shakthig

Even as things are, there is no shortage of people wanting to move to the USA. What limits immigration are the laws that restrict it, not a lack of recognition about how good the USA is.

Use Free Download Manager. When you download files using this program, if downloading gets interrupted due to getting disconnected, you can continue from where you left off once you reconnect. There is no need to begin again from scratch.

Just posting this since those who are interested in immigrating to the US would find it useful. Participating in the lottery is completely free. Make sure to do so through the official website of the state department and make sure to read the instructions carefully and double check all the information entered in the electronic application. dvlottery.state.gov Unfortunately people born in certain countries do not qualify to participate (Unless special considerations apply) Taking the trouble to participate in the lottery is definitely worth it since it doesn't cost anything and since the probability of winning is non-trivial. Also note - Winning the lottery doesn't guarantee being issues an immigration visa. There are many complicated requirements that lottery winners have to fulfill to be able to immigrate to the US.

There is an abridged version in the web site of this documentary.

This story about Jens Naumann who lost both eyes and subsequently regained some vision through artificial eyes is amazing. *** Mod's note: If link above does not work, here's a link that has some info on the topic. ***

And if air travel ever becomes 100% safe due to security measures, the terrorists will just find something else to blow up.

Here is a description of the "Age of Enlightenment". It's the foundation of modern civilization. The Age of Enlightenment arose in the west and it has spread to other non western countries through a process which is usually referred to as "westernization". In some countries westernization was facilitated through imperialism. (Though in many cases the explicit goal of the imperial powers were "power", "trade" and "spreading the gospel") My own post was a response to the comparison of the British to modern terrorists. That has to do with the general nature of the history of their nation. So I will continue to take into consideration all aspects of their history. It wouldn't be fair to blame ancient peoples and call them stupid for "tolerating feudalism". Exactly how would they have gone about refusing to tolerate feudalism? They would have had to demand their rights and fight for their rights and most of all; they would have had to know that they had rights! But the fact that Man has rights was discovered only during the Age of Enlightenment and was unknown prior to that. People didn't have the intellectual tools necessary to fight feudalism prior to the Age of Enlightenment. When evaluating a political system, the most important consideration is the degree to which the rights of men are respected and the degree to which capitalism is a part of that system. Other considerations such as whether the rulers are "outsiders" are less important. The kings who ruled various countries in ancient times imagined themselves to be the owners of their countries and didn't consider their subjects as being the owners of those countries. You’re abandoning all contexts when evaluating history and focusing on the one and only issue of whether the rulers are natives or foreigners. My assertion that a single evil element wouldn’t make a political system or a country evil wasn't based on any individual principles vs. group principles dichotomy. (Actually what precisely do you mean by "individual principles" and "group principles"?) It was based on the fact that the nature of the life of a single individual man and the nature of a political system that governs millions of men for hundreds of year are vastly different. You can't use the same principles to judge entities whose nature is so radically different. And in any case, if you insist on using principles that are applicable to individuals, you should confine your judgments only to those individuals who did evil things rather than comparing the whole of the British nation to modern terrorists. I didn't study all political systems that ever existed, but I know enough to say that a purely capitalist system never existed anywhere at any time. The non capitalist elements of any political system are the "evil elements" that I had in mind. With the kind of harsh standards you are applying when evaluating countries and political systems, we wouldn't even be able to admire the ancient Greeks because they had thousands of slaves! Ancient Athens would have to be regarded as "evil" because a single element of evil is enough to classify anything as being evil in its totality regardless of the context!

