It is named after Cato's Letters, a series of libertarian pamphlets that Cato's founders say helped lay the philosophical foundation for the American Revolution.
Cato's letters _were_ fundamental to the zeitgeist of American 18th century thought. What's the point of the wording above? No need for the "Cato's founders say" clause except to put their very name's value in question from the second sentence. A bad start!
Why is corporate funders bolded? Is that a scare bold?
Media "mogul" ? Hmm..
And after saying that 8% of cato's money comes from corporations, the end spots off about how cato is under the thumb of the following corporations..blah blah blah.
All in all a very incoherent article, with sporadic facts--some true, some questionable, and a hostile tone from the second sentence. I entirely skipped the middle of the article here because it's pretty muh the same, and I just wanted to highlight some of the more egregious examples, since you're an AC and probably won't respond anyway;)
Ok, if you want to talk about lies and liars--and imply GW Bush (I assume that's who you are implying?) is a liar--what's an example of a lie he told? Furthermore "self-declared" has a very specific message it means...self-declared. Has Bush done, said, implied, mimed, ANYTHING that would lead to the impression that he is a "messenger of God"
No, you're wrong--it's obvious you don't listen to Rush. He'll mock the liberal media, and he'll point out what they don't report, etc--he no longer HAS to complain that there are no conservative voices around. Go back before Rush and before Fox--before even the Internet entered the popular sphere. What non-liberal news sources were around?
Anyone asking about what facts Moore has ever twisted or lied about should check out www.mooreexposed.com. Interesting site--particularly about bowling for columbine.
I would assume that because of his previous record--such as bowling for columbine. Check out www.mooreexposed.com
To be fair, I haven't seen F911 yet, so I won't rightfully comment on anything in there.
Though i will say I've found Moore's behavior with regards to Bradbury very unprofessional. Apparently Bradbury tried to get in touch with Moore to complain about the name 6 months to a year ago, was told Moore would call him back, and got a call back last week (months after the first call). Personally I hope Moore has to change the name and pay penalties--at the very least he should have talked to Bradbury when the issue was first raised.
What does that even mean? The Bush administrations puts their spin on the news every night? You may not realize this, but the government doesn't own the news media in the US, unlike in many countries. Well, to be fair, there IS NPR--but no one accuses them of being biased in favor of the president.
What about the NY Times? Do you read an actual paper, or do you just carp about the media because for once in the past 50 years there ARE conservative news sources around?
I see you're about as well informed as the average Moore fan!
If you had even bothered to read the link posted about Cato (which it doesn't surprise me that you didn't--why deal in the realm of facts when you can deal in propaganda and feel good blame games).
I'll put it plain, since I wouldn't want to strain your fact checking muscles.
According to disinfopedia, Cato has an annual income of ~17 million.
Cato is known to have received $30,000 from ExxonMobil during one year. $30,000 is about 0.18% of 17 million.
Now, what was the point of Moore's film? That if someone receives pennies from someone you don't approve of, you can't believe anything they say?
Cato is what it says it is, and nothing more. I would challenge you to dispute that.
Wow, because a think tank received, during one year.18% of their income from one single oil company they can't be trusted?
Did you even READ the rest of the link you sent?
Cato makes no bones about what they are. A libertarian think tank that promotes free trade, smaller government, and libertarian ideals all around. They don't even agree with the Bush administration most of the time.
Incidentally, the disinfopedia page was incredibly biased--I'd be happy to elaborate if anyone is interested.
YAPSTP (Yet Another Politics Suck Today Post)..get used to it, it's not new. Neither is partisan politics if that comes as a surprise. In fact I've often found that the things people today commonly complain about in politics is simply that it's politics--the ultimate expression of human social interaction.
I often think it's comical How Nature always does contrive That every boy and every gal That's born into the world alive Is either a little Liberal Or else a little Conservative! Fal, lal, la! Fal, lal, la! Is either a little Liberal Or else a little Conservative! Fal, lal, la!
