musenji

Because if you see something he built, and you don't immediately gasp in wonder and awe with full understanding of the meaning of his work, you are clearly an evil non-thinker!

Though the Breaking Bad one was much longer. ...The gf just got past chapter 1 in part 3 of the book, so we may be seeing I and II together soon. Surprisingly, II is playing in my theater this time! (My city only has 50k people.)

..Breaking bad? How about the number one movie on the imdb? (And my personal favorite)

Dante, I agree with your point entirely--except in a graded system like school where, by definition, some have to get low grades compared to others' high grades. What would colleges do if everyone had a 4.0 and really understood all the material? How would they select their students? I suppose you could argue that if demand went up, supply would go up. Well, what would happen if all those students went to college and succeeded--graduated with flying colors, in relevant degrees, so that everyone was qualified for a white collar job? I'm not incredibly attached to the argument I'm making--I'm very open to a rebuttal--but if everyone suddenly got all the good benefits out of school and were highly qualified...who would mop the floors? Who would do the jobs that are low-paying and pretty much crappy?

Now if the person was near suicide ANYWAY, and they saw that you valued life and they thought you were doing good things, then it's pretty plausible imo. But that's not a stranger. They'd have to know you. Maybe that's unrealistic though, because when a person sees someone that inspires them, they probably want to live life...

SA, I wonder what happened in that scene, after they were the only three left. It seems completely unrealistic that at that point they'd all just go their own separate ways without saying anything to each other.

The idea would be that the "mind" of the book would be the words/ideas contained therein, and the "body" would be the book itself. There would be no dichotomy between the two, and as such, somehow "disrespecting" the book would thereby disrespect the words and the author. In Finding Forrester, the title character rebukes his pupil for dog-ear-ing a page in a book: "Show a little respect for the author!" [edit] corrected grammar

This may seem like a superficial question, but it runs a bit deeper. Just now, I tied my shoes, placing them upon my hardcover copy of Atlas Shrugged, because it was laying on a coffee table and it provided the most convenient height at the moment. I wonder, would you (the individual reader) consider this as a sign of disrespect for the author? I first thought, well, the importance of the book is in the words themselves. But then I thought of the false mind-body dichotomy, and wondered if that idea, of mind and body being one, would/could apply to physical objects. Does it matter if a copy of Atlas Shrugged ends up being beat-up, if the words are still in immaculate condition? Is the sign of truly loving a book the fact that it is well-preserved, or that it is well-worn due to being used so much? Does the "lack of mind-body dichotomy" apply? By the way, no damage or mess was done to my book. :-) And I'm aware one can own two copies of the book--that's besides the point!

Yeah, saying "You're wrong, but I forgive you" pretty much makes anyone sound like a *insert expletive*.

It looks way, way better than I was expecting. But then, they said they were spending 10 times more on advertising, right? I imagine this movie doesn't have CG effects or scenes to nearly the degree that the first did, because you don't have to show the John Galt Line, and therefore it's possible to make it more cheaply. The scream in the last one made me cringe because it certainly hadn't been built up to, and seemed almost humorously melodramatic in context. I hope there's nothing like that in this one. *taggart tunnel collapse*

At first I thought it was just a palette swap of Summer, but I was wrong.

Do you have examples of this? Have you run into it a lot? I'm probably an example...I'm a janitor, working for minimum wage...but I got a 1460 on my SATs and I left college with a 3.82 GPA, mainly due to psychological issues. (Part of it was alienation from everyone around me, which I kind of chose, because I was a hard-core Rand subscriber who thought that lots of people I interacted with were "evil".)