Modern terrorists are not motivated by power at all, let alone "power at any cost and by any means". (I assume that by "power" you mean the ability to rule other people.) Why do they commit suicide while bombing others? What power do they gain after having committed a suicide bombing? To take the worst form of terrorism as an example, how much power has Bin Laden gained from his terrorist atrocities? Did he ever stand any chance of gaining any "power" by organizing the 9/11 atrocity? Could his motivation have been "power" when the fact that there was a very serious likelihood of becoming the most hunted (and therefore the most powerless) man in the world (as is now the case) was so clearly predicable? Modern day terrorists are primarily motivated through a desire for "deriving perverted satisfaction through destruction of the values and achievements of civilized people." rather than by "power at any cost and by all means." Their level of mysticism is so deep, they actually believe that they'll go to heaven and get 72 virgins as a reward for loosing their life while destroying the lives of others. That's what makes it possible for them to conceal their motivation from themselves. They don't murder people for the sake of gaining something for themselves; they murder people just for kicks! Somebody who strives for some positive goal (even a totally second hand goal such as "power") would never do the kind of totally senseless (and suicidal) things that modern terrorists do. Only those who are totally without any (this worldly) goals whatsoever can go that low. Given this description of modern terrorists, there is no way to justify comparing them to British imperialists. Nor were the British imperialists motivated by "power at any cost and by any means" though they certainly would have been motivated by "power". For all their faults, they did dismantle the feudal order that existed prior to their rule, and established semi-capitalist political systems in most countries within their Empire. They also spread the cultural and philosophical values of the enlightenment. In most countries they ruled, they respected individual rights such as the freedom of speech and property rights far more than the monarchs who preceded them. They were instrumental in ending the international slave trade. (And if their motivation was "power at all costs and by all means" I wonder why they abolished slavery throughout the British Empire in 1833) For accurate examples of systems based on "power at any cost and by any means", you should refer to countries such as Soviet Russia under communism and North Korea, Cuba etc. To the argument that the British were instrumental in modernizing those part of the world that were within their empire, you respond that a single act of evil is enough to declare the British nation (at that time) to be evil! That's applicable to individuals in the sense that a single act of murder would be enough to regard the perpetrator as evil no matter how exemplary his life had been prior to him committing that act of murder. But it's not applicable to political systems and nations. Has there ever been a political system in this world that never had any evil elements whatsoever?

And what exactly are the (alleged) fundamental similarities between the British then and the terrorists now ? For the life of me, I can't think of any! [Mod's note: I've moved the follow-up to this to an earlier thread on Colonialism - sN]

I used the word “arbitrary” to indicate the fact that the choice of the person whose birth of date would determine the likelihood of civilization ending soon depended on your discretion. [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/arbitrary] Why wonder about the date of your birth? Why not wonder why Einstein was born in the 19’Th century, why George Washington was born in the 18’Th century, why Christopher Columbus was born in the 15’Th century and why Alexander the Great was born around 2000 years ago etc. The timing of their birth days was as random as yours. I get what you mean by “observational experiment” (Though I think that the word “experiment” would be redundant in this case. Wouldn’t it be simpler to say that most knowledge in fields such as astronomy and archeology depend on data gathered from observations?) But it is important to keep in mind the context within which the observation is taking place. I think the issue gets complicated by the fact that you are both the observer and the subject of the observation. You are the one making the observation and the one who interprets the results of the observation and you are making that observation in the year 2006. That is the context within which the observation is taking place. That being the case, the “probability” of you “observing” that you happen to be alive in the year 2006 is 100% regardless of when civilization is to end. The calculations you outline would not be relevant. Those calculations will be relevant only for an experiment that would result in a “pointer” to one person out of all people who ever lived (and are ever to live in the future) within civilization.[And only when there is an equal probability of any individual being pointed to by the result of the experiment.]

David, The calculations you made will be relevant only if something along the lines described below takes place - Out of all the people who lived (and are ever to live) during the timeframe of human civilization, one person is randomly chosen. Now if it is a given that human civilization will end in (or around) the year 2056 (i.e. in 50 years), then there is a probability of that randomly chosen person being alive in the year 2006 (the present) of (around) 60%. On the 0ther hand, if it is a given that human civilization will last for more than 100,000 years, then the probability of finding that the individual who was randomly chosen exists in the year 2006 would be less than 0.1%. Now say we make such a random choice. Out of all the people who have ever lived and are ever to live within human civilization, we choose one individual and it turned out that the person chosen is alive in the year 2006. Now what are we to make of such an eventuality? Should we conclude that civilization is very likely to end around the year 2056? Intuitively, such a conclusion would seem reasonable. The thing is, it is fairly obvious that it would be impossible to conduct such an experiment where one person out of all the people who ever lived (and are ever to live) within this civilization is chosen randomly. [One would have to be a supernatural and semi-divine being to do so.] The error in your thought experiment is the implicit assumption that such an experiment had been performed and that you are the result of such an experiment. The reasoning seems to be something like – If civilization were to last around 100,000 years, then the probability of me living within the very beginning of that civilization is extremely low. On the other hand if civilization were to end around the year 2056, then the probability of me being alive around the year 2006 is 60%. Well it turns out that I am in fact alive in the year 2006. WOW! That probably means that one way or the other (either through extinction or by achieving immortality) this generation is likely to be the last generation of this civilization! I think pointing at yourself as being one among all the people who ever lived (and are ever to live in the future) within this civilization would amount to an arbitrary choice rather than the result of a random experiment. Therefore the calculations that you made would not be relevant. [Also, there were no Greek philosophers in the year 2500BC. I think Greek philosophy began to appear around 600BC. But that is not central to the thought experiment that you described.] [Edited to correct a grammatical error.]

