I like a belt because they're already worn by most adults anyway, they're the optimal weight distribution for carrying, don't need washing, and Batman already proved their utility.
I like Bluetooth because it lets the belt contain bulk without a UI. Displays and other multimedia UI components are best made separate components that clip to the belt for recharging, with Bluetooth offering the same integration benefits as a single device, but with more focused operation for different uses. Once Toshiba et al produce cheap fuelcells the size/weight of a belt buckle, liquid fuel will offer longer sessions through better energy:volume than batteries, and perhaps even liquid transfer for immediate "recharging".
How about a "FlashBelt" which can take 10+ flash chips, a flat rechargeable battery, and Bluetooth for storage accessible by mobile phones and visited terminals? $100 32GB chips would be great, but even just forcing down the price of 10GB chips below $10 would make personal storage more "intimate".
Why shouldn't a single user of a host login as root, or just have root privileges for their named account? Switching contexts with su/sudo makes it more likely to make mistakes.
Verizon and AT&T are sick of trying to compete with informed customers exposed to choices and chances to stick together in the conflict of their interests with vendors. Telephony was as interactive as they ever wanted to get - they always wanted to just shove content down their pipes to subscribed captive audiences. But cable TV arrived just when the telephony monopoly was weakest: the mid-1980s, when the monopoly finally was forced to at least compete in some markets, like long distance and mobile.
But now they've returned, buying up regional Bells and mobile operators rather than compete with them. Telephony is a lot like a duopoly, at least in "primary service" (the corp that bills the customer and maintains the brand): AT&T and Verizon. Their real competition comes from cable TV, with its own infrastructure, brands and increasingly telephony, and a little from Internet - the parts they don't own, like the cablemodem ISPs. So their strategy is to fight their main competitor, which is clearly cable TV.
They could have just made telephony better. Mobile phones so reliable they never permanently drop calls. Making the Internet so cheap that it "goes away" from customers minds, replaced by billable services. Integrating voice as merely a feature in every app that ties people together. Making ubiquitous "phones" the multimedia terminals of a complete telecom environment. But that meant taking a risk competing by improving the product, actually competing with cable TV in quality.
Instead they just want to leverage their competitive advantages, especially regulatory, to kill the competition and inherit those customers. All this talk of "2-tier Internet" is just a way to use up all the extra bandwidth capacity on video, making it scarce and expensive rather than cheap. The "nonpremium tier" will force competitors to substandard performance, or to subsidize their own demise, just like telcos did to DSL competitors for the few years they taught telcos how to operate that business.
All whether customers want more video or not. What we want is more P2P, more separated interests between networks, content and apps. More reliable, simpler features that connect us to each other. Instead we'll get a dazzling array of crappy features and content, all funneling a fat pipe from our wallets to the cartel controlling the network.
My comparison is imprecise, but not that incorrect. Because the "superhero" trademark should not be valid. Trademark validity is determine by its utility for consumers determining the supplier of the product delivered under that mark. Even just the collusion between the duopoly players, Marvel and DC, which dilutes the mark between those two "competitors", invalidates it. When a mark is actually diluted by undefended usage in the market, such that consumer confusion is a fact, the exclusive rights to the mark are lost. Usually the dilutor that eclipses the mark holder can officially claim the mark as their own. In this case, the mark does not refer consumers in the market to any specific supplier. It is a "generic mark", defacto. Defacto is the only standard legally enforceable by the PTO.
That lawyer is operating a cartel running a "restraint of trade" operation. If I start a "car" company, and the lawyer for GM, Ford, Toyota and Mercedes tried to stop me from "abusing their trademark", I'd be deluged by lawyers slavering for their piece of the antimonopoly action.
That's the kind of abuse that launched MCI against the AT&T monopoly, opened the telco industry to some competition, and enriched a generation of lawyers. This time, the comic can still do business while complying with the abusive Cease & Desist letter, while getting justice and bucks.
Kelly's _Wired_ has spent over a decade spewing little but science fiction. Therefore he's an expert in the future of science. It's the geek _OMNI_, and he's the geek Guccione.
One way for BushCo to use this document release is to spread lots of disinformation in fake documents. Like for example docs of "nuclear program related activities". BushCo will "distance" itself by saying "we didn't even know that was in the docs, before translation". The info won't be challengable by rational means, either intelligence processing, legal or any other way. But the lies will be published widely. Then BushCo's zombie hordes will repeat them over and over again as if they were true, especially when denying actually substantiated truth that contradicts them.