So, I should not take the word of my supervisor who assured me I won't have any problems as long as I'm getting the job done? And if I were to get in trouble later, I couldn't quote that? My fear is that this is simply how the system works, this is how my boss wants to run things, and if I try to bring it up, the hammer will fall down on me even though it's what everyone else does as well. My boss tends to only communicate the bare minimum, or even less, than is necessary. I don't see him being willing to take the time to write out a verbal statement, and there's the risk that if this isn't how he is supposed to be running things, I'll get the hammer so that he doesn't look culpable. Another fact that might be relevant is that my boss has to initial my timesheet before I can be paid. I don't know if that makes a legal difference. Morally speaking (and to clear up how I feel about it conscience-wise), so...I did take close to 4 hours to finish the job when I started working there, because I didn't push myself as hard, and I was less organized and efficient. Why should I be paid less for becoming more efficient, if I'm still doing a good job (and even adding tasks to the job)? On a side note, I have a very strong feeling that my boss would not give me a raise that is proportional to how much less time I'm spending. On another side note, I have asked the boss of the company we clean for, if there was anything I could improve upon, and he said no, I'm doing a --great-- job. [edit] Another factor is that I sometimes do tasks outside of the time that I'm spending to clean the buildings. For example, one of the buildings requires a special cleaning solution, and I go drive and get that myself, because I know if I leave it to my boss, I won't get it in time. From my experience and the word of my supervisors, when you count on him to get something, it will take a while. (The company does pay for the solution via account, just so you know I'm not spending my money on that...but I am spending gas and time.) I also purchase my own cleaning gloves. And instead of asking for more rags, I clean the rag I use, at home, to save them money on that. On several occasions I have done fix-it solutions outside of work for work-related things. All of this would have to be reported individually and would make the payment process much more complicated than just treating it as a flat rate, and I have been told by the secretary that she likes to keep it as simple as possible, and it's clear my boss does as well. You guys are right that the only way I'll feel truly better about this is to get it in writing, but I just don't see that happening. I get the impression my boss wants to communicate as little as possible. I apologize if it looks like I'm posting with confirmation bias, I just wanted to fill in the rest of my thoughts on, and facts regarding, the situation.