Dec 28, 2025 I always tip 30% if the service is average and make it 40% if it is good. If the service is poor, I tip only 20%.

This speech given by David Davis is interesting. http://www.david-davis.co.uk/news/news_id.asp?id=29 He is probably the best that can be hoped for within the present cultural/philosophical climate.

You published that essay ? But you had not been born yet !

I am from Sri Lanka. I had lived in India for a few years and I don't think I would have discovered Objectivism if it weren't for that. I just wouldn't have encountered it. I have never seen any of Ayn Rand's books in bookshops here in Sri Lanka but they were always available in many bookshops in Bangalore.

Most of the things you said are irrelevant. Objectivism is the philosophy discovered by Ayn Rand. John Galt (in the novel Atlas Shrugged) explicitly advocated and lived by a philosophical framework which corresponds identically with the philosophy which was discovered by Ayn Rand in real life. On what basis are you objecting to the fact that I said that Objectivism did exist in Galt's universe? Is it because the word "Objectivism" was not used in AS? I should add that in this instance it doesn't make any difference what Ayn Rand chose to call the philosophy she discovered. If she had chosen to call it "Randism" I would have said that Randism existed in John Galt's universe. I know that fiction is not real life. But there is nothing wrong in describing some aspect of a story I have read using terms that are used in real life, so long as that description is valid.

When (usually gay) men act like women for the purpose of entertaining and amusing themselves and others that behavior is referred to as "camp".

Objectivism did exist in Galt's universe. What was the chapter "This is John Galt speaking" (in AS) all about?

