Yesterday, I looked at my Google mail, and in the advertising area in the bar above your in-box messages, I am pretty sure it was an ad for the Google Cash Kit, or some variant. I didn't click it to find out what it really was, so I can't confirm it.

Needless to say, I was a bit taken aback.

The US is a Constitutional Republic.

Constitutional Republic

Do you want knee-jerk change that could easily backfire?

Or, would you prefer controlled change that was given careful thought for the purpose of making it effective?

Barack Obama has been our president for a whopping 6 months, and has been the gleeful recipient of one of the biggest platefuls of crap to deal with in our entire nation's history, at least since Harry S. Truman took office at the tail end of World War II. I don't expect a lot of earth-shaking change right out of the gate, at least not until the plateload of crap has been dispensed with.

It is my gut feeling that most of us here would not have been able to do any better as far as implementing change than our current president has done, especially considering all the distractions he's had to deal with. I am not an apologist, I'm simply asserting what I think.

I say let's give the man a couple of years, and see where we are. How long did it take for people to begin seeing George W. Bush for the president he was? I don't remember the exact time line, but I seem to remember it took quite a while before his popularity rating began to sink to where it ended up at.

My point is simply that change does not come quickly, if it is done well.

(I believe that change encompasses transparency, so I won't address it.)

I agree with you about not voting because I agree that most of the time, the choices we get to mark on the ballot are just undesirable, and snake oil salesmen, for the most part. When there are multiple choices that reek of things you don't want to sniff, I stay away.

However, I did vote this last election, and I voted for Obama. I voted for him because, unlike the other candidates I remember (since the '76 election), this person had an air of enthusiasm, and apparent integrity. I have no idea whether voting Obama to office was a wise move, yet. The jury is still out.

Ask me how I feel about his performance in about 3-6 years, because that is when we will really begin to see the results of his first term in office.

Pointing out historical examples is important so we aren't doomed to repeat errors of the past. 864176 quite right to point these things out, especially if the person he was replying to was not aware of them. His delivery was a bit on the arrogant side, but, hey, this is /..

When I read your previous statement, it reads as if you are saying this has only been a problem since 2001. This does lead to the erroneous assumption that you may not be aware of other previous issues that are important to consider.

Obviously, that is not the case as you stated in this post. So, in the words of a character from way back, "What we have here is a faaaailure, to commun-i-cate."

I agree with you that the collective "we" had a serious set of blinders on thanks to the World Trade Center bombing, and ensuing fiascos of trading liberty for safety, which allowed this amazing power-grab.

Thank you for making the effort to respond to the dolt that said this:

It is a truly baffling statement to make that appears to have absolutely no understanding of how things work in politics, and government. And, how that ignorant statement got modded +5, Insightful, just amazes me.

Interesting idea, but, how do we answer these questions?

If this were something that could be litigated in a civil court, and assuming the plaintiff wins, how does the award get distributed fairly, and who does it go to?

What happens if the defendant successfully counter-sues? Who pays the award then?

Sticky situations that I don't know the answer to.

LOL, I like it!

OTOH, someone could spin the argument to say, "See, Windows is Better, it is harder to bork!"

(Now, I must go wash my hands in gasoline, shower in hydrochloric acid, and gargle windex, in hopes of avoiding the plague I feel descending upon me for making such a heinous point.)

The whining statement refers to the emotional arguments.

This is my feeble attempt to apologize to those that I may have offended, as I've realized that I have been coming on way too strong lately, and have realized that I need to tone it down a few notches. Pretty weak, huh?

We are in agreement that journalism, in the form it exists today, appears to be in trouble (If they don't do something about it.)

That you are placing the blame on specific companies bothers me. I would contend that if none of those specific companies existed, there would be others that would be doing the same thing with varying degrees of success, and the problem for journalists would not be much different.

I think this is where the main disagreement lies. I may be too much of an optimist, but, I cannot imagine that there will ever be a time where investigative journalism will not exist. I think the logistics of the profession will change (mostly how news is delivered to the reader, and who the natural successor to the newspaper that employs the journalists are), but, I think there will always be a need for people who perform the task professionally. I can't see this going away as a significant portion of the population will not accept investigative stories from amateurs (at least not for long).

This is true, and always will be true, unfortunately. It's human nature. As long as people care about injustices like this, there will be a call for watchdogs (journalists) to get the word out.