When in that House M.P.'s divide, If they've a brain and cerebellum, too, They've got to leave that brain outside, And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to. But then the prospect of a lot Of dull M. P.'s in close proximity, All thinking for themselves, is what No man can face with equanimity.
That's simply not true, and is perhaps a sympton of the relativism (moral and otherwise) that pervades "liberal" thought today.
For one thing, if you insist on classifying the entire world as left/right you miss a huge degree of differences. What's the difference in right/left terms between hitler, stalin, mao, and gandhi? Probably not as much as you think. Not to mention that right and left mean very different things in Britain (where I *believe* the terms originated) mainland Europe and America. Not to mention, Republicans wouldn't even fit in with most Right wing parties in Europe, many of which aren't classicaly liberal at all. Besides which, saying America is far-right is pretty ridiculous. We may not be as bad a social state as mainland Europe, but it's only a matter of degree.
question, where do the classical liberals fall? The Austrian economists? Popular Swiss ideology? Norwegians? What about Nationalist socialist parties?
Making the US to be some extreme right wing country is nuts.
I dont agree with your assertion. Every time anyone buys something they are making a decision: "Is product X worth Y dollars to me?"
If people are buying CD's at there current cost, people clearly value CD's worth Y dollars. This is a personal decision. Where do you get this nebulous concept of a imaginary consensus, and what prices "should" be? Prices are what they are, and as long as people are buying, this isn't likely to change.
but I think it's a general consensus that the price of records is too high
A general consensus? A consensus consisting of who exactly? The millions of people who buy CD's? If there was truly a consensus as you claim, people wouldn't buy CD's.
(Sarcasstic, but not really) Wow, everyone pays more so that some businesses can make a profit. I had no idea Europeans were, despite protestations to the contrary, so dominated by the concerns of business!
You get no arguments from me, I'm no big quark fan... BUT.. until very recently there were no other options. Latex isn't suitable, and InDesign until version 3.0 (CS) lacked some critical features that made it unsuitable for the kind of professional press I was working at. Here's to hoping InDesign kicks quark's ass, or at least that quark improves.
All those music corporations are guilty of price fixing. They kept charging $15 dollars a CD even though the cost of the media kept falling. They could not have all done this on their own, they must have illegally acted in concert to keep prices high. Someone should start a class action lawsuit. I knew people back in college with literally 100's of CD's that they paid every last dollar they made for the newest and greatest CD. They got ripped off.
Possibly the _worst_ defense of music copying I've ever heard. You should really take a class on economics, read a book, anything.. I think it would help clear up your misunderstandings, as well as your contradictions above. Also, you might want to look up the definition of price fixing, because you don't seem to understand what that is either. To put it simply, let me ask you. How much does the media for a PS2 game cost? $2 tops? How much does the media for Oracle database cost? Are they guilty of price fixing? How much does a sneaker cost? More price fixing? Here's something that might blow your mind--how much does a gallon of gas cost? Now how much does a gallons worth of bottled water cost? It's not price fixing, it's economics. Pure material costs are only one part of the equation of what something is worth. This should be abundantly obvious.
Second, I believe sharing music is protected under free speech. It is no different than if I have a book and give it to a friend to read. What if I want to make a copy of a CD to give to my wife, so she can listen to it in her car, do I have to buy a second copy of the same CD? It would seem rediculous if the music industry expected us to buy the same product over and over again, at inflated prices.
You can believe what you want, but you've made a failed half analogy. Try opening a library that gives out free copies of any book, exact replicas, to anyone and everyone. Think you'd stay operating for long?
I also want to add that I am all for supporting the artists. But the music companies treat the artists with the same heavy handed, one sided manner they treat the rest of us. They force new bands to sign contracts which give the bands next to nothing. Only the top singers can force the record companies to pay a fair wage, and that is only if their original contract is set to expire.
There is your twisted notion of "fair" again. What is this fair, and why do you think that you are better than everyone else and therefore should decide what is fair for everyone else? Nobody forces anyone to sign any contracts. There are plenty of non-RIAA affiliated labels, if RIAA bothers you. In addition, THINK about what you're saying--how can the RIAA force anyone to do anything? But you say, bands need record labels to be succesful. Oh, so you're telling me that bands sign record label deals because it is beneficial to themselves? Shocking...
What should be done is the music industry should charge a fair fee for CD's and pay artists a fair wage. But until they start showing they want to be fair, I say why should we concede anything to them?
blah blah fair blah. Play the noble martyr all you want just because you don't want to buy music, while your friends do. I don't care, no one else does--that's your right not to buy music, and our right to buy music. Unfortunately for you, most people don't seem to buy that music isn't priced "fairly" which is there are so many CD stores around.
I completely agree wrt China, but I have a great amount of trouble imagining the EU in the kind of role you dream of. For one thing, look at the amount of inertia that even the latest addition to the EU has added. A good thing the EU might be, but a superpower it ain't.
Besides which the court ruled on the constitutionality of a _STATE_ law. Now anyone with half a brain who went through civics class should know that a state law is exactly what it sounds like. The supreme court isn't mandating that all states behave this way, and quite frankly, people flying off the handle about this decision because they don't understand it (aka, ignorance) worries me more than the decision itself.
There's also the captain who's a religious figure to an alien race, with a feisty female first officer and a grouchy but effective security chief. Plus the alien race recently liberated from colonization, like the Narns.
FWIW, the Bajorans and the occupation were introduced several seasons earlier in TNG. The similarities certaintly do make you stop and think though...
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, let's start with sentence number 2.
It is named after Cato's Letters, a series of libertarian pamphlets that Cato's founders say helped lay the philosophical foundation for the American Revolution.
Cato's letters _were_ fundamental to the zeitgeist of American 18th century thought. What's the point of the wording above? No need for the "Cato's founders say" clause except to put their very name's value in question from the second sentence. A bad start!
Why is corporate funders bolded? Is that a scare bold?
Media "mogul" ? Hmm..
And after saying that 8% of cato's money comes from corporations, the end spots off about how cato is under the thumb of the following corporations..blah blah blah.
All in all a very incoherent article, with sporadic facts--some true, some questionable, and a hostile tone from the second sentence. I entirely skipped the middle of the article here because it's pretty muh the same, and I just wanted to highlight some of the more egregious examples, since you're an AC and probably won't respond anyway ;)
The movie is breaking all-time theater records all over the United States.
The Passion? :-p
And incidentally, it's hardly a surprise than an anti-Bush, anti-war film would win high awayds in a French film festival. Or were you surprised?
Ok, if you want to talk about lies and liars--and imply GW Bush (I assume that's who you are implying?) is a liar--what's an example of a lie he told? Furthermore "self-declared" has a very specific message it means...self-declared. Has Bush done, said, implied, mimed, ANYTHING that would lead to the impression that he is a "messenger of God"
No, you're wrong--it's obvious you don't listen to Rush. He'll mock the liberal media, and he'll point out what they don't report, etc--he no longer HAS to complain that there are no conservative voices around. Go back before Rush and before Fox--before even the Internet entered the popular sphere. What non-liberal news sources were around?
Anyone asking about what facts Moore has ever twisted or lied about should check out www.mooreexposed.com. Interesting site--particularly about bowling for columbine.
I would assume that because of his previous record--such as bowling for columbine. Check out www.mooreexposed.com
To be fair, I haven't seen F911 yet, so I won't rightfully comment on anything in there.
Though i will say I've found Moore's behavior with regards to Bradbury very unprofessional. Apparently Bradbury tried to get in touch with Moore to complain about the name 6 months to a year ago, was told Moore would call him back, and got a call back last week (months after the first call). Personally I hope Moore has to change the name and pay penalties--at the very least he should have talked to Bradbury when the issue was first raised.