All of the propaganda, none of the accountability. No competence, total catastrophe. That's the Bush doctrine QED.
Your reference to problems in the ISP revolution doesn't go anywhere: you cite neither the problems, any evidence or argument for their existence, or how that they are relevant to Microsoft's monopoly - or anything else.
Breaking up a company solves problems inherent in the monopoly power its combination produces. Breaking up Microsoft vertically might have produced mini Microsofts with the same product lines, which at least could compete with each other - probably not seeking a geographical monopoly loophole like the AT&T breakup. Much better would have been a horizontal breakup, separating the big bundle into separate companies with each of OS, tools, apps, content and media (and maybe hardware). Those companies could have cooperated with each other, as long as they were also available to existing MS competitors for partnerships to compete with the new MS-centered partnerships with other competitors. That removes the self-perpetuating monopoly that Microsoft abused, even after years of operating as one.
Markets are regulated by fixing problems created by exploiters of the market. I don't know how else you regulate a market, unless you propose making it illegal for a consumer to buy a Microsoft-only combination of products from independent Microsoft fragments. Which would be an even worse abuse of the market than just letting a monopoly have it easy, because it further restricts the people in the market from choosing ourselves what's best for us. Which is the entire measure of how well a market is protected.
And despite those Democrats having a reason to go easy on Microsoft, the Clinton Justice Department dealt the company the only serious threat to its monopoly.
Professionals with integrity can switch sides, as long as they really switch. Lawyers in particular are trained how to do so, and become successful when they exercise that skill. Your post is good evidence that the Clinton Democrats were professional managers, successful in their careers and in getting results. There is no evidence that they were corrupt. To the contrary, they damaged Microsoft while that was their job, as we have seen in abundance, then they took different jobs.
Meanwhile, when the Bush Republicans took over, they threw away the valuable gains made by the government they inherited as soon as possible. Despite their responsibility to protect Americans from monopoly abuse.
Your post is the standard Republican denial projection: all your arguments make sense only describing Republican crimes. So you turn them around, groundlessly frame Democrats with your own worst acts, and claim the sanity of anyone watching is just our denial. Perfect mockery of truth, sensibility and justice. At least you have the candor to identify every post with your ID, "InsaneGeek".
US government publishing some "captured" Iraqi documents. Of course there are many documents that should not be published, like the process for purchasing poison gas from Don Rumsfeld to poison one's politically inconvenient neighbors. Maybe just the receipts and thank-you notes. But I expect they won't be publishing many of the documents the US military captured when it raided Ahmed "Castro" Chalabi's office, before he fled back to his Iranian spy office. Because those Chalabi docs are all covered by Bush's "Executive Secret" status, just like their carbon copies in Cheney's DC file cabinet.
As far as we can tell from the history of Roberts and Alito, their conscience says the president is the government, and the rest of the system is just a medium to be notified, if at all.
I don't believe that a person who's been extremely successful their entire life operating under a self-developed philosophy will somehow develop a new value system in their 50s or 60s just because they have job security. They liked the old values.
How about reversing these muscle motors, like we do rotary ones, to make generators? Strapping them across hot parts absorbing the wasted energy from inefficient generation tech to capture more efficiency.
Really any tech that can very efficiently capture heat and convert it to useable power, whether stored in chemical bonds, transmitted light or electric current will transform (pun intended;) our power consumption problems. Especially if that tech's product lifecycle itself consumes very little energy compared to how much it conserves.
Since the informed people who actually check the targeted website can't even RTFA, who's got a different link to a truly hifi bluetooth stereo headset (A2DP or other profile)? Preferably in-ear, even hotter would be a matched pair of inears with without a wire between them.
Here's a chance for the Court to clear away some of the brush accumulated by the PTO bureacracy that threatens to engulf all intellectual activity, property generation and otherwise, in flames. Who wants to bet whether the latest two of the nine appointed justices will protect thinkers' freedom and the market's choices, or monopolies on ideas and inventions?
Novell was doing very well selling a superior product into the file/print server market. Until MS entered with an inferior product. NT's email, DB and other support services were terrible comparet to NetWare's, especially in non-MS interop. NT won with a superior marketing effort - especially media buys and lies self-fulfilling prophecies about marketshare.