Tnunamak, This is a very difficult issue and I definitely don't know a solution to the problem but I hope you find the following helpful - 1) I agree with you that this issue is trivial. It's unfortunate that you have to waste time thinking about such things. Also, if you choose to you do have the right to be the "intermediary" between your mother and siblings and I don't see how your stepmother has a right to complain even if that had really been your intention. That's between you and your sister and your sister is adult enough to deal with you by herself without any input from anyone else. (She is a "young adult") 2) It's true that your step mother is being irrational. That's probably because she feels insecure - about her place in your sister’s life and in your brother’s life and perhaps in your father’s life. While you cannot "bend over backwards" to accommodate her insecurity, it'll probably be to your advantage to make some allowance for it. 3) It's ironic that your step mother claims that she treats your brother and sister like "young adults" on the one hand while on the other hand thinks that your sister telephoned your mother simply because you told her to (instead of because she wanted to) and tries to "protect" them from your influence. (As if they are small children in need of such protection.) 4) There is one instance (at least) where a misunderstanding occurred due to the fact that your level of intelligence is higher compared to most people. When you said that your step mom is relying on faulty/subjective information by relying completely on what your sister said to determine that you "made" her call your mom and that you "cannot accept a teenager’s interpretation of a conversation as a fact", I'm sure you didn't mean that as an attack on your sister or brother. I think you simply meant to say that it isn't fair to come to conclusions about something you had done or said without taking into consideration your side of the story and without taking into consideration the possibility that your sister (or brother) might have misunderstood what you said. Unfortunately you expressed yourself in a somewhat abstract and conceptual manner which was probably not within your step mom’s capacity to grasp. (I don't mean that as an insult to her. I am not saying she is stupid, I am just saying that she is probably not as intelligent as you are.) When you say that you "cannot accept a teenagers interpretation of a conversation as a fact" you mean precisely what you say. ("Interpreting" something "wrongly" simply means that the person hasn't understood you. In effect you are saying that it is a misunderstanding.) But how would someone who hasn't leant to use words and concepts with a high degree of precision comprehend that? Do you think that the precise definition of the word "interpret" will be at the back of their mind? I don't think so. It's likely that they’ll consider it an indirect attack on the competence and truthfulness of your brother/sister! (Maybe the fact that English is not your stepmother’s first language was also a factor) This misunderstanding on the part of your stepmother probably made you very angry and that showed through in the next email you wrote to her. That in turn made your step mom think that you don't have any respect for adults. 5) From what you say I am not so sure that your father is as "submissive" as you think he is. Maybe he is just being tactful. And given how insecure your step mom is, he probably has reason to be. For example, in the sandwich example you gave if your dad had not done what your step mom asked him to do, she might have blown it out of proportion and started a fight. It's much easier for your dad to ask your brother to throw away the sandwich than to start a fight with your step mom. And given the negative atmosphere any argument between your step mom and dad would cause, that's probably in the best interest of your brother too! Maybe he makes you apologize to your step mom for the same reason. Maybe it isn't necessarily because he thinks she is right and you are wrong but because he thinks that the best "solution" for the problem would be for you to apologize regardless of who is right or wrong. 6) I think you (probably) became extremely angry at your step mom for suggesting that your mother doesn't have much of an interest in keeping in touch with your brother and sister and for blaming your mother for the fact that your siblings are in boarding school. That anger probably showed through in your second email and that in turn probably made your step mom think that you are rude. I don't think it is right for your step mom to be critical of your mother to you. (Regardless of whether what she is saying is true or false) She is acting very immature in this instance. My suggestions - Don't talk to your stepmother about things that she has no right interfering in, like things that are strictly between you and your brother and sister. Don't try to justify yourself on such matters because firstly your not obliged to do so and secondly, given how irrational she is on certain issues it would be pointless anyway. On the other hand don't be "rude". Don't tell her "I am not talking about this to you because it is between me and my sister". (She’ll take that as being rudeness to an adult and as a way of questioning her place in the family.) Just listen to whatever she says and don't answer anything. (Think of it as putting up with a lousy boss!!!) If she writes an email to you about such a matter, don't send a reply. After some time write her an email about other things in life as if you never read the email she sent you. The precise method you should use to deal with such situations will not be as simple as the way I described above, but I hope you get the idea. Don't explain things when you know it'll be counter productive to do so, be tactful to a reasonable extent, keep in mind that she is probably insecure and make reasonable allowances for that etc. It will probably be in your best interest if you do whatever she tells you whenever you visit your dad. This probably wouldn't be that difficult because you don't stay there permanently. As a way of patching things up, I think it is a good idea to just “apologize” without really apologizing as suggested by JMeganSnow. You can say something like “I am sorry that you were hurt by the things I said”. Hope you can find a way to be on friendly terms with your step mom. All the best.

The result 0.9999~ = 1 is very counter intuitive. The reason for this counter intuitiveness is a quirk that arises out of the manner in which concept of infinity has been used. Infinity comes into play here because the term 0.9999~ means that 0 is followed by a decimal point which is in turn followed by an infinite number of 9s. If X = 0.9999~ then how can X equal 1 no matter how many 9s are placed to the right of the decimal point? Isn't that impossible? But the fact that no amount of 9s being appended to the end of X can make it equal to 1 becomes irrelevant since the number of 9s in X is thought of as being "infinite". Infinity is not a number. Infinity is not an "amount" in the ordinary sense. A method of representing this result which is not counter intuitive can be devised. Let Y be the number where 0 is followed by the decimal point which is in turn followed by n digits of 9.(n is an integer) Then, Y = 0.999..repeating n times. Now X (0.9999~) can be expressed as: X = LIMIT(n--->infinity) Y X = LIMIT(n--->infinity) 0.999..repeating n times The following result will not be counter intuitive : [LIMIT(n--->infinity)0.999..repeating n times] = 1 Basically it would not be proper to say that (0.9999..repeating n times) will equal 1 when n is infinite. (This is what the result 0.9999~ = 1 would imply.) What we should say is : As n approaches infinity (0.9999..repeating n times) approaches 1. {This is what [LIMIT(n--->infinity)0.999....repeating n times]=1 would imply} The difference between these 2 ways of expressing the same result may seem merely semantic and trivial. But it isn’t. It relates to the proper manner of using the concept of infinity. One of the quotations of this website (OO.net) would be relevant: I protest against the use of infinite magnitude as something completed, which in mathematics is never permissible. Infinity is merely a facon de parler, the real meaning being a limit which certain ratios approach indefinitely near, while others are permitted to increase without retriction. --Carl Friedrich Gauss http://quotes.rationalmind.net/random.php?...iedrich%20Gauss

