Nate

Return in the form of net worth and income are the standard for business qua buisness as the OP seems to be asking, but not a complete standard for success as a person. Aeqaulsa, I think you (may) have been more successful by this standard (business qua business) from last year to this. You just haven't properly valued (in explicit economics, clearly you see the value) your increase in Pc (production capability) . However, Pc can be hard to quantify. I obviously can't say for sure though if you have been more successful, since I don't know if you have positive or negative equity in this new equipment, how much your other equipment depreciated, how much your income actually increased and decreased, and whether or not your increased Pc was sufficient to offset negative factors. Edit: Ack, was reading & posting when you posted this. Agree, mostly. When you can no longer use it to make the company more profitable at a rate which exceeds the returns you could otherwise be earning in the market. In short, when returns exceed opportunity cost.

To clarify, when comparing streaming internet broadcasts to cd players, I'm assuming that some type of one-user-only control be in place. Think electronic library (but not to advocate or denounce absolutely). I'm not talking about, say, youtube.

DavidOdden, after reading your recent posts, recent interaction, and pondering that resulted from a live chat I had a few weeks ago, I concede that my previous conclusions regarding my moral condemnation of the viewers and posters of these clips were simplistic and erroneous. That being said ... You could use this same "you don't know what's best for yourself" argument for just about any kind of force. The ends don't justify the means. How would you respond if I said that I'm taking over your financial accounts whether you like it or not, that I'm a better investor, and that it will be better for you in the long run? My first thoughts were questions like "what is copying?" or "what is a copy?." Morally, the issue is ultimately "Have I acted in accordance with the copyright owner's intended contract?" In most cases, I think answering this question (have I acted...) elimates the need to answer that what-is's. Is its reasonable to assume that the copyright owner would be okay with someone broadcasting his content over the internet? I think this is overly simplistic. With the caveat that my understanding of how these devices function may not be 100% correct ... you could use this same argument to morally condemn playing DVDs via certain methods (DVD software?) or skip-protection on CD players... perhaps even playing a standard CD since the bits are "streamed" to the digital/analog converter. I don't see how this can't resolve without arbitrary standards on how much constitutes a copy (3 bytes? 2 frames?) or how temporary is temporary. The licensing agreement would determine what is "fair use" since, morally speaking, "fair use" is use with the owners consent. Anything else is force. As sNerd said... As an example of such a license, when you purchase an ARI lecture, your license includes up to you and one other simultaneous listener. Ideally, these licenses would be explicitly stated more frequently. Let's not assume, but there is often compelling evidence. and also ... For starters, you can look at who posted the video and consider the content. As an extreme example ... if the clip it contains copywritten material and was posted by JoeBlow, who has also posted a grainy copy of The Godfather and the most recent episode of American Idol, then I think its reasonable to conclude that he doesn't have permission. This is one possibility; the obvious downside is potential cost to the advertiser when others are willing to bear it. Another would be some kind of database license and verification system. After the license expires the material no longer plays. This could potentially be searchable by users / providers as well. Edit: Split thread?

Can you explain what you mean by successful?

I'll take a stab. Did you use "???" as a keyword because you didn't know what to put? Edit: If you click the bar on the very bottom of the ad window it takes you to a google landing page where there is a whole list of languages to choose from. English is not the default. Maybe there is some google adsense setting for language that is improperly set. Edit 2: "You can select your site's primary language during the application process. If you're approved, AdSense will serve relevant ads to your pages in the appropriate language, even if your site contains multiple supported languages." https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/...amp;ctx=sibling

I've seen the screenshots in one of the links on your blog. It looks very nice. I still haven't decided which version to buy.

Lately I've been considering upgrading to a multihead or large® monitor or both to increase my productivity. Any of you guys have any advice regarding this? My specific application is (mostly) office work that requires me to have multiple windows open at once. I think I might be wasting time, alt tab alt tab alt tab, but I suppose turning your head also takes time. For one monitor, any good autoresize/locate window programs out there?

TF +1 ... Archaic Manual Poll Count: TF 7 AS 1

Congrats on your 23rd orbit around the sun. Here's to you enjoying your 24th.

If you prefer, these books E:(I mentioned above)/E are likely available at your local library or bookstore. E: The wiki DavidOdden linked is another good source. Whoops, David blocked my attempt to "5-minute rule" add to my post! *shakes fist* /E

A simple list will not provide clarity or understanding. The most comprehensive works on Objectivism available are: Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Dr Leonard Peikoff or OPAR for short and in fiction, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand OPAR - http://www.aynrandbookstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=LP02B Atlas Shurgged - http://www.aynrandbookstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AR91B For introductory purposes, you can find several summaries of the philosophy in a variety of formats at the Ayn Rand Institue webpage. Here are links to some of them: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...vism_essentials http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...vism_audiovideo

As for the first ... ANYTHING can kill you given an adequate dose. As for the second, that claim is totally baseless. Please provide evidence that factories are the main source of health problems. As for the third, please provide such a study so its validity can be considered. You didn't answer the questions (what diseases, which "pollutant," how much, etc). What reason does someone have to question their validity? It depends. Who is they? What are they claiming? What is their evidence?

No, it is not evidence of absence. The aribtrary is not the same as the false. The arbitrary is not the same as the possible. The abitrary is outside of the field of human cognition. "Closed-minded" is an anti-concept. The good is "all that which is proper to the life of a rational being. All that destroys it is the evil." You are missing the distinction between the criminal (poltics) and the immoral (ethics). I never said thoughts could be criminal. You just made that up.

A difference of opinion? The matter of something existing or not existing is NOT a matter of opinion. Reality is what it is, without contradiction. A is A. This is exactly the kind of primacy of consciouness thinking which causes so much destruction. See above. See above. Entertaining the arbitrary is a rejection of man's only means to knowledge. Yes, condemned. Exactly how is moral condemnation an initation of force? It is not as though someone suggestion the person ought to be stoned. Rejecting reason is NOT an "innocent indulgence in fantasy."

I'll reword my thoughts. It is impossible to live in a manner which eliminates the possibility of causing another harm for which one is at fault. For example, if I go to the mall, it is possible that I will bump in to someone and send them hurtling down a flight of stairs. I don't know about entire diseases, but I can give examples of specific harm. One such example would be damage to people with preexisting respiratory conditions. The "pollutant" in this case would beground-level ozone. I'm going to have to look more critically at the available evidence for this case, but unfortunately I have plans right now. I'm not certain to what extent existing "evidence" is beyond correlative. As an example with greater specificity, how about the great smog of 1952 in london. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_1952

I'm also interested in this question. Do you think it is rational to, say for example, drive an internal combustion engine vehicle given the possibility of initiating force? Further, since it is utterly impossible to live in a way that you will certainly not ever initiate force, at what point does the possibility make the action irrational?

how come quotation marks don't show up? and THANK YOU for the sound!

The chat room appears to be frozen. You can join and view the history just fine, but can not post new lines. Prometheus is having the same experience as I am.

Click me! This topic also may be of interest. (click me too!)

Hot off the presses: Some time in the future ... Student: "what happened to all those people who didn't believe in evolution?" Teacher: "evolution."

Yeah, I know that guy. I think he's related to the guy that tells inside jokes where other people have no idea what the hell he is talking about.

WWFDCASd'A? aww too hell with it

No.

I met a genie once, but I only got one wish. You see, he wasn't interested in trading, so I wished he'd leave me alone and then he disappeared.