Chomsky is more biased than Fox News could every hope to be yet the people that support him are the first group of people to jump up and say fox news is biased.
Everyone is biased. I have no delusion that he is not biased. And I don't agree with him on everything. But I do agree on the basic fact that the corporate media in its current form is a horribly broken system.
I don't think the USA is the ultimate evil, but some of the current elements who are exercising control of it are. The whole "love my country, hate my government" thing.
sorry, but complaing about the bias of the media is like complaining about violence in movies. the movies are violent becasue people pay to see that, that's all. hollywood is not some sort of shill for satan or some such bs, out to seduce people. people are already interested in seeing what they want to see, and hollywood simply wants to make money. so they make what is appealing. the audience is the issue, not hollywood.
same with news media. don't like the media or see a bias in it? don't look at the media, look at the audience. if people don't like what they see, they don't tune in. your problem is with the gneeral public if you don't like what you see in mass media, not mass media.
I don't think you can necessarily compare those two. With Hollywood, the audience directly votes (with their dollars) on whether or not they like what they see. The same mechanism of public oversight doesn't exist with the media. It is not directly funded by the public, but rather by billionaire owners of large corporations. It's quite possible (easy in fact) to let those people decide what is reported more than whether it is what the public wants to see.
There is no citizen approval process of the media other than ratings. But even when media outlets experience a drop in ratings, that is usually a temporary liability and they find a way to persist. Their life or death is not directly determined by public approval as the movie industry is.
It comes down to the fact that freedom of the press is not what most people think. What it really means is that the media is free to make you hear what they want you to hear.
I live in Atlanta and saw an article in the AJC over a year ago about this. It was found a few years ago and they said they Air Force did two studies that concluded it posed no threat. Something about certain detonation equipment that was not included on that specific bomb that would make it impossible to set it off.
As for radiation leakage, that might be a legitimate separate concern.
I certainly didn't feel that it was copyright infringement. How is downloading an episode to watch it different than watching the broadcast version. In fact the only reason I downloaded was because I missed the broadcast. And it wasn't like I was depriving anyone of money by downloading as you can't buy the episode in any form right now.
It is doubtful the industry would complain about "a few episodes."
Incorrect. I downloaded one, count it ONE episode of Enterprise from a torrent. My ISP (a large university) got a letter from Paramount threatening me for committing infringement.
Now, your homework is to find where the congress has delegated ALL of it's authority to the IRS so that they have the ability to change the tax codes without congressional approval.
They don't have the power to change the code without Congressional approval. They have on occasion made minor changes to how the code is interpreted and executed, which is pretty easy to do given how confusing the code is.
The question isn't Congress' authority. The question is the IRS's authority.
Not exactly. Though that is an error often repeated by the IRS. The Sixteenth Amendment did not give the government any new taxing power. It merely clarified the power that congress already had under article 1. This was the interpretation given by the SC in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916).
It was further clarified in treasury decision 2303, which reads:
"The provisions of the sixteenth amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited [Congress' original power to tax incomes] from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment."
The worst part about it is after he spends a buttload to upgrade his service, things will go back to where they were and he will be paying for way more than needs.
I agree for the most part. A 100km flight is a long way from orbit. I guess what I was mainly saying was I don't think the actual flight that wins the XPrize will be much more significant in a historical context than the one that already took place. They are both certainly small pudding compared to what is to come though.
I mean, the winning of the X Prize will certainly be a significant event in the privatization of access to space, but the first private flight already took place, which is very significant in itself.
The RIAA also has been quite effective in making it sound like the Internet and P2P will end music. The reality is it may put an end to the current music industry where profits are reaped at the artists' expense but those who are musically talented will continue to create new music.
That is the crux of the matter. Ever since Napster the RIAA has doused the public with hundreds of stories, press releases, and all out rants that internet piracy is so out of control it will ultimately destroy their right to collect profit on the IP they hold.
The reality is that the threat to them is much broader than piracy, but they don't want to focus on that. There have been several university studies (I can't remember them specifically right now) that have indicated that P2P sharing has not had a huge impact on music sales. It seems that while some people do download things and never pay for them, others actually buy more music because of it. The reason for this is the broad distribution mechanism the internet offers artists outside of RIAA sanctioned radio.
Behind the scenes, I'm quite sure the RIAA isn't doing it all because they feel that Kazaa will ultimately cause them to go bankrupt. What they are really afraid of is permitting artists to see the potential of online music distribution. If that happens and the artists realize they can do just as well by going online and connecting directly to their fans and listening audience, then they will see a better alternative to the perennial shafting they inevitable receive from the RIAA. Once that occurs, the RIAA will become irrelevant and that's what they are deathly afraid of.
They're trying to turn back the clock by painting everything related to online music with the same brush. Let's hope it doesn't work.
Slashdot Mirror
Chomsky is more biased than Fox News could every hope to be yet the people that support him are the first group of people to jump up and say fox news is biased.
Everyone is biased. I have no delusion that he is not biased. And I don't agree with him on everything. But I do agree on the basic fact that the corporate media in its current form is a horribly broken system.
I don't think the USA is the ultimate evil, but some of the current elements who are exercising control of it are. The whole "love my country, hate my government" thing.
sorry, but complaing about the bias of the media is like complaining about violence in movies. the movies are violent becasue people pay to see that, that's all. hollywood is not some sort of shill for satan or some such bs, out to seduce people. people are already interested in seeing what they want to see, and hollywood simply wants to make money. so they make what is appealing. the audience is the issue, not hollywood. same with news media. don't like the media or see a bias in it? don't look at the media, look at the audience. if people don't like what they see, they don't tune in. your problem is with the gneeral public if you don't like what you see in mass media, not mass media.
