Eternal

I never contested that economic freedoms are greater in the U.S., than in Europe, so you may be the one missing my point. The simplest analogy I can come up is that the U.S. = Republican Party, while Europe = Democratic Party. Republicans don't get the idea behind separation of church and state, while Democrats just can't understand separation of economy and state. I still vote Republican, because I don't mind censorship and legislature based on Christian mythology as much, as I mind people raising my taxes.

Actually, the design stage would be a perfect opportunity to plan the features that would distinguish your software from somebody else's. Those are the features I'm asking you to point out. So far you only mentioned cost, but I'm sure you must have more than that in mind. If you are reluctant to disclose the features, because you fear somebody else (like Microsoft) may steal your idea, then never mind.

I believe the way this show works is the TV Station gives you $50000 to spend on the other family at the end of your 1 week stay. If you read the caption at the end of the second video, you can see what a hypocrite that lunatic was...

Wasn't slavery legal during that "foundation on individual" rights? I may be wrong on this one, but wasn't slavery abolished in Europe way before it was in the U.S.? (example of was) Also - the last time I checked, gay marriage was legalized in 3 countries in Europe, while the opposite's going on in the U.S. (example of now) What I mean is that our "moral" government just can't wait to tell you what you can and cannot watch on your TV/computer, through Obsenity Laws (read censorship). It still beats the American Taliban... I on the other hand support drug legalization, because I hate seeing my tax money being wasted on a worthless pursuit. Again - I would never go back to Europe - I prefer to live in the U.S., that is the main reason I immigrated here. But when it comes to individual rights, Europe has always been one step ahead...

You gotta feel for the kids... http://www.break.com/articles/tradingspouses.html http://www.break.com/articles/tradingspouses2.html

Don't get me wrong - I hate Europe's socialist tendencies, but I still believe Europe with EU, is better off than Europe without EU. Yes, but the upholding of individual rights in the U.S. is not so black and white as it would seem. Just look at the recent Gay Marriage bans, or the War on Pornography. I'm actually glad there's still Europe, because webmasters of websites which are not up to the "American Taliban" standards, will have a safe-haven to move their server content to. Not to mention the Stem Cell research issues, or even legalizing drugs - you just can't beat Europe's prevalent secularism. Appart from the conveninence of the single currency those would be the only two, but IMO that's better than the alternative of not even having those.

The problem with the real sex offenders (pedophiles, rapists) is that in the vast majority of cases they are incurable. Putting them back into the society is quite pointless, and I've actually read somewhere that the fact that they are being ostracized makes it even worse (it's almost impossible for them to get a good job, all their neighbors know what they did). If I was a parent, I sure wouldn't want any of them living anywhere near my family. You never know when one may snap. And the satelite tracking won't be of much help, if he decides to snatch a kid and kill it within a few minutes. So what's the solution? Until a method is developed, which guarantess 100% success rate in curing them (some sort of neurological castration), I'm afraid the only way to keep everyone else safe, is to keep them locked up.

Just a thought - why not gradually lower user's warning level after a certain amount of time has passed? Sort of like the penalty point system on your driver's licence - as long as you're driving safely, the points you've already gained are slowly being deducted. Didn't Ayn Rand say something to the effect of "rewarding the Good is much important than punishing the Evil". Seems to me that gradually lowering user's warning level as long as they "drive safe" would go in the spirit of that statement.

I'm just looking at your program from customer's point of view. Why as a customer would I want to use it over MS Word? You're writing your own software, so clearly you think you have some advantages/improvements over your competition. I'm just curious to see what those advantages are.

How about pointing out advantages of your program over MS Word?

Mel Brook's "Men In Tights" - parody is my favorite type of comedy, and this is a great spoof of the original. I like "Family Guy" for the same reason.

I actually don't mind the EU. Sure - there are a lot of downsides, but in the end, I think that the good outweighs the bad. Economically EU will be much stronger, than individual countries, and thus give them a chance at eventually being able to compete with China's or US's. Plus you no longer have to worry about crossing the borders. In a way it's like United States of Europe... It's not true. Just because it's 12 doesn't automatically make it related to 12 Apostles. Same goes for the number of hours in the day, or months in a year, or inches in a foot...