Another proof: 1/3 = 0.3333....repeating Multiplying both sides by 3: 1 = 3*(0.3333...repeating) 1 = 0.99999...repeating

I am withdrawing everything I said in post number 45. (Quoted above) My mistake was the fact that I "visualized" and assigned significance to the last element of an infinite sequence of digits of 9. An infinite sequence doesn't have an end point and therefore it would not be proper to give significance to such a nonexistent endpoint and subject it to arithmetic operations.

This is a correction of an error in my previous post. The quotation above contains that error. The first occurence of the word "right" should be replaced by the word "left". Then the corrected form will be given below - Therefore if X = 0.99999....repeating....9999 ___then, 10X = 9.99999....repeating....9990 As in all cases where a number is multiplied by 10, all digits are shifted to the left by one position and the right most non zero digit is replaced by a 0.

The basic error here is that the concept "repeating" (In the way you have used it) cannot mean the same thing for both X and 10X. That error led to the wrong result 9X = 9. The correct value for 9X can be expressed as: 9X = 8.9999....repeating....9991 Consider X = 0.9999.......repeating. What the words "repeating" means in this case is that 9 is repeated continuously without end. Now can the word "repeating" mean the same thing in 10X = 9.9999...repeating? The number of times the digit 9 is used has to be the same in the numeric value of X and in the numeric value of 10X. In the case of X all the digits of 9 are to the right of the decimal point. In the case of 10X one of the digits of 9 are to the left of the decimal point and the rest of the digits of 9 are to the right of the decimal point. Hence, the numeric representation of 10X will have one digit of 9 less to the right of the decimal point than the numeric representation of X. So if X = 0.9999....repeating Then 10X = 9.9999....repeating(once less than the number of repetitions above for X) However many digits of 9 there are to the right of the decimal point in X, 10X will have one digit of 9 less than that to the right of its decimal point. This issue can be illustrated effectively by "harmonizing" the way the word "repeating" is used in the case of X and 10X. This can be done by shifting the word "repeating" from the end of the numbers to the middle in such a way that the left most digits are also emphasized. Also the following examples should be taken into consideration when deciding how the representation of 10X is to be determined. If Y = 0.99 then 10Y = 9.90 (10Y is not equal to 9.99) Also, if Z = 0.9999 then 10Z = 9.9990 (10Z is not equal to 9.9999) Therefore if X = 0.99999....repeating....9999 ___then, 10X = 9.99999....repeating....9990 As in all cases where a number is multiplied by 10, all digits are shifted to the right by one position and the right most non zero digit is replaced by a 0. Now, the value of 9X can be calculated as given below - _9.9999....repeating....9990 - 0.9999....repeating....9999 ---------------------------------------- _8.9999....repeating....9991 Therefore 9X = 8.9999....repeating....9991 When you divide 8.9999....repeating....9991 by 9 you get exactly 0.9999....repeating....9999. Hence X = 0.9999....repeating....9999. (Please note that the underscore character was used 3 times to achieve the desired alignment.)

The word "voluntary" is redundant in the term "voluntary charity". There is no such thing called "involuntary charity". Would it be possible for someone who is unable to be productive to initiate force on others who have the ability to be productive? I think it would be accurate to say that nobody has the right to initiate force on someone else in the name of those who are unable to be productive. In a capitalist society, anyone who seeks to help those who are unable to produce values will be expected to do so using whatever values they themselves produce. Initiating force is not something that comes effortlessly. It requires a lot of purposeful activity. When a person depends for his survival on somebody else who continuously devotes his time, effort and energy towards forcibly acquiring values, is that person really free of the need for charity? In other words would it be correct to say that a person is free of the need for charity in a socialist or semi-socialist society? The only difference between capitalism and socialism in this case is that in a capitalist society, an individual unable to produce values will depend on the real charity of producers while in a socialist society he will depend on the fake "charity" of the looters. (Looters are those who forcibly acquire the values created by productive men.) There is no reason to suspect that the fake charity of the looter is less likely to be withdrawn than the real charity of the producer. Therefore there is no reason to suspect that those who are genuinely unable to produce values are going to be worse off in a capitalist society.