Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Unconquered

Regulars
  • Content Count

    222
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Unconquered

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Real Name
    Phil Oliver
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Occupation
    Computer programmer, inventor
  1. Unconquered

    Objectivism Research Cd-rom

    This is Phil Oliver. I have no intention of wasting time in a prolonged discussion here, but to set the record straight on a few items: first, my CD-ROM has been fully legally licensed and sanctioned for years now. (I sell it, as does ARI via the Ayn Rand Bookstore.) Any suggestions to the contrary are at best ignorant and at worst libelous. With very few exceptions, the feedback that I've gotten has been strongly positive, and by almost all accounts, the CD-ROM has been of significant benefit to those studying the world's greatest philosophy from history's greatest genius, which was my intention. Regarding any of my comments on Dr. Peikoff, if anything I say is incorrect, then feel free to correct them - if you actually know them to be incorrect. When I said that he does not value the CD-ROM, that is a statement of fact, to the best of my knowledge (and I know more about it than you.) In fact, I doubt that he would hesitate to even say so if directly asked. If I have some negative assessment about the man, it's after a slow process of discovery, after years of defending him (and Ayn Rand and ARI) against smears from the likes of Diana Hsieh (whose shrill "reformation" is unconvincing.) My respect for Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and ARI is undiminished. I will, sometime, give the "full story" regarding why I'm not going to pursue renewing licensing for the product, but it will not be here, and it will probably not be soon - but I will say that I am hardly the first person (including a number of individuals associated with ARI) who's been alienated by him. Dr. Peikoff is highly intelligent and has done some great things, most notably writing OPAR, to his everlasting credit, but I suggest that it's unwise to iconify him, and to beware of those who place personal alliances and agendas over facts and logic.
  2. Unconquered

    Selling Human Organs

    Apparently the Chinese haven't been informed of this, viz: http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/38810.htm http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/44506.htm http://www.chinatoday.com/org/cpc/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_China http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/CommunisChi.html Re: executions, let's see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1425570.stm That was 2001, pretty recent. Since China has literally tens of thousands of censors and the press is completely controlled - one of the hallmarks of a dictatorship identified by Ayn Rand - that does not of course count unreported deaths. http://www.ecoi.net/pub/dh1850_02005chi.htm A 2001 New York Times article on the subject. http://www.justresponse.net/Wang_Zhang.html Speaking of censorship, this demonstrates the difference in Chinese-government sanitized Google queries on images of Tiananmen Square vs. the U.S. accessible version: http://www.computerbytesman.com/google/ima...h.htm?tiananmen
  3. Unconquered

    Selling Human Organs

    This is ridiculously understated. The Chinese government, if anybody has forgotten, is *communist*. *Anybody* for *any reason* could be executed. Expecting justice from such dictators is ludicrous. Selling the organs of the murdered victims of such a government is utterly monstrous and evil.
  4. One thing I would note is that it would not necessarily be a good idea to trust the security of Gmail too much. Google archives practically all data, even "permanently deleted" emails, meaning that anything you ever send or receive from Gmail will forever be subject to future possible hackerish intrusions into their systems, as well as government subpoenas at any point in the future for whatever reason. See, e.g.: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060317-6406.html. From that article: Baker is a Gmail user and apparently used Google's "Delete Forever" function in an attempt to get rid of all record of the e-mails. However, in the GMail terms of service, Google says that it may store deleted e-mail in its "offline backup systems" for as long as it desires. I'm not focusing on the apparent criminality of the person involved, but on Google's stated policy.
  5. Unconquered

    Implosion - Ka-boom!

    Interesting, thanks for the information. I'm glad to hear that it was fully intentional. It must be a highly competent group of demolitionists.
  6. Unconquered

    Implosion - Ka-boom!

