Jake

Thread views != video views (I've read the thread three times, but watched the video only once) No one owes the OP an explanation for their vote. In fact, the only thing the OP asked was for us to let him know if we like it. I too was put off by the quickness of the image changes and the erratic nature of the images. Noticed a ibertarian image in there; not sure if it was pro- or anti-.

Why should the market take care of employees? Define "take care of"

I've seen, and liked, both movies. Immortals may be in the same style as 300, but it is absolutely a distinct movie. Things I liked about Immortals (vagueness due to me being unsure how to use the spoiler function on an iPad): - While the hero is the son of a god, he is the hero because of his virtues and the choices he makes - The hero is not a glory-seeker (like the tragic Achilles); instead he is motivated by justice - A certain character breaks the law and is punished for it (as opposed to the typical pragmatic compromise of values to be seen in most movies when characters put feeings before reason or law)

But this is just a mathematical "trick." Planck units are defined by normalizing certain physical constants, including the speed of light, to 1. The Planck length and Planck time are defined in terms of the gravitational constant (G), the reduced Planck's constant (h-bar), and the speed of light in a vaccuum (c). Planck length = (h-bar*G/c^3)^1/2 Planck time = (h-bar*G/c^5)^1/2 When you divide Planck length by Planck time, the h-bar and G factors cancel, leaving c. The Planck unit approach starts with the idea that these physical constants, including c, are fundamental. You shouldn't be surprised when the math reflects this.

Bounded means "finite in one sense". So, the set of real numbers between 0 and 1 is bounded in that the difference between any two numbers in the set is less than or equal to 1. The set is infinite, in that you can always describe a number between any 2 numbers in the set. IMO, calling the universe "finite and unbounded" is misleading. In that case, "finite" refers to the fact that there is a maximum value of the metric (the distance between any two entities), and "unbounded" refers to the fact that you can travel in one direction forever. By definition, if the universe is finite in any respect then it is bounded. So it would be more correct to say the universe is "finite, but unbounded for linear travel" (or something along those lines).

Sailors are tested at least every 24 months for HIV. Other than that, more extensive testing for other STDs is only performed just before you enlist (at a MEPS) or if you walk in and request it. I specifically requested a thorough set of tests prior to getting married. It involved 2 visits for 2 urine samples and 2 or 3 blood samples. I just want to make sure you know the facts. I get pretty thorough annual physicals as a pilot, and those do not include STD testing.

Perhaps you should go straight to Einstein's own words rather than stopping at Wikipedia.

As I understand it, highway speed limits are based on less than ideal conditions (ice, rain, bald tires, big SUV, etc.) and then multiplied by some safety factor (~2/3). So, I am entirely safe driving my sedan (with sport suspension and good tires) around 85 mph. City and side road speed limits seem to be more arbritarily set, but I take it easy in towns, because there's a much higher probability of someone stepping into the street than onto the highway. Typically, the biggest cost of speeding tickets is long-term: many insurance companies will raise your premiums or even cancel your coverage, making it impossible or at least prohibitively expensive to drive. Lucky for me, TN is not a member of the Non-Resident Violators or Drivers Licensing Compacts (inter-state agreements which allow points to transfer, among other things), and my insurance company doesn't include speeding tickets in their calculations (just accidents). Speed doesn't kill, at least not by itself, because correlation is not causation. I'm sure most accidents involve speeding, but that doesn't mean it was the primary causal factor - more likely it was cell-phone use, other distractions, fatigue, drunk driving, etc. I speed morally, because I have determined that 1) it is within the safe limitations of me and my car, and 2) my typical speeding ticket fines are acceptable. I look at my ticket costs as an annual "speeding permit" fee. If you decide you want to keep speeding, allow me to suggest a Valentine One radar detector. That $400 investment has easily saved me $2,000 in tickets over a few years. I also run a Blinder M20 laser jammer, because MD State Troopers use LIDAR almost exclusively for highway enforcement. I would also suggest going to traffic court. My experience is primarily in MD, but you can usually get the points waived by seeing a judge. Additionally, you can be found not guilty and pay nothing if the officer fails to appear (rescheduling the court date helps with this). When I was a college student, I always tried to go to court. Now that I have a family and make more money, it's probably not worth my time. My short answer to your question is: Speeding is not necessarily immoral; you have to determine the morality of your speeding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

I should have been more specific. I am talking only about macroscopic properties of an entity being dependent on the microscopic properties of said entity (or its constituents). I was not covering events or interactions between entities. Atomic and/or cellular processes can still be causes of consciousness even though the atoms/cells are not conscious. Emergence does not contradict Identity. 1 liter of water can slosh in a bucket, but 1 H2O molecule can't.