There is something that bothers me about this however. Maybe it is just part of the aging process, but the trend I think I have seen as I grow older, is that journalism (due to corporate marketing trends, and tailoring of news more towards sensationalism, to appease the apparently shortened attention spans that people exhibit these days) has been slowly moving away from what it used to be, and becoming less valuable. (I'm not stating this as fact, just my impression.)

I think I might be grasping more than you give me credit for, but, I'm not after credit, only a good discussion of the issue, and maybe we can help to spark an idea to solve the problem, somehow.

This is how I see it (I hope you see value in it):

Google search is a service, not a product. It is how they attract viewers, which are their true product, that they sell advertising space to advertisers on the results pages.

That is analogous to a newspaper which runs news stories. This is also a service.

The news stories attract viewers, which are their true product, to sell advertising space to advertisers on their printed pages, or on their websites.

I don't think there is really any distinction between the two, so far, except the services that each provide to attract their product (viewers) are different, but achieve the same goal.

A defacto monopoly sounds bad, but, it is not. It is simply a temporary situation that occurs when there is popular demand for a product, or service. To simplify it, it means that Google is providing a highly valuable product, or service, that is in demand. In this case, both their product, and their service, are highly desirable.

Google will continue to have a defacto monopoly until a competitor presents a product, or service, that matches, or improves upon, what they are offering. That is the opportunity for journalists, and frankly, anyone else, who wants to try to compete.

Granted, Google has a big head start because they had the foresight to position themselves as they have, while others let the opportunity pass them by for so long. This makes the barrier to entry pretty high if you want to compete head-to-head with Google, but there is no reason that one can't come up with a profitable idea that coexists with their services, making it a win-win for both.

No, I am not suggesting that companies that are on the verge of bankruptcy should be putting their remaining resources in a box and sending them to Google. What I am suggesting is that if these companies want to salvage their business, they need to find ways to adapt, instead of blaming other companies for their own lack of foresight.

We have a difference of opinion as to whether Google's news aggregation service driving viewers (their product) to your service, where they become your product to sell, is helpful, or hurtful.

I see your side of the argument in that you are only getting a one-time shot at that viewers that are referred to you (per story) from Google News.

On the other hand, you are likely to get exposure from a lot of viewers that would never have known your website existed.

This is a trade-off, is it an equitable trade-off? I don't know, it is impossible for me (or anyone) to measure accurately.

In addition, I understand that your news stories are shown side-by-side with competing news sources, and you feel this hurts you.

I agree that it may, and it will likely cause fierce competition between you, and your competitors.

There will be clear winners, and clear losers in this battle, and the most visible result that you will see is a consolidation of news corporations.

It's happening, and I think we agree that we both see it.

As for the viewer loyalty issue mentioned, your goal is to attract viewers and expose them to your advertising as much as possible, as often as possible, to help you sell advertising. Nobody can help you with this, other than yourself, as a business wanting to compete on the Internet.

I admit that website viewer retention is not easy, especially with the sheer number of competing news websites on the Internet, but, that is what is necessary to have a successful website.

In order to gain viewer loyalty for a website, you have to first find a way to get viewers to your website.

Google News is doing this for you for free. That's NOT EVIL in my book.

Then, you have to find reasons for those users to prefer your website, and want to come back.

Google cannot do this for you, you have to do it. I don't see this as EVIL either, since they have no control over people's preferences.

I see this as Google sharing their product (their viewers) with you, which gives you an opportunity to make them your product, and sell them to your advertisers, too.

That seems downright NEIGHBORLY to me.

Emphasis is mine.

I think is the natural progression of a connected world. And, I really think the blame is misplaced.

It could be argued that the blame lies in the lack of the news agencies willingness to visualize the possibilities of the connected world, and see the consequences of not taking appropriate action to adapt to it, in order to ensure that they remained viable entities.

Had Google's founders had different interests, and as a result, not started Google, I think it goes without saying that another company would likely be in a very similar position, and people would be pointing fingers at them instead of Google. The problem would still exist, I think.

As to the fate of journalism, I don't think that the number of newsworthy stories will ever drop, and I think there will always be a demand for people who are skilled in investigating, and reporting, so I think that the human labor required to handle the stories won't change much.

I do believe that the number of companies, and types of companies, employing the human labor will change.

The only exceptions would be in jobs that are redundant, but that is the nature of more efficient business models, and really doesn't have much to do with anything in the argument.

