Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

order

Regulars
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About order

  • Rank
    Novice
  • Birthday 06/09/1980

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    NewYork
  • Real Name
    Matthew Chancellor

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    airmattc
  • Website URL
    http://mattchancellor.blogspot.com
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    New York City
  1. I don't think either of the options you present are worthwhile. Should the World Trade Center be privatized? Yes. The state has no business owning property in this manner. However, the state will never give up the WTC. It was and will be a tremendous source of income. Should we argue about what is to be done with the site? No. Any public action with regard to the site would be an infringement on the rights of Larry Silverstein. Larry Silverstein paid 3.2 billion dollars for a 99 year lease-hold on the World Trade Center. For all intents and purposes, the site belongs to him. The Port Authority gets their rent check every month, and Silverstein is responsible for everything else. He was responsible for managing the site in its entirety. Despite the destruction of the towers, it’s still Silverstein’s responsibility to pay the ground rent. It’s his responsibility to collect the insurance from the destruction. And it’s his responsibility to use the insurance money to rebuild the site. Who, then should decide what goes on that site? Grieving friends and families of victims? Residents of New York City? The city and state of New York? A New York Times poll? Americans west of the Hudson? Objectivist activists? No. Silverstein is the only individual equipped to make the decisions about how to rebuild, and if there is going to be any activism with regard to the site, it should be to exclude public involvement. Roland Betts, chairman of the Ground Zero Site Committee for the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation said, “I’m not sympathetic to Silverstein. I just said, look, you see this as your property. We see this as belonging to the citizens of New York and of the world.” It is this attitude that we should be fighting. Just as a note to the whole aesthetic issue: Bigger, taller, better than ever, beautiful—all of these are not a primary concern. The WTC is an investment—a source of cashflow. Why do you think the PANYNJ leased it out? Why do you think Silverstein signed the lease? The site was poorly managed by the government. The rents were significantly below market. There was a great deal of money to be made. The rebuilding of the site should be focused on that end—maximizing rentable square footage and usability. Form will follow function.
  2. I have no idea what you’re talking about. There are days when the chlorine content of my water is so high, taking a shower is like swimming in a public pool. On your list of buildings to visit along with the Empire, check out the Chrysler Building right next to Grand Central. Ten blocks or so north of Grand Central are a couple more architecturally significant buildings in NYC. The Seagram Building at Park and 53rd is Mies Van der Rohe’s only building in the city. The Four Seasons Restaurant is in that building if you’re so inclined, but I prefer the relaxed atmosphere of the Brasserie on the north side of Seagram’s. Across the street is the Lever House.
  3. SpaceShipOne is able to feather its wings. This is a high-drag configuration that dramatically slows the ship and automatically orients it for re-entry. The Space Shuttle Orbiter, on the other hand, has no way to slow itself to such an extent. The orbiter re-enters the atmosphere at a much higher speed. The friction created by moving through the atmosphere at such a high speed is what produces the heat.
  4. Interesting. I had always read that it had everything to do with consumer interest. Admittedly, in the past I've never been all that interested in researching the specifics of the failure, but I'd be grateful if you can point me to some sources where I can read about that. Aside from FAA regulations, there also happens to be an unfortunate "it's always been done this way" attitude in general aviation that has limited innovation (although some blame can be placed on runaway lawsuits against aircraft manufacturers). The most popular general aviation aircraft, the Cessna 172, hasn't changed all that much in the past 50 years. The same is true for other small craft, like the Piper line of Cherokees. The exception that comes to mind is Cirrus Aircraft, which produces a similar size plane with a composite material hull, staggered wing, glass cockpit, and airframe parachute.
  5. I've been following the exploits of Burt Rutan ever since I discovered a plane he designed called the "Starship," which became one of my favorites. He's ahead of his time, and I have no doubt he will succeed. The Starship was made its maiden voyage in 1986 and was terminated in 1995 due to lack of interest. The aircraft design was apparently so radical at the time that very few were sold due to customer skepticism. The aircraft's advanced features included: Variable Geometry Canard Foreplanes - these elevators could be swept back in cruising flight for increase speed. The forward placement of the elevators also made impossible a stall of the main wings during climbs. Aft Facing Twin Engines - Facing aftward, the engines were able to be placed close together, thereby reducing asymmetric thrust in the event of a single engine failure. All Glass Cockpit - Keeping in mind this plane made its maiden voyage in 86, the all glass cockpit rivals avionics in today's new planes. Composite Material Hull - Way ahead of its time. Boeing is just now designing its first composite jetliner, the 7E7. Only 53 Starships were ever made. A starship can be seen in the background of photos in the article referenced above.
  6. I had no idea this actually happened and I couldn't believe it was true. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Bush supporter, but I would at least expect him to lie. I researched this, and as it turns out, yes, Bush senior said this in the late eighties. Didn't make you angry? In 1989, the Whitehouse's office position was stated as this: "As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government." And we have our government funding "faith-based" programs. Thomas Jefferson said, "History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." He must be--one would expect--rolling over in his grave. The actions and motives of today's politicians stand in such stark contrast to that of the founding fathers' its frightening. The fact that you're not outraged by a comment such as that is equally frightening.
  7. I don't use words like "a" and "the," but hey, whatever.
  8. In no particular order: 25th Hour Amadeus Dogma A Few Good Men Hamlet (Kenneth Branagh) Pleasantville Seabiscotti The Shawskank Redemption ...wait, that was alphabetical.
  9. It's disgusting things like this that make me wish Microsoft would close up shop: stop selling in Europe altogether. If they (the europeans) don't like the product the way it is, they don't have to buy it. Let them use Linux along with India.
  10. It's been at least a year since I've read Atlas Shrugged, so maybe I'm remembering it wrong. I do think, however, that I got the same impression of Eddie each time I read it. Eddie seemed to be a bit lacking in self-esteem and drive. That which he did have, seem to be siphoned from Dagny. I don’t mean to imply that he was leaching off her. Merely… inspired by her, if you will. He was perfectly capable of running the railroad himself, but why hadn’t he until Dagny handed it to him? Lack of passion?
  11. I was raised in a catholic family, but my parents were so passive about their religion, I was free to explore the nature of existence from the time I was mature enough to do so. By age 9, I had made a conscious and considered choice to be an atheist. My parents didn’t know about any of this until I was in my early teens Thankfully they had enough respect not to argue or try to change the fact.
  12. Hello, all. I'd like to be the first to welcome myself to the forum. Yay. I've been poking around for some time, but just last night decided I would register and participate. I'm a twenty-something living in midtown Manhattan and have been acquainted with Objectivism for roughly five years now. I don't consider myself a philosopher, or even a student of philosophy, objective or otherwise. What I do consider myself is intellectually proactive (but then, who isn't really?)--which is what brings me here. So, I hope to learn a lot from y’all. Should be fun. - Matt
×
×
  • Create New...