DavidV
-
Posts
2935 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
13
Posts posted by DavidV
-
-
You can also use Google to search the forum: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=site:objectivismonline.net+software+piracy
-
There is not a simple answer to this question. Morally, the celebrity creates the value of his name. The squatter is just trying to ride on his coattails. However there’s no easy way to measure the value of a name versus the value of the alternative usage of the domain. There have been many cases of a large corporation trying to seize the domain of a small business that was legitimately using it. The simplest answer I can give is that the domain owner and the buyer should try to negotiate a deal. If the owner refuses to sell it, but continues to profit from the value of name that someone else knows, the courts may get involved.
Note that under a fully-capitalist society, the domain name system itself would be privately owned (currently its effectively owned by the U.S. government) and the owning organization would set these rules. There does not necessarily have to be a single domain name system.
-
Chat on iPad:
-
But, is that a little pricey, or average for those kinds of ads (considering the click-through)?
LinkedIn gave me a $100 credit, so that's OK.
-
In addition to Google AdWords, I am now promoting ObjectivismOnline on LinkedIn. I hope to bring in some young professionals through this venue.
-
I noticed you seem to have added at least one banned member. Maybe it would better not to keep banned accounts on the map. ^^;
Oops. Thanks.
-
David, Good Idea!
(It's just that now I feel kinda lonely...)
I took the liberty of looking up the coordinates of 400 members who provided their city in their profile and adding them to the map, so maybe you won't be so lonely now :-)
Edit: I just added 83 international users too.
-
Any thoughts on the new member map. Yay/Nay?
-
I made some additional tweaks to the forum earlier this week. I am curious whether anyone notices a performance improvement.
-
I'm not sure if you missed my request or if it is hard to do?
I don't want to modify the forum theme too much at this time. It is time consuming to change it and support the change through future updates.
Also, this forum software is used by millions of people, and I generally trust the developers to make choices which a majority of users would prefer.
If you can show that the consensus of other users here is for a change, I will reconsider.
-
On the registration page for new users, the "forum rules and conditions" link points to the old address: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?act=boardrules
Thanks -fixed.
-
How is it possible that an online community devoted to Objectivism does not allow members to remove themselves and their information from the forum database?
We do not trap your soul here, only your words. If you do not wish to participate, you are free to remove remove all your personal information, type random characters for the password, and stop visiting the site. However, you agreed to the rules when you signed up, one of which is that we do not delete accounts*. I think there are good reasons for that rule, and 99.9% of our members seem to have no problem with it.
* I will make an exception and delete accounts with no posts.
-
I would imagine that breaching contract would be the major offense involved in this scenario.
Imagine if we took this idea seriously and the military got involved every time the rights of a U.S. citizen abroad were violated. It would in effect be the creation a global military dictatorship. The U.S. government would have to topple or threaten the government of every country with the laws of which we disagreed, since a citizen could potentially be affected by these laws anywhere in the world.
Since every single nation today violates people's rights in numerous different ways, all of them would be in a state of perpetual war or at least total submission to American military might. Perhaps they would try to ban any American citizen from entering their territory. But even then, U.S. citizens could sneak into the country illegally, break the law, and use that as justification to topple that country's government. It's not farfetched - it's happened many times in history - Hawaii, Texas, South Ossetia, etc. (Edit: in the case of Nazi Germany and Russia, no one had to move - they simply granted people in a bordering country passports, said that their rights were being violated, and used that to justify invading and annexing that country's territory.)
That's why a basic principle of international law is that when you visit another country, you agree to obey its laws. You don't get to bring your own laws and military forces with you.
-
Should the US government do something to protect H&P's property? If so, what?
No, it's not the government's role to apply U.S. property law to other countries.
-
Please join the new ObjectivismOnline Facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=125663434142704
-
Some updates:
I've added @objectivismonline.com as an alias (which means existing addresses work with both.)
You can access your account at
-
Here
There's nothing in the second page either.
I see over 200 results. Is it possible that there are multiple results in that thread?
-
I think there's a problem with the 'search' function. When you search for a topic, let's say, with the word "concept" in it, then it will return this message: "Your search for the term concept returned 33 results," but only one of the 33 is displayed, and the rest can't be seen or accessed.
I tried the same thing and I see the results. Can you post a screenshot?