I don't think you can necessarily compare those two. With Hollywood, the audience directly votes (with their dollars) on whether or not they like what they see. The same mechanism of public oversight doesn't exist with the media. It is not directly funded by the public, but rather by billionaire owners of large corporations. It's quite possible (easy in fact) to let those people decide what is reported more than whether it is what the public wants to see.
There is no citizen approval process of the media other than ratings. But even when media outlets experience a drop in ratings, that is usually a temporary liability and they find a way to persist. Their life or death is not directly determined by public approval as the movie industry is.
The FA has some good observations but most of it has been said elsewhere. An excellent book on this subject is Manufacturing Consent : The Political Economy of the Mass Media.
It comes down to the fact that freedom of the press is not what most people think. What it really means is that the media is free to make you hear what they want you to hear.
I live in Atlanta and saw an article in the AJC over a year ago about this. It was found a few years ago and they said they Air Force did two studies that concluded it posed no threat. Something about certain detonation equipment that was not included on that specific bomb that would make it impossible to set it off.
As for radiation leakage, that might be a legitimate separate concern.
I certainly didn't feel that it was copyright infringement. How is downloading an episode to watch it different than watching the broadcast version. In fact the only reason I downloaded was because I missed the broadcast. And it wasn't like I was depriving anyone of money by downloading as you can't buy the episode in any form right now.
It is doubtful the industry would complain about "a few episodes."
Incorrect. I downloaded one, count it ONE episode of Enterprise from a torrent. My ISP (a large university) got a letter from Paramount threatening me for committing infringement.
It depends on who sees it. I submitted one article that was rejected by michael but were later posted by timothy for example.
You would think the guy would be smarter than to choose the handle "Julio" before pulling this.
This action will hurt consumers.
You see, now I'm going to have to increase the cost of my penis enlargement pills to cover the increased risk this represents.
I consider myself a Christian and lean towards the right on most issues, and I will definitely NOT be voting for Bush in Nov.
Yeah, because java is so much worse than .NET.
Yeah, especially with a five foot tip.
Now, your homework is to find where the congress has delegated ALL of it's authority to the IRS so that they have the ability to change the tax codes without congressional approval.
They don't have the power to change the code without Congressional approval. They have on occasion made minor changes to how the code is interpreted and executed, which is pretty easy to do given how confusing the code is.
The question isn't Congress' authority. The question is the IRS's authority.
Title 26 USC. gives them authority.
While Apple is very clearly in violation of the agreement, they have a buttload of cash and will probably just resolve it by giving up a few mil.
The Sixteenth Amendment gives the IRS authority
Not exactly. Though that is an error often repeated by the IRS. The Sixteenth Amendment did not give the government any new taxing power. It merely clarified the power that congress already had under article 1. This was the interpretation given by the SC in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916).
It was further clarified in treasury decision 2303, which reads:
"The provisions of the sixteenth amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited [Congress' original power to tax incomes] from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment."
Expired.
That's it, I'm taking my AK and storming the Hill.
The assault weapons ban expires in 90 minutes. ;)
best shelter I've ever seen
Unfortunately you are the only one who will ever see it.
With only 4 months to go before the deadline, and Scaled inevitably winning before then, how does someone just entering now have any chance?
That was just... incredible.
+5 Insightful
OK, well I didn't really want to reply to myself but I just sent an email to clue him in.
The worst part about it is after he spends a buttload to upgrade his service, things will go back to where they were and he will be paying for way more than needs.
I agree for the most part. A 100km flight is a long way from orbit. I guess what I was mainly saying was I don't think the actual flight that wins the XPrize will be much more significant in a historical context than the one that already took place. They are both certainly small pudding compared to what is to come though.
I mean, the winning of the X Prize will certainly be a significant event in the privatization of access to space, but the first private flight already took place, which is very significant in itself.
The RIAA also has been quite effective in making it sound like the Internet and P2P will end music. The reality is it may put an end to the current music industry where profits are reaped at the artists' expense but those who are musically talented will continue to create new music.
That is the crux of the matter. Ever since Napster the RIAA has doused the public with hundreds of stories, press releases, and all out rants that internet piracy is so out of control it will ultimately destroy their right to collect profit on the IP they hold.
The reality is that the threat to them is much broader than piracy, but they don't want to focus on that. There have been several university studies (I can't remember them specifically right now) that have indicated that P2P sharing has not had a huge impact on music sales. It seems that while some people do download things and never pay for them, others actually buy more music because of it. The reason for this is the broad distribution mechanism the internet offers artists outside of RIAA sanctioned radio.
Behind the scenes, I'm quite sure the RIAA isn't doing it all because they feel that Kazaa will ultimately cause them to go bankrupt. What they are really afraid of is permitting artists to see the potential of online music distribution. If that happens and the artists realize they can do just as well by going online and connecting directly to their fans and listening audience, then they will see a better alternative to the perennial shafting they inevitable receive from the RIAA. Once that occurs, the RIAA will become irrelevant and that's what they are deathly afraid of.
They're trying to turn back the clock by painting everything related to online music with the same brush. Let's hope it doesn't work.