Anything perceptually identical to water is identical to water and is therefore: water. When you say "perceptually identical" without qualification, you must mean "perceptually identical in all cases." To say water is perceptually indistinguishable from water* but that the two are different in reality is to say thay perception is not representative of reality. Let's say water* can only be differentiated from water by use of a mass spectrometer. The readout of the spectrometer is in your perception. I don't think Thomas was proposing that only perceptions based solely on a relationship between the entity in question and the observer matter. I'm not sure such perceptions exist for humans anyway. Anytime you see something that is not a light source (say, a table), your perception involves light from a source, which is not the object, reflected and absorbed by the object, then refracted and scattered by the air between you and the object.. Is the issue that you would say water boils at 100 °C/1 atm because it is H2O, but to say the reverse would be false (it is not the case that water is H2O because it boils at 100 °C/1 atm), so therefore the microscopic identity causes the macroscopic identity or is metaphysically primary? Even if the microscopic is metaphysically primary, I concur with Thomas that the macroscopic is epistemologically primary. Physical theories which don't predict anything perceivable are not even wrong. I've been thinking on and off about this problem for a while: Is it in the nature of the universe that the microscopic causes the macroscopic? I can think of no philosophical reason this must be, so if true, it must be in the physical nature of the universe.

My wife had LASIK 4 years ago and loves it. Like others have said, she had near instant results with little to no discomfort. I do know one caveat: if you have dry eyes, the surgery will likely make them drier, at least for a few months. What branch are you in, and what's your specialty? I'm a pilot, and my eyes are around 20/35, so LASIK would be great for me. Unfortunately, the Navy has only approved PRK for pilots due to concerns about LASIK (e.g. nighttime "halos" and corneal flaps opening under high G loads). I can't afford the downtime of PRK while I'm in a flight status. I would check with a Doc in your service before any elective surgery.

Please explain.

My house is shaking right now (yes, over 24 hours after the quake). We only had one thing fall at the house, and it wasn't attached to the wall. I was at work when it hit and I can tell you the concrete felt like the deck of a ship in rough seas. Our helicopters looked like bouncing low-riders. The most notable aspect of the quake to me was its duration. I've felt a handful of quakes in Japan, none of which lasted more than 20-30 seconds. Yesterday's quake had to have been at least 2 full minutes. Some of the guys in my squadron have delivered supplies to the worst areas. They say it looks as bad as the media coverage. The good/bad news is that they didn't see any survivors in need of rescue. I hope this is because Japan has an excellent infrastructure for communication and evacuation, but some news reports say otherwise. I know the major highway running out of Tokyo was shutdown within a few hours, presumably to serve as an evacuation route if necessary. I flew past Yokohama and the southern portion of the Tokyo Bay today - I think the peninsula on the East side of the bay protected Tokyo/Yokohama from the tsunami.

Tired people usually cause car accidents. Should tired people not be allowed to drive? 18 to 25 year-old males usually cause car accidents. Should they not be allowed to drive? Preemptively curtailing liberties is a violation of rights, regardless of any risk calculation.

I didn't follow the link. I just want to point out that a police officer need not wait for an investigation, court order, or trial to draw his weapon and stop a man running out of a bank with a ski mask, gun, and bag full of money. The executive branch is justified in acting to stop apparent crimes in progress. If no crime was committed, then punishment for the officers invovled and reparations to the offended can be discussed. I just want to make sure you realize that theft of software via cracks and file-sharing is not essentially different than theft of cash at gunpoint.

Q: What is the distance between the two endpoints of a footlong ruler? A: 12 inches. All that is required to answer the question is a standard unit of length (the inch). You do not need concepts such as "time" or "duration" to observe and conceptualize length or distance. In fact, I would argue that the concept of time arises because one perceives changes in more fundamental observables (e.g. length, weight, color, etc.) Unless you are using esoteric mathematical definitions of the terms which I don't know, I would say that "displacement" is a qualified instance of "distance". The qualification being that the distance was traversed during a duration.

A small semantic point... underline mine Biddle made it clear that he is judging Peikoff's specific act as unjust. He is not attacking Peikoff's reputation, nor denying the importance or validity of Peikoff's work. In fact, as you quoted, he acknowledges Peikoff as his second-greatest intellectual/professional inspiration.