You completely ignore the many ways MS undercut OS/2, which was an IBM/MS "partnership". But the "head-fake" is well documented.
I don't know what you're talking about with your conveniently revisionist browser history. "Early 90s" browsers? Like w3 and www, or even Spyglass? Irrelevant nonsense, even if they were any point in comparing to the free Netscape browser. "Free" isn't the definition of "bundling". It's the inclusion of one's own separate product in a necessary purchase like the OS which blocks most consumers from even considering upgrading. It's abuse of a monopoly. Which has been proven very clearly, in every venue considering Microsoft's monopoly abuse. From the Supreme Court's 1999 decision, to lower courts' early 1990s consent decree (to which Microsoft consented, but violated), to any vendor competing (or fearfully planning to compete) with Microsoft, to consumers with sharply restricted choices. MS could have included links to several browsers, just as it did with Windows 95's included ISPs - before Microsoft was in the bandwidth business. It could have included a simple tool to download a package by the bundled FTP. IE could have included buttons to install different browsers. There's lots of ways MS could have complied with the consent decree to which it was legally bound, so as not to abuse its monopoly, as it had agreed. But MS of course opted for abusing its monopoly, as it does every time it decides to go after a market.
The "arrogance" of managers competing with Microsoft despite their freedom to abuse their monopoly is the bad judgement controlling these failures.
And now we see the largely obsolete posting 'bot still sputtering like a spambot with a few years still prepaid on its Web hosting account.
Besides, everyone knows the clone had the advantage over the android in 2000, because the android didn't have the proprietary Republican interface to the voting machines and Supreme Court reboot.
All your verbose reply says is "this competitor was bad, MS was good" and "I don't blame X for the scenario you detail". Pure denial. I'm not going to continue to run around in this circle and dignify such superficial argument.
The bundled Windows tax, the refusal of vendors like Dell to cheaply/easily support boxes with other OS'es installed, whether or not they preinstall them. That's all part of the bundling game. But those extra clicks to install SW, or any extra effort beyond the defaults, is very anticompetitive in the mass market. Most users never change their default configs, let alone replace a "working" SW with its competitor. Especially if it "comes with" the OS, or gets reinstalled every time they reinstall the OS. And then there are a lot of other anticompetitive strategic benefits that come from bundling.
Which is why the early 1990s DoJ forced MS to sign a consent decree saying they wouldn't abuse their monopoly with bundling. Then MS violated that, and tried to defend itself in court from charges (already established) that they were a monopoly. They failed again, but still bundle as much as they can. It all stinks.
So you're citing the problems with Reagan's breakup of AT&T's monopoly into several noncompeting regional monopolies as the reason the Bush DOJ's "oversight" of Microsoft's monopoly was ineffective? That it's a "dangerous precedent"? The danger is that those two precedents are the blueprints for monopoly "end runs" around stopping the monopoly, by castrating the remedy phase. Which the monopoly's lawyers do in collusion with the politicians behind the media smokescreen of "victory for consumers" and "it's too complicated to explain in the news".
Even the wrong kind of remedy, the AT&T "Baby Bell" remonopoly, has had benefits to the consumer. It did open the long distance market to competition, from MCI, Sprint and hundreds of smaller players. which now features not only much lower rates than before the breakup, but even lower rates than the inflated rates the monopoly AT&T would have charged, as telecom use became more profitable since 1986. The ISP revolution would never have happened, as AT&T would have succeeded in jacking up ISP telecom rates to push them out of competition with the AT&T ISP, as even the regional Baby Bells tried to do. And which they succeeded in doing, once they figured out how to use loopholes in the monopoly prohibitions to compete unfairly with DSL through their "vertical integration" and artificially lower "internal" carriage rates - to say nothing of just not servicing colocated DSLAMs.
You're making up history, just like the CATO institute's mission dictates. CATO will do anything it can to invent history convenient to its corporate sponsors, especially when rewriting government monopoly interventions.
Slashdot Mirror
$3TRILLION a year Federal budget. $45TRILLION of committed US debt, largely to enemies like China.
The Republican transformation of government according to "Conservative" ideology: the least effective government at any price.
I like a belt because they're already worn by most adults anyway, they're the optimal weight distribution for carrying, don't need washing, and Batman already proved their utility.