This is strictly an emotional argument which doesn't really require a response, however, I wish to point out that angst you are feeling about Craigslist is simple frustration that their business model works better than yours.

In other words, Craigslist has found a way to provide the same service you do, but they have found a more effective way to do it, which means people will gravitate to it. I guess you could call Craigslist a defacto monopoly, too, although, the barrier to entry to compete with them is a lot lower than Google's.

That's just whining. (This is where the apology in advance comes in. I don't want this to be viewed as a personal attack on your character.)

Completely understandable position to take. Nothing wrong with a voice of caution.

Thank you for clearing that up. I regret that we are in a virtual pissing contest.

Yes, I am guilty of latching on to your initial statement, making extreme examples for illustrative purposes, and attacking your character as a result.

Uncool of me, so apologies for coming off extreme, attacking your character, and over-reacting to the message your post appeared to contain.

Looking the original statement that you made:

How do you read that statement and not come away with the implied message that it is perfectly acceptable to ingnore the future state of things, as long as we don't have any consequences we have to suffer, and who cares what consequences that someone else suffers as a result of our actions, or inactions?

If your statement should be interpreted differently, then I would be interested in reading a clarification of your statement.

I understand that you predicated this statement with a question of, "what if it was 150 years from now", but, the time frame is arbitrary. That is the reason for the ridiculous time frame I used in my response. The point being who knows what will happen at any point in the future, and why would you, or I, do anything, if we didn't care about the future?

The point I was trying to make (albeit poorly, too extreme, and made a king-size ass of myself in the process) was that if you change the time that the very destructive earthquake may happen to a time in the future within your potential life span - say 20 years from now, I would guess that the statement you made would no longer apply, and you would be much more interested in doing something to prevent it if you could, even though there would likely be plenty of people in the world that are currently imaginary by your definition.

The above content is not intended to attack your character, or insult your intelligence, so please don't take it as such. I will drop this discussion now, unless you seriously want to continue the discussion.

(I should just give up now... Frickin' Slashdot post editor formatting... Maybe the third time is the charm.)

Just to clarify (or, maybe not), my conundrum is that I am having a difficult time deciding which is more correct based on the usage:

...the SCOTUS ruling stated essentially that if it appears to be child pornography, but really isn't (i.e., no children were actually abused or molested)...

...the SCOTUS ruling stated essentially that if it appears to be child pornography, but really isn't (e.g., no children were actually abused or molested)...

Artifakt states that the second is correct grammatically. My initial thought was that the first was correct. I'm just trying to work it out, and don't seem to be making any progress on it. (How frustrating.)

I don't know if there is an established cheat method, but, I intend to use these phrases to help remember which to use:

i.e. - I Expand

e.g. - Example Given

(sorry about the formatting snafu in the above post)

Just to clarify (or, maybe not), my conundrum is that I am having a difficult time deciding which is more correct based on the usage: ...the SCOTUS ruling stated essentially that if it appears to be child pornography, but really isn't (i.e., no children were actually abused or molested)... ...the SCOTUS ruling stated essentially that if it appears to be child pornography, but really isn't (e.g., no children were actually abused or molested)...

Artifakt states that the second is correct grammatically. My initial thought was that the first was correct. I'm just trying to work it out, and don't seem to be making any progress on it. (How frustrating.)

I don't know if there is an established cheat method, but, I intend to use these phrases to help remember which to use:

i.e. - I Expand
e.g. - Example Given

Just to clarify (or, maybe not), my conundrum is that I am having a difficult time deciding which is more correct based on the usage: ...the SCOTUS ruling stated essentially that if it appears to be child pornography, but really isn't (i.e., no children were actually abused or molested)... ...the SCOTUS ruling stated essentially that if it appears to be child pornography, but really isn't (e.g., no children were actually abused or molested)...

Artifakt states that the second is correct grammatically. My initial thought was that the first was correct. I'm just trying to work it out, and don't seem to be making any progress on it. (How frustrating.)

I don't know if there is an established cheat method, but, I intend to use these phrases to help remember which to use:

i.e. - I Expand
e.g. - Example Given

I forgot to add the corrected line after that. It should read:

"...something [is] porn (e.g., abused or molested),..."

Because those are examples of porn, not a further clarification, right?

If not, then I am in even worse shape than I thought.

I always thought that the burden of proof must come from the prosecution, especially in a criminal proceeding.

Is this not the case any longer? Was it ever? If not, this is disturbing on so many levels.