Thanks for correcting me--I had thought the terms originated from British parliament.
According to disinfopedia, Cato has an annual income of ~17 million.
Cato is known to have received $30,000 from ExxonMobil during one year. $30,000 is about 0.18% of 17 million.
We can all go back to watching Punch & Judy, nothing to see here.
What does that even mean? The Bush administrations puts their spin on the news every night? You may not realize this, but the government doesn't own the news media in the US, unlike in many countries. Well, to be fair, there IS NPR--but no one accuses them of being biased in favor of the president.
What about the NY Times? Do you read an actual paper, or do you just carp about the media because for once in the past 50 years there ARE conservative news sources around?
I see you're about as well informed as the average Moore fan!
If you had even bothered to read the link posted about Cato (which it doesn't surprise me that you didn't--why deal in the realm of facts when you can deal in propaganda and feel good blame games).
I'll put it plain, since I wouldn't want to strain your fact checking muscles.
According to disinfopedia, Cato has an annual income of ~17 million.
Cato is known to have received $30,000 from ExxonMobil during one year. $30,000 is about 0.18% of 17 million.
Now, what was the point of Moore's film? That if someone receives pennies from someone you don't approve of, you can't believe anything they say?
Cato is what it says it is, and nothing more. I would challenge you to dispute that.
Wow, because a think tank received, during one year .18% of their income from one single oil company they can't be trusted?
Did you even READ the rest of the link you sent?
Cato makes no bones about what they are. A libertarian think tank that promotes free trade, smaller government, and libertarian ideals all around. They don't even agree with the Bush administration most of the time.
Incidentally, the disinfopedia page was incredibly biased--I'd be happy to elaborate if anyone is interested.
I often think it's comical
How Nature always does contrive
That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal, lal, la! Fal, lal, la!
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal, lal, la!
When in that House M.P.'s divide,
If they've a brain and cerebellum, too,
They've got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.
But then the prospect of a lot
Of dull M. P.'s in close proximity,
All thinking for themselves, is what
No man can face with equanimity.
That's simply not true, and is perhaps a sympton of the relativism (moral and otherwise) that pervades "liberal" thought today.
For one thing, if you insist on classifying the entire world as left/right you miss a huge degree of differences. What's the difference in right/left terms between hitler, stalin, mao, and gandhi? Probably not as much as you think. Not to mention that right and left mean very different things in Britain (where I *believe* the terms originated) mainland Europe and America. Not to mention, Republicans wouldn't even fit in with most Right wing parties in Europe, many of which aren't classicaly liberal at all. Besides which, saying America is far-right is pretty ridiculous. We may not be as bad a social state as mainland Europe, but it's only a matter of degree.
question, where do the classical liberals fall? The Austrian economists? Popular Swiss ideology? Norwegians? What about Nationalist socialist parties?
Making the US to be some extreme right wing country is nuts.
sorry for rambling.
I dont agree with your assertion. Every time anyone buys something they are making a decision: "Is product X worth Y dollars to me?"
If people are buying CD's at there current cost, people clearly value CD's worth Y dollars. This is a personal decision. Where do you get this nebulous concept of a imaginary consensus, and what prices "should" be? Prices are what they are, and as long as people are buying, this isn't likely to change.
but I think it's a general consensus that the price of records is too high
A general consensus? A consensus consisting of who exactly? The millions of people who buy CD's? If there was truly a consensus as you claim, people wouldn't buy CD's.
You check out portupgrade for freebsd? Sounds like it does exactly what you are talking about (handling dependencies)
If your email is so important to you (I know mine is to me) than dont bitch about free services.
(Sarcasstic, but not really) Wow, everyone pays more so that some businesses can make a profit. I had no idea Europeans were, despite protestations to the contrary, so dominated by the concerns of business!
You get no arguments from me, I'm no big quark fan... BUT.. until very recently there were no other options. Latex isn't suitable, and InDesign until version 3.0 (CS) lacked some critical features that made it unsuitable for the kind of professional press I was working at. Here's to hoping InDesign kicks quark's ass, or at least that quark improves.
