JeffT

In the first thread where I entered debate with you, I made a post iterating on how each type of more complex organization (from an individual acting alone, to a partnership, to a corporation) was an instance of freedom of association and contract, and not any special privileges granted by force. At this point I have no more patience to keep repeatedly looking up my old quotes and old links. I've done it before (several posts up, with links to the earlier threads), and any reader or yourself can do so.

The same as when we recognize any other form of coercion by government. We oppose the coercion, not the acts that the coercion attempts to forbid or control.

A N Other, this is now the third thread where you've started the same discussion about the rights of individuals organized as a corporation. Myself and others posted extensively in these previous two threads in debate with you: Supreme Court strikes down censorship! Corporations and Political Speech The idea that corporations are not really people is a red herring, and states nothing. Of course they're not; it was always an intentional abstraction. The issue is freedom of association and freedom of contract. When you have been challenged on the philosophic issues, you then point out how corporations are involved in lobbying and speech that is harmful to our rights. And then later you start a new thread, going around all over again. Freedom of speech means the freedom to advocate for any political system, including systems involving the initiation of force. Whether one or more individuals engage in that speech through a corporate structure, or without, does not change that. The fundamental problem is that the Constitution does not protect our rights--not the speech. I'll quote some of my posts from the earlier threads: Your post on Oct. 31, 2010 at 3:25pm PT hinted toward an answer, but I don't believe was clear enough.

Oh, one more thing that's worth posting again to mention. The detailed attention to quality goes right down to the shrinkwrap. Most CDs that I bought had very neatly, carefully applied shrinkwrap with a "pull slip" that would easily and neatly tear the lower edge off, leaving the rest of the wrap to slip off like a sleeve. A nice contrast to CDs and DVDs here where you're tearing your fingernails on a tiny edge, then again on the sticker underneath the wrap.

I've regularly ordered from www.cdjapan.co.jp. I can definitely confirm that far more care is taken in at least the packaging and presentation of Japanese CDs than in the US. All CDs are treated as collector's items. Inserts are carefully presented and artfully designed. Catalog numbers are the primary identifier for discs, and they are consistently and unfailingly printed on every insert, the "obi", in nearly all cases on the underside rim of the disc itself, and any stickers on the packaging. (I have purchased used CDs where the original buyer had cut out stickers on the shrinkwrap and kept them in the case.) Every CD, nearly without exception, contains an "obi" which is a slip that wraps around the binding onto the front and back and contains full identifying information for the disc. It is underneath the shrinkwrap but outside the disc case, so once unwrapped, the obi should and can easily be kept within the case with the rest of the inserts. The standard price for a CD is 3000 yen, about $40. (Back in the years when I was regularly collecting Japanese CDs, this converted to around $25-$30... how things have changed.) Note that this isn't merely the price you pay to import them to the US... this is the actual price in Japan. Shipping to the US adds around $15-$20 per order plus around $4/CD. One reason that Japanese CDs sometimes have bonus tracks exclusive only to Japan is that Japanese licensors negotiate and pay extra to get these, to discourage Japanese residents from importing the cheaper releases from elsewhere in the world. In my case, my reason for buying is just to get Japanese music--not to get supposedly better Japanese releases of music created elsewhere. Although exclusive bonus tracks are one thing, I would be greatly suspicious that sound quality is any better on a consistent basis. I suppose it's possible certain albums could have been remastered for a Japanese exclusive release, but I'd guess that's uncommon.

Thanks!

I saw it in both digital projection and 35mm. The digital version looks amazing--quite a bit better than 35mm.

"Everything" isn't to be taken strictly literally. That said, I prefer to shift my personal risk surface more strongly toward being risk-averse than perhaps many people. I would back up the contents of my mind if technology made it possible. I would be enormously negatively affected if a fire were to occur in my home, or if my hard disks were to fail without backup. Everyone should consider their personal situation, and can adapt the advice accordingly. [And argh, I misspelled "insure" as "ensure" above--reminds me of a recent thread...]

For what it's worth, I once saw an incandescent bulb explode without provocation and shoot out of its socket. It left a somewhat clean cut through the narrow part with the now-open bulb half flying across the room. As an individual choosing what products to buy, who can predict this? It's a reminder to take the usual precautions: Ensure everything. Backup everything. Keep some backups off-site. Store irreplaceables in a secure, fire-protected location to the extent practical, and for papers, keep copies backed up. Live in a home with fire sprinklers.

Oh yes, this is definitely by far my #1 annoying mispronunciation. A circle of my friends in 6th grade even talked about this one, it was so prevalent.

Nope. You're right--it's important for the reasons you state. A personal "favorite" of mine: "chipolte" instead of "chipotle". All of your examples, and mine, are in the category of being clearly wrong by trivial examination of the spelling. I am much more forgiving when the proper pronunciation rests on information not conveyed in the spelling. That simply suggests that the person has learned the word in writing but hasn't heard it spoken (or hasn't made the connection to the spoken word), particularly for young people. For example, "rendezvous" or "Worcester".

The state of knowledge without any assertion being proven (or having other relevant evidence) is "I have no information about whether X exists", not "It is not the case that X exists".

THE FORUM logs you out whenever you change IP addresses (which goes against web standards whereby an IP address is supposed to be distinct from web session state). So if you are behind rotating proxy servers, it's essentially impossible to use THE FORUM logged in. I'm guessing this is the situation you're facing. There was an earlier thread on this: http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=11431

You're equivocating between inept self-destruction and a powerful war-force on an interstellar scale. Alien travelers with the power to destroy man by any means--much less change the orbit of a planet--are not remotely threatened by a few socialistic backwater countries. You'll also note that in this sci-fi trope, the aliens destroy earth because of its technology and because of man's selfishness--not the opposite. Whether you intended it or not, this story grants undeserved moral cover to such collectivist parables.