To avoid confusion, the following entry: North America (excluding USA) should be changed to either : Canada/Mexico or at least North America (excluding USA) But then again, you might end up with people from USA voting for Other...

google objectivist forum and this site is the first one on the list, that's how I ended up here...

I'm an engineer myself. I got my B.S. in Electrical Engineering, and then followed up with M.S. in Electrical Engineering as well. I graduated last year, so I can give you a few pointers, with pretty recent information. Why pick engineering? I always liked math/physics in high-school, so when it was time for college, I figured I'll probably end up majoring in math or physics. Howerver, once I started looking at the course work, I realized the whole math/physics deal was a little too theoretical for me. Not only that - the second problem was getting a job once you graduate, and a job that pays well. It is then, that I discovered that Engineering may be the ideal combination - the only question was which field of Engineering. I ended up picking Electrical Engineering, because I was always fascinated with electronics. As a kid I've taken apart more Radios/TV Sets/Computers that I can remember. C. Clarke once said that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - so in a way Electrical Engineers are modern-day "wizards". I should also mention, that I considered going into Programming (Computer Science), but in the end decided against it. Here's the reason why: I classify majors as Library Majors, and Classroom Majors. Unfortunatelly Computer Science is a Library Major (my opinion only). What do I mean by Library Major? You can learn the subject on your own, just by going to the library - there's really no need for school. Engineering on the other hand is a Classroom major. There's a lot of hands-on labs involved, with some pretty expensive equipment - so unless you enroll, you can forget about mastering the major. In the end I went to school for Electrical Engineering, and ended up picking programming on my own as a hobby - and I think I did a pretty good job, being that I do a lot of Embedded Programming these days. I had a number of friends majoring in Computer Science (my roomate was actually one of them), and most of them did the Math double major, because it only required a few extra classes - so if you plan on sticking to Computer Science, I strongly urge you to look into that - it may be worth it. As far as the curriculum, both Computer Science majors, and Engineering majors had the same courses during the first year, and then it slowly started to diverge during sophomore year (but my Computer Science friends were still in most of my classes) - it's only starting in your Junior year, that Engineering classes really take off. Computer Science majors take much more Math courses than Engineering majors - the furthest we got was Differential Equations, and Probability and Statistics, but at the same time we did more Physics than Computer Science people. A few notes regarding Physics vs. Math, as when it applies to Engineering. Forget Physics - as somebody correctly pointed out in this thread before, as an engineer you only use the most fundamental physics concepts - it's Math that really helps you deal with problems. And not some boring "proof math" either - we're talking the "interesting" math - Fourier Analysis will become your friend forever. Actually if I had done anything different in my path of study, it would be taking more Math courses as an undergrad - especially Discrete Mathematics, because it's indispensable when you're working in digital domain. The nice thing about majoring in Engineering, is that you will get to do a little in any path of engineering, no matter what major you picked. Even though I was an Electrical Engineer, I got to play around with some Chemical Engineering, do some Mechanical Engineering, and take some required Programming courses as well, not to mention Math and Physics. And I have two Electrical Engineering friends who ended up working for big banks, because of their good Systems backgrounds. Also - don't forget that Engineering majors are very flexible - because they allow you to focus on specific Concentrations that you enjoy towards the end. EE is one of the toughest majors out there, so it clearly shows that I you are capable of learning. So here's my advice. First of all - no matter what you do - don't forget one fundamental truth. Most employers couldn't care less about how many majors/minors you have. What they care about is, whether you are capable of doing the job, or at least learning to do the job. That is one reason, why instead of wasting my time taking 100 classes a semester, to satisfy dual major requirements, I only ended up sticking to my original major. Instead, once junior year started, and I was able to start taking a lot of evening classes, I found an entry position in my field. Initially I was doing crap-work, because I didn't know enough - but I learned, and I learned fast, and while some of my buddies were starting to look for a job after getting their B.S., I already had a full-time position, and a title of an Engineer in my company, with 2 years of experience. Always opt for getting more experience, as opposed to more courses.