I like Bluetooth because it lets the belt contain bulk without a UI. Displays and other multimedia UI components are best made separate components that clip to the belt for recharging, with Bluetooth offering the same integration benefits as a single device, but with more focused operation for different uses. Once Toshiba et al produce cheap fuelcells the size/weight of a belt buckle, liquid fuel will offer longer sessions through better energy:volume than batteries, and perhaps even liquid transfer for immediate "recharging".
How about a "FlashBelt" which can take 10+ flash chips, a flat rechargeable battery, and Bluetooth for storage accessible by mobile phones and visited terminals? $100 32GB chips would be great, but even just forcing down the price of 10GB chips below $10 would make personal storage more "intimate".
Why shouldn't a single user of a host login as root, or just have root privileges for their named account? Switching contexts with su/sudo makes it more likely to make mistakes.
Moderation +1
70% Interesting
30% Troll
TrollMods don't know what "Troll" means. There should be a quiz before submitting that mod.
Verizon and AT&T are sick of trying to compete with informed customers exposed to choices and chances to stick together in the conflict of their interests with vendors. Telephony was as interactive as they ever wanted to get - they always wanted to just shove content down their pipes to subscribed captive audiences. But cable TV arrived just when the telephony monopoly was weakest: the mid-1980s, when the monopoly finally was forced to at least compete in some markets, like long distance and mobile.
But now they've returned, buying up regional Bells and mobile operators rather than compete with them. Telephony is a lot like a duopoly, at least in "primary service" (the corp that bills the customer and maintains the brand): AT&T and Verizon. Their real competition comes from cable TV, with its own infrastructure, brands and increasingly telephony, and a little from Internet - the parts they don't own, like the cablemodem ISPs. So their strategy is to fight their main competitor, which is clearly cable TV.
They could have just made telephony better. Mobile phones so reliable they never permanently drop calls. Making the Internet so cheap that it "goes away" from customers minds, replaced by billable services. Integrating voice as merely a feature in every app that ties people together. Making ubiquitous "phones" the multimedia terminals of a complete telecom environment. But that meant taking a risk competing by improving the product, actually competing with cable TV in quality.
Instead they just want to leverage their competitive advantages, especially regulatory, to kill the competition and inherit those customers. All this talk of "2-tier Internet" is just a way to use up all the extra bandwidth capacity on video, making it scarce and expensive rather than cheap. The "nonpremium tier" will force competitors to substandard performance, or to subsidize their own demise, just like telcos did to DSL competitors for the few years they taught telcos how to operate that business.
All whether customers want more video or not. What we want is more P2P, more separated interests between networks, content and apps. More reliable, simpler features that connect us to each other. Instead we'll get a dazzling array of crappy features and content, all funneling a fat pipe from our wallets to the cartel controlling the network.
Thanks for the generic advice.
Any of "my" programs? Like all the packages I've installed and use every day?
My comparison is imprecise, but not that incorrect. Because the "superhero" trademark should not be valid. Trademark validity is determine by its utility for consumers determining the supplier of the product delivered under that mark. Even just the collusion between the duopoly players, Marvel and DC, which dilutes the mark between those two "competitors", invalidates it. When a mark is actually diluted by undefended usage in the market, such that consumer confusion is a fact, the exclusive rights to the mark are lost. Usually the dilutor that eclipses the mark holder can officially claim the mark as their own. In this case, the mark does not refer consumers in the market to any specific supplier. It is a "generic mark", defacto. Defacto is the only standard legally enforceable by the PTO.
"support for the Cell processor"
What do I need to do to recompile my P4 OS and apps to run on my PS3? Or some other Cell box that doesn't lie beyond the Magic Gate?
That lawyer is operating a cartel running a "restraint of trade" operation. If I start a "car" company, and the lawyer for GM, Ford, Toyota and Mercedes tried to stop me from "abusing their trademark", I'd be deluged by lawyers slavering for their piece of the antimonopoly action.
That's the kind of abuse that launched MCI against the AT&T monopoly, opened the telco industry to some competition, and enriched a generation of lawyers. This time, the comic can still do business while complying with the abusive Cease & Desist letter, while getting justice and bucks.
Kelly's _Wired_ has spent over a decade spewing little but science fiction. Therefore he's an expert in the future of science. It's the geek _OMNI_, and he's the geek Guccione.
One way for BushCo to use this document release is to spread lots of disinformation in fake documents. Like for example docs of "nuclear program related activities". BushCo will "distance" itself by saying "we didn't even know that was in the docs, before translation". The info won't be challengable by rational means, either intelligence processing, legal or any other way. But the lies will be published widely. Then BushCo's zombie hordes will repeat them over and over again as if they were true, especially when denying actually substantiated truth that contradicts them.
All of the propaganda, none of the accountability. No competence, total catastrophe. That's the Bush doctrine QED.
Your reference to problems in the ISP revolution doesn't go anywhere: you cite neither the problems, any evidence or argument for their existence, or how that they are relevant to Microsoft's monopoly - or anything else.
Breaking up a company solves problems inherent in the monopoly power its combination produces. Breaking up Microsoft vertically might have produced mini Microsofts with the same product lines, which at least could compete with each other - probably not seeking a geographical monopoly loophole like the AT&T breakup. Much better would have been a horizontal breakup, separating the big bundle into separate companies with each of OS, tools, apps, content and media (and maybe hardware). Those companies could have cooperated with each other, as long as they were also available to existing MS competitors for partnerships to compete with the new MS-centered partnerships with other competitors. That removes the self-perpetuating monopoly that Microsoft abused, even after years of operating as one.
Markets are regulated by fixing problems created by exploiters of the market. I don't know how else you regulate a market, unless you propose making it illegal for a consumer to buy a Microsoft-only combination of products from independent Microsoft fragments. Which would be an even worse abuse of the market than just letting a monopoly have it easy, because it further restricts the people in the market from choosing ourselves what's best for us. Which is the entire measure of how well a market is protected.
And despite those Democrats having a reason to go easy on Microsoft, the Clinton Justice Department dealt the company the only serious threat to its monopoly.
Professionals with integrity can switch sides, as long as they really switch. Lawyers in particular are trained how to do so, and become successful when they exercise that skill. Your post is good evidence that the Clinton Democrats were professional managers, successful in their careers and in getting results. There is no evidence that they were corrupt. To the contrary, they damaged Microsoft while that was their job, as we have seen in abundance, then they took different jobs.
Meanwhile, when the Bush Republicans took over, they threw away the valuable gains made by the government they inherited as soon as possible. Despite their responsibility to protect Americans from monopoly abuse.
Your post is the standard Republican denial projection: all your arguments make sense only describing Republican crimes. So you turn them around, groundlessly frame Democrats with your own worst acts, and claim the sanity of anyone watching is just our denial. Perfect mockery of truth, sensibility and justice. At least you have the candor to identify every post with your ID, "InsaneGeek".
US government publishing some "captured" Iraqi documents. Of course there are many documents that should not be published, like the process for purchasing poison gas from Don Rumsfeld to poison one's politically inconvenient neighbors. Maybe just the receipts and thank-you notes. But I expect they won't be publishing many of the documents the US military captured when it raided Ahmed "Castro" Chalabi's office, before he fled back to his Iranian spy office. Because those Chalabi docs are all covered by Bush's "Executive Secret" status, just like their carbon copies in Cheney's DC file cabinet.
As far as we can tell from the history of Roberts and Alito, their conscience says the president is the government, and the rest of the system is just a medium to be notified, if at all.
I don't believe that a person who's been extremely successful their entire life operating under a self-developed philosophy will somehow develop a new value system in their 50s or 60s just because they have job security. They liked the old values.
How about reversing these muscle motors, like we do rotary ones, to make generators? Strapping them across hot parts absorbing the wasted energy from inefficient generation tech to capture more efficiency.
;) our power consumption problems. Especially if that tech's product lifecycle itself consumes very little energy compared to how much it conserves.
Really any tech that can very efficiently capture heat and convert it to useable power, whether stored in chemical bonds, transmitted light or electric current will transform (pun intended
Since the informed people who actually check the targeted website can't even RTFA, who's got a different link to a truly hifi bluetooth stereo headset (A2DP or other profile)? Preferably in-ear, even hotter would be a matched pair of inears with without a wire between them.
Here's a chance for the Court to clear away some of the brush accumulated by the PTO bureacracy that threatens to engulf all intellectual activity, property generation and otherwise, in flames. Who wants to bet whether the latest two of the nine appointed justices will protect thinkers' freedom and the market's choices, or monopolies on ideas and inventions?