Okay, this is really long, because it includes details to help "suss out" the situation. So if you don't have time, don't bother. It regards a legal/moral issue at work. If someone does read it and knows where it properly goes, feel free to move it, though I am as interested in people's opinion of the morality of my situation, as I am in their thoughts on the legality. I was hired as a janitor for a building service company. The company has the janitors fill out timesheets. I was told at the beginning by my boss that it was a 4-hour job or "schedule". I was trained by a supervisor who, when showing me how to fill out the timesheet, said to just fill out 4 hours every day, and if I finished earlier, good for me. She also said "don't tell the boss, our secret". Oddly enough, when the boss said it would take from 6 to 10, she said "eh, 6 to 9", and he just said "oh". He didn't seem to mind that she had just contradicted him on how long the job took. I called him once to ask a question about going in later, but at first he thought I was asking if I could go home early, because he said "Yeah, if you get done early you can just go home." Now, I think he has to know that people wouldn't finish in the same amount of time every single day, and that people would get faster over time. So maybe he's fine with people signing the full time on the sheet even if they get done faster. Or, maybe he's negligent--he didn't even tell me how to get timesheets, in the first place. I had to ask if I was supposed to be reporting time, in order to get a sheet in the first place. There were many other things where I had to doggedly ask about something to get a response, but that came later. Anyway... I wrote a memo to him, which I turned in along with my first timesheet. In the memo I told him that it was my understanding based on what I could gather, that the nightly rate was a "flat rate" of 4 hours, based on a satisfactory job, regardless of whether it actually took more or less time. I said that I was taking less than 4 hours, but was adding some tasks to fill in time. And I said that if my understanding about the timesheets was incorrect, to tell me, because I wanted to make sure I was doing the right thing. I never heard back about the memo. This could mean three things: 1. He didn't get the memo (perhaps the secretary threw it away). 2. He got the memo and I was correct, it's considered a flat rate. 3. He got the memo, and is letting me THINK that I was correct, either because that's how he runs the system (my paychecks don't reduce his), or because he wants to be able to blackmail me later, if I decide to leave the company (ie "no, you're staying with us, or you're going to jail.") I had noticed that at the bottom of the timesheets it said "I certify or declare under penalty of perjury that the time on this sheet is true and correct." I optimistically chose to assume number 2. I even told someone at the building I clean at, that I worked for a flat rate. In January I was given a second building to clean at, due to the good job I was doing at the first building. I had received numerous compliments at my first building. As soon as I started the second, I received compliments there as well. Around Feb or March, my boss and I were talking about my obtaining supplies, and he decided I'd pick something up when I turned in my timesheet, and he asked at the end of the call, "hey are you using all of your time at your first building?" Now I hadn't comprehended the question right off, and said "What?" and he said "never mind, just come in with your timesheet." I didn't realize what he'd asked till after we were off the phone. I printed a second memo, re-iterating my understanding about the timesheets, including the fact that I had continued to become more efficient, and did not take the whole time to clean, but had received many compliments on the quality of my work. When I brought it in, I talked to the secretary about the whole situation, and she said she could give it to him, but then I said I'd rather give it to him myself and talk in person to be sure, and she said she could at least mention it, and I said okay. She said as far as she's concerned, I could "take my time" because the math is easier for her if I don't report weird times. I got a call from the supervisor at my second building, who said that I could talk to her about anything that I would talk to the boss about. I explained the whole situation to her, and she said that as long as I was doing my job and the building users were satisfied, I would not have any problems from her or my boss, with me signing the full time. She said, like the other supervisor, that if I got done early, and I did a good job, good for me. And she didn't say "keep it a secret". Due to this, I felt much better, and never did bring in the second memo. I didn't want to disturb my boss unnecessarily. A short time later, the wording of the timesheet declaration changed to "I certify or declare that this timesheet is true and correct". Now. Why would they switch the declaration's wording? Perhaps to reflect that the sheet does not necessarily reflect exact times, but rather the work put in? I considered it possible that due to my concern, they changed the wording. However, I still feel uncomfortable signing for that full time, knowing that all I have to go by is my supervisor's word and the fact that my boss never contacted me regarding my first memo. Am I right to think that legally, unless I have specific record of these conversations, and proof that my boss got the memo (which I do not), I am legally culpable, and if I wanted to leave the company, he could blackmail me into staying, or just decide to screw me over? (I don't imagine he would want to while I'm still working for them, because I'm doing a great job, so why ruin a good employee.) Do you know of any situations where timesheets are used where it's a tangible job completion and you can just sign for the full time? If so, really what's the point of the timesheets? Just to keep track of the value of the job that was agreed upon? Do you need more details? Basically what I really want to know is whether I'm safe in this situation--and if I'm not, how I can become safe. I don't want to have the risk of going to jail, and getting, well, physically violated--for reporting full time even though I was told I could/should do so.

You mean talking to Eddie, brian0918? ;-)

Okay, but you shouldn't have implied that the consequence is always death.

Maybe replace the word "dies" with "suffers in some way", since he later referenced jail as something that irrational people sometimes avoid--and jail is not death. I agree that there is an inconsistency. [edit] I think the "boom, he dies" bit was a bit of an emotional exaggeration. Let me be corrected if I'm wrong!

I worked at a Starbucks kiosk, and feel it is my duty to inform you that that IS the recipe for a cappucino in a Starbucks handbook. Cappucinos at Starbucks are, by definition, espresso plus 1/2 the remaining space filled with steamed milk, and the other half filled with foam. What you are looking for is a latte, defined as espresso plus all filled with steamed milk, less a 3/4 inch "cap" of foam. I only ever had one complaint about the cappucino. Interestingly it was from an African American who probably thought I was being racist and jerking him out of his money, because iirc I told him that was how it was supposed to be, and he left and came back with a very angry Caucasian woman demanding that I remake the drink. I told her that was how it was supposed to be, but okay, I'd remake it. (I would've remade it for him if he'd only asked me. The situation smacked of him bringing her back because "maybe I would listen to a white lady." I hate to think that, by remaking the drink at her demand, I "confirmed" the suspicion.)