"Behold the Power of Eternal."

I have seen the movie only recently, and I really enjoyed it. The movie brings up some interesting questions, but I doubt it would be classified as an "Objectivist" movie, because the main character commits suicide at the very end.

I've just found this forum a week ago, and from my 'newbie experience', I do see how posting on here can be intimidating. I went through a few older threads, and did notice people being painfully proven wrong or foolish. Not that I mind, if anything - it makes me think twice before actually posting something. I do consider myself lucky for not being taken as a troll when I posted my first question about Objectivism, but got useful responses instead. My only reservation regarding the forum is that members do not post that often, but I'll take quality over quantity at any time. Overall, I do enjoy it here.

1. Ayn Rand (100%) Click here for info 2. Aristotle (93%) Click here for info 3. Kant (81%) Click here for info 4. Nietzsche (77%) Click here for info 5. Aquinas (70%) Click here for info 6. Jean-Paul Sartre (70%) Click here for info 7. David Hume (70%) Click here for info 8. John Stuart Mill (67%) Click here for info 9. Thomas Hobbes (65%) Click here for info 10. Jeremy Bentham (64%) Click here for info 11. Spinoza (64%) Click here for info 12. Plato (63%) Click here for info 13. Stoics (60%) Click here for info 14. Epicureans (60%) Click here for info 15. Cynics (57%) Click here for info 16. Ockham (55%) Click here for info 17. St. Augustine (55%) Click here for info 18. Prescriptivism (46%) Click here for info 19. Nel Noddings (29%) Click here for info 1a med 2b med 3f med 4d med 5b med 6b med 7a med 8c med 9a med 10c high 11c high 12b high

I'm sure it has something to do with the fact that the edges are modeled as semicircles. This way if you know the length of the material used to create the rounded edge, you can figure out the thickness, and the other way around. The only way to do it is with some pie...

At first I thought that the following statement is false: 0.999~ = 1 But after going through the posts, I now see that it is true, not only in the limit sense 0.999~ + d = 1 d = 1 - 0.999~ in order for the original statement to be true, we must have: d = 0 but instead we can see that d will be 0.00000000~1, but we will NEVER reach that 1 at the very end, so d is indeed 0

What I'm getting from some of the posts, is that Objectivism states that one can be objective, despite subjective factors, because one can compensate for those unwanted influences, using reason? I've actually started reading "Attlas Shrugged" recently (one of the reasons I'm not spending too much time on this forum just yet - because I've come accross a few spoilers - and I'd like to finish the book first). I wouldn't have even heard about Objectivism, if it wasn't for Terry Goodkind's books. His "Faith of the Fallen" is what got me really interested in the whole philosophy behind the books, and then I heard Ayn Rand's name mentioned in one of his interviews.

Thanks. I like the refutal, even though it may be frowned upon as a trick (even though it's perfectly reasonable). So let me go further with this. I see, Felix, that you mention "knowledge" and "emotions" (feelings) in your post - and I may be wrong, but it looks to me like those are key concepts in this context. Would I be correct in claiming that "knowledge" is objective, while "emotions" are subjective? In which case how would I counter somebody stating that individual's perception of objective "knowledge" can be clouded by subjective "emotions"? Is there a formal Objectivist definition for "emotions", and "knowledge"? Also - forgive me if I say anything that sounds totally absurd, - as I've stated earlier I am a complete beginner, when it comes to Objectivism, and philosophy in general. Winning arguments, is not my ultimate goal, but I would like to be able to defend my life's philosophy.

Hi I'm new to the forum, and would love to learn enough about objectivism, to be able to win some debates with my friends. I like what objectivism stands for - I like the stress on reason, as opposed to faith. But in discussions with my friends, they often shoot down objectivism, by stating, that believing we, as humans can be objective is a non-sense. In other words - since our perception of the world is subjective, how can we be objective? How can I refute that? Thanks