I'm very sorry to inform you that your idea violates at least 13 patents which were granted to me in the early 90s.

In 1993, I described a method by which a person or persons digitally activate triggering devices attached to some kind of input device, said activity then resulting with a vague outcome to be named later happening in return. I hastily scrawled a bunch of lines in the rough approximation of a schematic and mailed it into the patent office and was granted a patent. Your Google searches sound very much like my patented technology, requiring that you take out a license with me.

Also in 1993, I invented a process for knowledge retrieval which I call a Query TM. In this process, a person or person seeking an answer to a question would then look through an extensively indexed database of information, using the index to narrow their search until an answer has been achieved. Clearly, you are in violation of my throughly patented intellectual property in your proposed service as well.

In 1995, building on my previous Query patent, I posited a methodology by which words could be visually conveyed through the method of having certain line-forms stand in as representational symbols for certain sounds in the spoken language. In this way, spoken language could be recorded and archived and added to the database of knowledge in a more permanent form which I call "Writing" TM. Using writing, Knowledge seekers, having found the answers to their Query TM, could then, through diligent study of the symbols and memorization of their their sound equivalent, convert the representational symbol groupings back into spoken language, a process which I call "reading."

Your "Googling" and proposal to communicate with a client sounds very much as if you intend to use my patented system of representational line-forms in transacting your proposed service, and I humbly beg you remunerate me for the royalties owed me due to my various patents.

Humbly yours, etc.

Hans Solo DID shoot first. Special edition sucks.

You stupidly type Hans instead of Han in a letter to the editor, and nobody notices.

I know you've been taking a lot of heat lately for signs of obvious Clinton bias; however, I think this post was, I hate to say it because the words have been rendered meaningless, "Fair and Balanced."

To the people still looking to ratchet up a fight, please let me say this: last night, on David Letterman, I watched and listened as John McCain said that he wasn't surprised that the Republicans lost so badly in 2006 because "spending had gotten out of control." He then went on to dementedly cite research on bear DNA or something like that as a prime example.

Yes, John, wasteful spending on research about bear DNA was what 2006 was all about. Iraq? Not even on the list. Bear DNA. Holy Christ, that McCain, at this point, should even be on the same political landscape with Hillary or Obama is bad enough. The idea that he has even a remote chance of winning is depressing enough. We should all be set to steamroll him and all the other neocon dinosaurs into the mud and ooze, upon which we can start building the world we will need if we are to survive the next 50 years. Yet here we sit trading insults, and lowering our discussions into maddening trivia.

PLEASE! Let's stop all this bicker fighting! Eyes on the prize, people! And that prize will not be won by tearing down people who are basically in agreement with us on so many issues.

Thank you.

While I yield to know one in my dislike of smoking (to those smokers who think that makes me a smoke nazi, fuck you; I get around smoke, I can't breathe. I feel like I'm drowning) If Barack wants to take a smoke or two on his own time, fire away. He can't do it in my house, but that's not likely to be an issue anytime soon.

As long as Barack promises not to engage in the occasional war or two, and he knows the difference between the U.S. Constitution and a roll of toilet paper, he should be entitled to a cig or two. But yes, preferably not in front of the kids.