Novell was doing very well selling a superior product into the file/print server market. Until MS entered with an inferior product. NT's email, DB and other support services were terrible comparet to NetWare's, especially in non-MS interop. NT won with a superior marketing effort - especially media buys and lies self-fulfilling prophecies about marketshare.
You completely ignore the many ways MS undercut OS/2, which was an IBM/MS "partnership". But the "head-fake" is well documented.
I don't know what you're talking about with your conveniently revisionist browser history. "Early 90s" browsers? Like w3 and www, or even Spyglass? Irrelevant nonsense, even if they were any point in comparing to the free Netscape browser. "Free" isn't the definition of "bundling". It's the inclusion of one's own separate product in a necessary purchase like the OS which blocks most consumers from even considering upgrading. It's abuse of a monopoly. Which has been proven very clearly, in every venue considering Microsoft's monopoly abuse. From the Supreme Court's 1999 decision, to lower courts' early 1990s consent decree (to which Microsoft consented, but violated), to any vendor competing (or fearfully planning to compete) with Microsoft, to consumers with sharply restricted choices. MS could have included links to several browsers, just as it did with Windows 95's included ISPs - before Microsoft was in the bandwidth business. It could have included a simple tool to download a package by the bundled FTP. IE could have included buttons to install different browsers. There's lots of ways MS could have complied with the consent decree to which it was legally bound, so as not to abuse its monopoly, as it had agreed. But MS of course opted for abusing its monopoly, as it does every time it decides to go after a market.
The "arrogance" of managers competing with Microsoft despite their freedom to abuse their monopoly is the bad judgement controlling these failures.
And now we see the largely obsolete posting 'bot still sputtering like a spambot with a few years still prepaid on its Web hosting account.
Besides, everyone knows the clone had the advantage over the android in 2000, because the android didn't have the proprietary Republican interface to the voting machines and Supreme Court reboot.
All your verbose reply says is "this competitor was bad, MS was good" and "I don't blame X for the scenario you detail". Pure denial. I'm not going to continue to run around in this circle and dignify such superficial argument.
The bundled Windows tax, the refusal of vendors like Dell to cheaply/easily support boxes with other OS'es installed, whether or not they preinstall them. That's all part of the bundling game. But those extra clicks to install SW, or any extra effort beyond the defaults, is very anticompetitive in the mass market. Most users never change their default configs, let alone replace a "working" SW with its competitor. Especially if it "comes with" the OS, or gets reinstalled every time they reinstall the OS. And then there are a lot of other anticompetitive strategic benefits that come from bundling.
Which is why the early 1990s DoJ forced MS to sign a consent decree saying they wouldn't abuse their monopoly with bundling. Then MS violated that, and tried to defend itself in court from charges (already established) that they were a monopoly. They failed again, but still bundle as much as they can. It all stinks.
Corporate buyers buy computers with an OS discount to account for their site license. At least the nonsucker corporations do so.
So you're citing the problems with Reagan's breakup of AT&T's monopoly into several noncompeting regional monopolies as the reason the Bush DOJ's "oversight" of Microsoft's monopoly was ineffective? That it's a "dangerous precedent"? The danger is that those two precedents are the blueprints for monopoly "end runs" around stopping the monopoly, by castrating the remedy phase. Which the monopoly's lawyers do in collusion with the politicians behind the media smokescreen of "victory for consumers" and "it's too complicated to explain in the news".
Even the wrong kind of remedy, the AT&T "Baby Bell" remonopoly, has had benefits to the consumer. It did open the long distance market to competition, from MCI, Sprint and hundreds of smaller players. which now features not only much lower rates than before the breakup, but even lower rates than the inflated rates the monopoly AT&T would have charged, as telecom use became more profitable since 1986. The ISP revolution would never have happened, as AT&T would have succeeded in jacking up ISP telecom rates to push them out of competition with the AT&T ISP, as even the regional Baby Bells tried to do. And which they succeeded in doing, once they figured out how to use loopholes in the monopoly prohibitions to compete unfairly with DSL through their "vertical integration" and artificially lower "internal" carriage rates - to say nothing of just not servicing colocated DSLAMs.
You're making up history, just like the CATO institute's mission dictates. CATO will do anything it can to invent history convenient to its corporate sponsors, especially when rewriting government monopoly interventions.