    I looked at the some of the photo sequences you mentioned and it appears that the building had a noticeable tilt as it was falling in some of the shots, as though it had a significant sideways velocity (tipping over) rather than just collapsing downwards. Did you hear any commentary about that? Presumably the best planned implosion would result in the building strictly falling down and not tipping sideways, which would be a cataclysm.
  7. Unconquered

    Free Speech Campaign

    Not to mention that the person you quoted is so out of touch with reality that he apparently doesn't realize that Yaron Brook doesn't have a *Brooklyn* accent - he's from Israel.
  8. If anybody really wants to defend the patent absurdity of the entire universe - not just matter, but space itself - "expanding" from a singularity (no, not just "a few millimeters", which is silly enough, but a literal zero volume), feel free. If you want some excellent context and commentary from an Objectivist scientist (Stephen Speicher) however, I commend you to this thread: http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s...indpost&p=15699 But regardless, the essential idea of an "expanding universe" necessarily implies creation ex-nihilo. From, and into, *what*, is the universe expanding?
  9. No - simply almost every single thing I've ever heard/read about it. (There are a few exceptions, such as the notion that our universe is one among an infinitude and just a bubble embedded in some larger super-universe, but this is equally arbitrary.) Consideration of the idea as absurd is from an Objectivist standpoint, which is not exactly common among cosmologists. There are good arguments that black holes, as currently presented as an outgrowth of Einstein's General Relativity, are also absurd because of the central singularity idea which implies a zero volume of the black hole - but you will not find many physicists disputing black holes. (The Big Bang notion also relies on the idea of the entire universe starting from a singularity, i.e. zero volume, and if that isn't "ex nihilo" what is??)
  10. Every quote from every actual scientist that *I* have ever read or heard indicates that the (philosophically absurd) idea of the "Big Bang" is exactly creation ex-nihilo. Who, and what theory, says otherwise? References please.
  11. Unconquered

    Implosion - Ka-boom!

    They say memory is the second thing to go ...
  12. Unconquered

    Greenspan Mentioned Ayn Rand Today

    A guy who got drawn to the power of the (illegitimate) office and turned into a full fledged power luster, rationalizing that he was "doing good" - is my take on it. Somebody once said (insightfully) that Greenspan took the job that John Galt turned down.
  13. Unconquered

    NJ Bills Seeks To Make Site-owners Responsible For Content

    I don't see any "invasion of privacy" involved. The real issue is whether a forum owner *should* be held responsible for the comments of others. Actually to a degree, they should. If their forum - which is under their control - sanctions the posting of material which libels somebody, and permits it to be displayed after the content has been pointed out to them, then they are actively abetting an illegal act. Same principle as hosting pirated videos for downloads. Who's going to argue that the only responsible party is the uploader, if the one paying for the hosting is informed of the content and fails to remove it? Now, it is illogical to say "original poster vs. the forum owner", as this law apparently says. They should *both* be responsible parties, with different responsibilities per the different context.
  14. Unconquered

    The right to own a nuclear weapon

    Prohibiting the construction/storage/deployment of potential weapons of mass destruction in a way that protects the right of people to not to be incinerated by a screwup or deliberate malice, would be the proper role of a rational government. To fail to do so would be a default on its responsibility to protect rights. It would be as proper as forbidding somebody from walking around downtown Manhattan while they carry cannisters of chemicals that have some legitimate productive use, but which act as a nerve gas if released. It's an issue of *context*. The view that "anybody should be able to do anything and own any weapons they want, in any quantity", is a distinctly Libertarian view, often expressed. Do not confuse it with a position compatible with Objectivism. And make no mistake that a nuclear device of the future for ostensibly peaceful uses is still quite the potential weapon. This is a general principle not restricted to "exotic" technologies. Nobody should, for example, be driving around a dumptruck full of ammonium nitrate fertilizer in the middle of a large city. There aren't any fields to fertilize there and there is no rational purpose for it to be there, but it poses an enormous threat if mixed with some fuel oil and shocked, when it becomes a high explosive. (This is what was used in the Okla. City bomb.) One more P.S. now that I think about it: My granting the possibility of a future legitimate private use of nuclear devices does not mean that I endorse the idea of "private armies" and other such nonsense. I'm sure they'll be handy to help clear Lunar mountains out of the way.
  15. Unconquered

    The Morality of Alcohol

    None of your "interpretations" were correct. What you responded to, and the insults you made to Dismuke, have no bearing on what he wrote, or on reality. Does that 'clarify' it for you?
×