Government does not exist to protect individuals. It exists to protect individual rights through a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. Imagine me, you, and a police officer standing in close proximity... If I announce that I intend to punch you, and I close my fist and draw back my hand then the officer is justified in stepping between us and/or arresting me to prevent the physical assault, because I have clearly shown hostile intent toward your rights. If I announce that I am going to call your mother a whore, the officer is not justified in stepping between us or arresting you to prevent your supposedly imminent assault on me. Edit: small typo

The language of Mathematics exists for a good reason. It allows one to use succinct symbols and syntax which have exact meanings in place of sentence upon sentence of clarifying natural language words. What's easier to deal with conceptually? a2 + b2 = c2 (with an associated diagram) . or The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other sides (no formulae, but still has mathematical language) . or If you have a triangle with one angle equal to 90° (a right triangle), the length of the longest side (the hypotenuse) multiplied by itself is equal to the addition of the lengths of the other two sides multiplied by themselves and added together. You can read the third statement with less of an education, but the first is easier to comprehend. Mathis' writing is heavy in natural language, which has two effects: - One can read his papers without an advanced math education (i.e. there are few-to-no esoteric terms), but understanding individual words doesn't necessarily entail an understanding of a sentence, paragraph, or paper. - He can easily equivocate concepts and/or make errors that are harder to detect, because they are buried in long strings of words. In the pi=4 paper, he says he's taking the limit of the tangent, rather than the limit of the chord. If he were to actually calculate the limit of the sum of the lengths of the tangent line segments, he would get the right answer (It just shrinks to the limit, where the chord grows to the limit). Instead he uses those 2-step intervals where travel is only allowed in 2 directions. There is zero physical evidence that angles are quantized, so there is no justification for this. Even if there were evidence for angles being quantized, they would have to be quantized orthogonally (i.e. 2 directions per dimension) or he's still wrong.

I don't see how you inferred that from the abstract. The OP posted the complete abstract, so I will only post snippets of it here: 1He states that understanding essences (or kinds) requires a theory of concepts. 2He's presenting Rand's theory of concepts and essences. (2 ideas, 1 theory) 3Essence is epistemological. Specifically, it arises from the need of unit-economy while defining a concept in order to complete the concept-formation. (No concept-formation -> No essences). 4Concepts and essences both depend on reality and the requirements of consciousness. Where is the separation? In fact, he's presenting Rand's unique integration of essences and concept-formation. Yesbut: bold mine I would just note that the principle of unit-economy dictates that essences are not merely the most efficacious definitional fodder; they are the only proper defining characteristics.

Why bother replying if you're not even going to try to answer the question posed? Yes, "concept" and "essence" are distinct concepts. I discussed both, and you stated that the topic was essence not concepts - a non-sequitur response. I asked how you can discuss essence without concepts/concept-formation, and you reply with a single-sentence non-answer. I was in no way belligerent in my posts, and took time to analyze your post, re-read Gotthelf's paper, and provide supporting quotes. I did this in good faith that you posted with the interest of discussing the topic. Apparently, I wasted my time. If you would like to respond sincerely and with content, I'd be glad to continue the discussion. I've seen this sort of response numerous times, and I just don't get it. I've decided to call it the "fallacy of the flippant non-answer".

It's not convenient, but I'll try. It's difficult, because you have read through paragraphs of argument by intimidation, misused definitions, and general nonsense, just to find a small bit of math. Once you find an equation, you have to go back through the preceding paragraphs to figure what the hell he means when he says "the radius is a velocity" or "the circumference is a velocity squared". Look at his process for finding arc length via a limit. Ask yourself if he makes sense. The correct procedure involves integrating infinitesimal chords, because both endpoints of each chord are on the arc. He decides that simple math taught in high school precalculus is wrong, and says you should you use a sort of stair-step approach. Notice that his method uses two line segments which intersect outside of the arc. His idea of curved motion is that you can only have motion in orthogonal directions, and you must add those up. This is so obviously false it's hard to discuss. So the circumference of a circle is the same as the perimeter of a square with the same width... Really?!?! If he were right, GPS wouldn't work as amazingly as it does, and geosynchronous communications satellites wouldn't be geosynchronous. If you want some detailed examples of his math errors, two guys have started a blog for just this purpose.

This guy is a crackpot, and I would advise not wasting your time reading his nonsense, especially if you are interested in really learning about math and physics. I wasted 20 minutes reading his paper on how acceleration is really just squared velocity and scanning through the equally ridiculous "pi is 4" paper. One Amazon reviewer of his book put it nicely:

I don't see how you separate the two. Essence arises through concept formation and the "problem" of universals deals with validation of concepts. How do you talk about essence without concepts? I ask this, not as an insult or pseudo-argument, but to protect my time (and yours): Have you read OPAR or ITOE (recently)?