime, I find it truly shocking that I'm voting for the "liberal" party in hopes of getting a government that sticks to its founding principles instead of redefining the whole operation every time two guys decide to live their lives together. I mean man alive, we are the global superpower and you're worried about butt sex.
So yeah, this is a troll and I won't apologize. I'd love to hear the answer anyway.
And just so there aren't any assumptions - I'm not gay, I don't have any friends or family members that are gay, I don't even particularly like gay people. I do find it incredibly insulting that my government is screwing around worrying about what gay people are doing while millions of people have real problems.
It's only irony if Kerry is not aware of the true nature of the situation. Go ahead, look it up.
Also, there is a long history of Presidents working with their respective party members in Congress to have laws initiated on their behalf. While Kerry will not be able to introduce laws in his name once he is elected President, he will nevertheless have incredible sway over his party members in both houses - quite possibly more than he ever had as a Senator.
If that were true, then the topic would not be controversial. I hear lying is a sin, by the way.
I understand your line of reasoning, but I argue that it's applicable. Isn't it poor people's fault that they're poor? If people don't have medical insurance, isn't that they're fault? If a woman is raped, isn't it her fault for being in a vulnerable position? If the people ask for corporate media, isn't it their fault that they don't know the issues? If a person drops out of highschool, isn't it his fault that he's uneducated?
Of those questions, I answer a few of them "yes" and a few of them "no". I don't see the media's role in America as wholly defined by the public's whims, detached from some higher, intrinsic responsibility. The Freedom of the Press exists so that the media can tell the people unpopular, important stuff about the government - something that almost by definition is going to be unpopular with many people. This is not analogous to fat people eating at McDonald's - the media has legal protections at the highest level specifically so that they can function independent of popular market forces. That the founders of the nation felt it necessary to grant a clear and specific freedom of speech imbues the media with an intrinsic responsibility, in my opinion.
While I don't mind fluff organizations reporting gossip and nonsense, if no organization steps up to the responsibility of information the public about the government, then the entire media community clearly deserves scathing criticism. The freedom of the press was established for the health and longevity of the nation. That the media should decide to abandon that principle is reprehensible.
I tend only to ridicule when the opposition's argument insults my patience. Join in whenever you like.
The crucial issue at hand was the ability of the media to act as a watchdog for the people against the government, making public the government's transgressions and political chicanery. That ability plays directly into an educated populace, a necessity for a successful democracy. While the First Amendment protects the KKK and mindless drivel, it was penned to ensure that the press had the ability to keep government honest by exposing corruption and contributing to transparency.
The fact that our current media is no longer interested in these things is a sign that the media has failed us. The rights they enjoy ought to come with a responsibility - ethically, at least - to avoid pandering for ratings and popular acclaim. While there is more money in selling something popular, there's more money in lots of other things. There's more money in East Asian child labor and the Thailand sex trade. It doesn't mean they should get their hands on that action, especially considering the privileged position the Constitution grants to the media.
You're a fucking anonymous coward. What the fuck does it matter if they're a monopoly or not - I didn't address you're point because it's the type of point a kid from the middle school debate team would harp about. It's immaterial, it's irrelevant, and it obfuscates the actual issue. Congratulations, you made a point but it was the wrong debate. You scored a touchdown at the NBA playoffs. You hit a homerun in the Super Bowl.
Holy strawman batman! The first amendment and freedom of the press were not created so people could pick their noses either. What is your point?
And here I thought you WERE a reader. The point was cleverly disguised as THE ORIGINAL POST where the conversation began. I don't know why I should need to point that out except this Anonymous Coward is an intellectual B list celebrity - he desperately wants to be smart, desperately wants people to think he's smart, shows up to all the debates and parrots stuff that smart people say, but the truth is that he's rather dim and ordinary. Yeah, that explains why I'd have to point out that my point was cryptically coded in my original post. Slap yourself for me, would ya?
Those studies do not attempt to claim that a majority of Americans believe those things; they say a majority of Bush supporters. -Your post
Well, I'm glad Hooked on Phonics worked for you.
The media simply gives people what they want, and they are doing a damn good job at it, so they are clearly not dysfunctional.
The first amendment and "freedom of the press" were not created so that the media could give people "what they wanted". I would have posted that retarded ignorance as an anonymous coward too. You know who looks stupid? You.
Linky
Get that strawman detector calibrated, eh?
If people really thought that CNN failed them, they would dump them and move to another news outlet. Oh wait, whether I like it or not they already have; they moved to (yuck) Fox News.
But the problem is self perpetuating. Why would people think that CNN has failed them? They people who moved to Fox News did so because Fox News tells them stories with a spin or bias that they like, not need to hear. I listen to Mike Savage on the radio from time to time specifically because I think he's a tool. I want to make sure that his arguments still sound half-educated and nonsensical to make sure that I'm still certain about my convictions. We have way too many Americans who turn to the news for self-affirmation rather than to be intellectually challenged, and it's one of the most subtle yet critical problems I see in American society.
2- The US military already outspends pretty well the rest of the world combined. They have plenty of options available that don't involve leaving behind explosives for years after a war has finished.
Hmm... I am the grandfather-poster, and I find myself wondering about your careful hours of research.
The United States uses landmines that are completely inoperative after a short period - adjustable between 6 and 72 hours. After that time, the device can be safely collected or destroyed, but it will not explode if "triggered".
These landmines do not "leave behind explosives for years after a war has finished" in the sense that low-tech landmines do. Those landmines will happily detonate 1, 10, or 20 years after being set.
The American landmines self-disarm specifically because of the risk for unintentional detonation. They are used in scenarios where they are effectively detonated within 3 days or they will never be effective at harming the enemy. They self-disarm to protect American soldiers coming through the area in the coming weeks as much as to protect the innocent children coming through the area in the coming years.
While I believe that the problem of landmines around the world is a serious crisis, I wouldn't justify discarding our American technology because we shouldn't leave behind explosives for years after a war has finished - indeed, our current practice makes this impossible. I would justify discarding our landmine technology because of its limited use, limited combat potential, and the gravity of the worldwide landmine crisis.
Hours of careful research indeed, anonymous coward.
I also do not agree with the Kyoto treaty. I realize that the landmine anti-proliferation treaty restricts our military's options, however our landmines are not the problem worldwide. I would prefer a treaty that more specifically targets the problematic landmines, however I believe that the scale and violence of the problem overrides our military's extremely limited use of high-tech landmines.
I wasn't trying to make a Bush/Kerry post and I certainly wasn't making a statement about ALL Bush voters. The article I read today was simply the most current and to-the-point example I had at hand of the abysmal state of American media. While I'm not voting for Bush, I'm sure any reasonable person can understand why I find it extremely alarming that a large portion of people who will vote for Bush have the issues confused. The same might be true of Kerry, but I didn't read that story today ;)