I have recently purchased a laptop, and enjoy going to my local coffee shop and getting a coffee, sitting down and using the free wifi that they provide. Now, technically it's not free because I'm purchasing a coffee. I have wondered whether I am purchasing "enough" to make up for my use of the wifi, but that is not the primary issue, and I'm not seeking advice on that count. As a result of my wondering, I've read a few blog posts on general coffee shop etiquette. I am interested in reading a variety of opinions on what does or does not constitute proper etiquette in a coffee shop. This does include use of wifi, but is not limited to it. I'm just interested in the perspectives of people here. And, if you have any pet peeves or funny stories, this is the place to share!

Yeah, I of course assume that if she knows the story, she's messing with me.

We just finished the first chapter of part II. Recalling the disappearing producers, she said, "gee, I bet they're going to form their own secret utopia." in a mocking voice. Anyone call this one too? Makes me wonder whether she already knows.

So I'm reading Atlas Shrugged with my girlfriend, who has never read Rand before. We got past part I, and we're reading Part II, Chaper 1, The Man Who Belonged on Earth...and she guessed that Galt was the inventor of the motor. It happened when Stadler said that he knew a John Galt once, and he'd had a mind that, had he lived, the whole world would've been talking about him by now. She said, "I bet John Galt was the inventor of the motor." Did any of you guess it at this point, or some other point in the book before Galt actually appeared in person? I don't remember guessing it. *** On a side note, at the part where Dagny was sitting in the John Galt Line office, and Galt almost entered, and she saw his shadow...my gf thought it was Rearden, since he was harboring sexual/romantic thoughts about Dagny at the time but "didn't dare entertain them". It had never occurred to me that it might be Rearden, but it makes total sense. (I also forgot that Dagny had asked him, later, whether it was him.) *** Just before the part where Dagny asks Stadler about the motor, it also mentioned that Stockton had been talking to a man deep into the night, right before he quit. I wonder how long it will be before my girlfriend guesses that that's Galt as well, and that Galt is the one talking to Eddie in the cafeteria. (Reportedly, Nathaniel Branden guessed that Galt was the worker, due to some juxtaposition in one of the exchanges, I forget which one.)

It's a good bring-up, CC. The kind of game-playing this woman describes in her article would not only apply to romantic relationships, but also any relationship, especially ones where power is an issue. More on why girls tend to run from guys who compliment them: "Some insane people only need the slightest amount of communication with somebody before they assure themselves they are in love." -from reddit

I know I just railed against people who can only quote Rand's work, but this did occur to me: How many times did Roark compliment Dominique before they had sex? How many times did Galt or Rearden compliment Dagny before they had sex? I may be wrong, but I think the answer to all of these is zero. Francisco did compliment Dagny once, but it was only after she asked him (why he liked her), thereby showing the first deference.

I'm going to limit my involvement to addressing this one statement, as this thread is a huge can of worms to me.. Objectivism rejects faith, but this does not preclude the possibility of self-proclaimed Objectivists or students of Objectivism taking some of Rand's assertions on faith. It doesn't even make it all that much less likely. Rand gives such reasoned responses that it is possible for a person to claim they have thought the issues through for themselves, while merely parroting her in a more complex fashion. One sign to look for with this latter possibility, would be someone who, having read Rand's works, would find it impossible to genuinely process works by other writers or philosophers. Of course this is expressed as "everyone else [excepting the few writers Rand lauded, in the specific way she lauded them, or writers who sound exactly like Rand] is trash". Another sign would be how much a person relies on quoting Rand herself when answering questions on any topic. This comes out as "She said it better than I can say it, so why shouldn't I quote her?" Obviously it's okay to quote in certain contexts, but I have seen people who seem to be able to do nothing else!