All those music corporations are guilty of price fixing. They kept charging $15 dollars a CD even though the cost of the media kept falling. They could not have all done this on their own, they must have illegally acted in concert to keep prices high. Someone should start a class action lawsuit. I knew people back in college with literally 100's of CD's that they paid every last dollar they made for the newest and greatest CD. They got ripped off.
Possibly the _worst_ defense of music copying I've ever heard. You should really take a class on economics, read a book, anything.. I think it would help clear up your misunderstandings, as well as your contradictions above. Also, you might want to look up the definition of price fixing, because you don't seem to understand what that is either. To put it simply, let me ask you. How much does the media for a PS2 game cost? $2 tops? How much does the media for Oracle database cost? Are they guilty of price fixing? How much does a sneaker cost? More price fixing? Here's something that might blow your mind--how much does a gallon of gas cost? Now how much does a gallons worth of bottled water cost? It's not price fixing, it's economics. Pure material costs are only one part of the equation of what something is worth. This should be abundantly obvious.
Second, I believe sharing music is protected under free speech. It is no different than if I have a book and give it to a friend to read. What if I want to make a copy of a CD to give to my wife, so she can listen to it in her car, do I have to buy a second copy of the same CD? It would seem rediculous if the music industry expected us to buy the same product over and over again, at inflated prices.
You can believe what you want, but you've made a failed half analogy. Try opening a library that gives out free copies of any book, exact replicas, to anyone and everyone. Think you'd stay operating for long?
I also want to add that I am all for supporting the artists. But the music companies treat the artists with the same heavy handed, one sided manner they treat the rest of us. They force new bands to sign contracts which give the bands next to nothing. Only the top singers can force the record companies to pay a fair wage, and that is only if their original contract is set to expire.
There is your twisted notion of "fair" again. What is this fair, and why do you think that you are better than everyone else and therefore should decide what is fair for everyone else? Nobody forces anyone to sign any contracts. There are plenty of non-RIAA affiliated labels, if RIAA bothers you. In addition, THINK about what you're saying--how can the RIAA force anyone to do anything? But you say, bands need record labels to be succesful. Oh, so you're telling me that bands sign record label deals because it is beneficial to themselves? Shocking...
What should be done is the music industry should charge a fair fee for CD's and pay artists a fair wage. But until they start showing they want to be fair, I say why should we concede anything to them?
blah blah fair blah. Play the noble martyr all you want just because you don't want to buy music, while your friends do. I don't care, no one else does--that's your right not to buy music, and our right to buy music. Unfortunately for you, most people don't seem to buy that music isn't priced "fairly" which is there are so many CD stores around.
So I ask everyone, what is a fair price for a CD?
Easy! Whatever people will pay!
One word: Quark
Sucked _ass_ under classic, pretty much unusable.
I completely agree wrt China, but I have a great amount of trouble imagining the EU in the kind of role you dream of. For one thing, look at the amount of inertia that even the latest addition to the EU has added. A good thing the EU might be, but a superpower it ain't.
Besides which the court ruled on the constitutionality of a _STATE_ law. Now anyone with half a brain who went through civics class should know that a state law is exactly what it sounds like. The supreme court isn't mandating that all states behave this way, and quite frankly, people flying off the handle about this decision because they don't understand it (aka, ignorance) worries me more than the decision itself.
Not that this is a plus for entercrap, but all of season 3 was the Xindi arc--only a couple episodes that weren't entirely pertinent.
Every trek had characters leave (reasons I don't know)--wasn't Sinclair supposed to be the main goodie in B5?
There's also the captain who's a religious figure to an alien race, with a feisty female first officer and a grouchy but effective security chief. Plus the alien race recently liberated from colonization, like the Narns.
FWIW, the Bajorans and the occupation were introduced several seasons earlier in TNG. The similarities certaintly do make you stop and think though...