-
A note from the Ayn Rand Institute:
This is just a friendly reminder that the final application deadline for the Ayn Rand Institute’s 2010-11 Objectivist Academic Center (OAC) program is July 30, 2010. The OAC is the premier program for individuals who want to systematically study Ayn Rand’s ideas. Courses guide each student in developing the tools necessary to communicate effectively, logically and rationally. It is also the perfect place to meet other students interested in Ayn Rand’s writings and their relevance to today’s world. The OAC’s one-of-a-kind curriculum provides an opportunity to learn Objectivist methodology in a way that cannot be found anywhere else. Tuition waivers and phone reimbursement are available to full time students. Auditors are welcome!
You can find more at www.objectivistacademiccenter.org. If you have any questions, feel free to contact [email protected].
Cross-posted from Metablog -
Some updates:
I've added @objectivismonline.com as an alias (which means existing addresses work with both.)
I've fixed:
-
-
- Image via Wikipedia
I have jury duty tomorrow morning, so I thought I would share some thoughts on the moral and contractual obligations of a juror:
A trial is, or ought to be, a fact-finding process, conducted in order to determine whether pre-existing legal principles are applicable to a specific case. It should not be a religious, philosophical, or political discourse – that is, the rules by which guilt or responsibility is determined must be known beforehand. It is not up to the judge or jury to determine what the law ought to be, only to apply it to the established facts. If the law was determined rather than applied at trial, it would be impossible for anyone to obey it. Furthermore, a just legal system should be uniform – people must have assurance that outcomes will not depend on the particular judge and juror they stand before.
However, while it is not the job of the juror to determine whether the law is just, it is his moral responsibility to treat other men justly. Someone who is hired to be a repo agent may not have a contractual obligation to determine whether the collateral he collects is for debts which are legitimately are in default, but he has a moral obligation to refuse his assignments if he suspects that he’s seizing legitimate property. If he refuses assignments based on tenuous grounds, he may justly be fired, but if he has some certainty that he’s seizing legitimate property, he becomes as much a thief as his employer. Likewise with the juror.
One criticism of jury nullification is that a jury is not neither qualified to judge the law nor does it have any legitimacy in doing so. And this this is certainly true as a matter of law. A juror who disagrees with the practical implementation of the moral principles behind a law ought to defer to the established process. He can always exercise his disagreement and try to effect change in his role as a private citizen.
But, the situation is different when a juror disagrees with the moral principles behind a law. A law based on incorrect moral principles is inherently unjust, regardless of the facts of the case. The conviction of anyone based on such as law is necessarily an act of aggression. Any participation in the process, even solely in the function of determining the facts, is an immoral act. No judge can honestly ask a juror to breach his integrity, or blame him for refusing to do so. Everyone, regardless of his role, has a personal moral obligation to treat others justly and refrain from willingly participating in injustice.
What is a moral juror to do then? He should refuse to serve if he believes that the principles of a law are inherently unjust. By doing so, he does not undermine the legal process, since another juror can be substituted, nor does he violate his own integrity. For example, a juror exceeds his role if he refuses to convict because he thinks that the punishment for an action is too harsh, but he acts properly if he refuses to serve because he does not believe the act being prosecuted to constitute an act of coercion at all.
In the special case that the judge is unable to find enough jurors who accept the morality of the law, has two choices: he may either require the charges to be dropped, or he may offer the dissenting jurors to serve anyway. If they do so, they cannot be blamed for acquitting the defendant based on their judgment of the law, in addition to their judgment of the facts. However, the possibility of them changing their minds after hearing the evidence remains. Presumably, as long as the law is consistent with the basic moral principles of citizens qualified to serve on the jury, it should not be difficulty to find sufficient jurors.
Cross-posted from Metablog -
You don't seem to understand what "public domain", or "own" refers to. Something that is "in the public domain" is not owned by anyone.
This is true, but publishing books, even public domain ones, is expensive, and for the government to suddenly declare the legal thing you have invested resources in to be illegal, is in effect destroying that property.
-
Will there be a skins option, just out of curiosity?
Yes, there are already three to choose from in the drop down on the bottom.
Switzerland under diplomatic fire on Polanski
in International Politics
Posted
Reposting my comment from Facebook:
Note the altruist premise of Polanski's defenders: the victim should be sacrificed for the sake of the "social value" of his films. What a non-surprise that the man who led the campaign in his defense is the conservative philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy.