th3ranger

Actually from the below description, his "Ultimate" invention would have never worked. To me, it sounds not unlike the electrostatic ion thruster that, while it is long lived in it's thrust, it's actual force amounts the the weight of a single sheet of paper I believe. (It adds up quick in space, since there is no air resistance) Note: It could never work as a "weapon" in an atmosphere, at least. That pesky air gets in the way. In space, it might take a while to damage anything. (HOLD STILL FOR 1.8 YEARS I'M KILLING YOU!) -Wikipedia Description of the electrostatic ion thruster: -ALSO wikipedia ok ok...Mercury is a bit heavier than Xenon but still...if Tesla had ever tried it in space he might have had corrosion problems...lol

If I'm going to move at all it will be to another country. It is. The Democrats/leftists/socialists/populists have clearly realized this, thats why most national news stations have a distinct left slant, often my omitting news stories or by bringing undeserved attention to what should probably not be important news. I've stopped watching TV years ago and it's all the more obvious now, when I catch CNN or any other 24hrs news channel. Getting Rand mentioned anywhere brings more attention, good press or bad press, someone new might read one of her books. Incidentally, from what I could find, Atlas Shrugged is no longer selling that many copies, it seems that was a peak, although it could certainly go back up. 1. Well, we have it also now! I'd be willing to bet, ours might have leapfrogged over yours in comprehensiveness...I'm sure it's far more more expensive as well. 300 million vs the [i think?] 21 million of Australia? A null point really. 2. I'm not sure, but guns might somehow be the only thing you don't need a license to own in the USA, aside from the three day waiting period, as well as the FBI background check. 3. Nearly any law concerning the Internet is impractical. Especially censor laws. Good luck trying to enforce that one...there are virtually a million ways to step around it. 4. I'm sure you weren't aware but there is a such thing as Federal Holidays. If a given company does business with the government they have to take these days off- with pay. 5. The last thing repealed in this country was prohibition probably. Nothing is going to get fixed. No party supports individual rights specifically. 6. Politically you are probably right. There is probably no point. Not yet anyway. I do plan on reading/watching some Australian news. I was planning on subscribing to a newspaper. Any suggestions? From what I can tell I'm not losing or gaining a whole lot in Australia. I will probably be gaining a whole lot if I leave in a few years. What guarantee do I have of Australia staying free(er)? none. Hong Kong isn't very far from Australia...

No I didn't expect anyone to try and stop me. I don't expect any of my friends or family to try to stop me. I'm not threatening anyone, but I am interested in hearing whether anyone here thinks it's completely insane. I wanted to show what my thoughts are about why I will leave, given the obvious direction the wind is blowing. Honestly, I want someone to say, to convince me that "Its not that bad!" That most people aren't really that stupid about current political events, that most voters can see what is going on. I want to be told I'm wrong about all of this. I have no idea why I'm keeping the country to myself. From what I've dug up, it looks really good. I think the worst thing anyone can say about Australia is the stupid internet censoring. I'm losing increasing enslavement by the government for "free" healthcare and gaining alot of economic freedom. Incidentally, China can't effectively censor the Internet, so I doubt Australia will. Here is a photo, a very Objectivist photo: Look at those skyscrapers! Look at all the cranes! The caption says this is "Surfers Paradise Beach" in Queensland. Is that really the name of the beach???

None of the guesses are correct so far. Yes it probably would be easy to live in Alaska and no one would know you are there but bears. Another hint: nearly all indigenous life can kill you and even some of the imported wildlife can kill you. I'm guessing nature hikes aren't very popular. Correction: The unemployment rate, now that I look at the most recent figure, is actually 5.3%. Sorry.

Uh.....no?

IF: -The courts completely fail at protecting the constitution from the obvious unconstitutional laws. -AND- -The 2012 election is "business as usual" meaning that most voters clearly do not understand what is going on, and no third party candidates are elected to any federal office. (Bonus if Democrats are elected into seats as many or more than last election, SUPER-EXTRA-MEGA-BONUS if Republicans do not run on the basis of repeal of these insane laws) -AND- Average people continue to completely blank out why it's so stupid to force insurance companies to cover "existing conditions." Some time in 2013 I will sell nearly everything I own and I WILL move abroad. If the above conditions prove to be true, this US of A, my country of birth, IS going to be come a shit hole real damned fast. No THANKS. I'm going to start the passport and visa process very soon. I will not answer questions about what country. That is for me to decide. It will most likely be significantly more free than the USA will be if all that is true. Hint: It has less than 5% unemployment.

Yeah. No doubt it was there on purpose. The bill is something like 3000 pages long and they leave this out? really? I don't think I'm mistaken when I say that a lot of these sort of laws always leave a loophole to thinly justify more such legislation.

Oh my god thats great! You can eat your cake and steal another one from whitey! Nice. +1 to Geoff's wit attribute.

Its so strange that shortly after the government purchases GM, that SUDDENLY there is something wrong with the #1 car seller in America that also happens to be #1 above GM.....

So far as definitions go, I think populist fits quite nicely.

I plan on mainly dealing with this by laughing/drinking. It was inevitable it get passed. This is a hopeless struggle to stop America from becoming fascist. My main questions are what country I'm going to move to, when, and if I should at all. Sometimes I see the odd good sign, but rarely. I will be greatly surprised if any significant change in direction occurs in 2012. As they say in zombie movies, this entire country is "too far gone." I've long given up hope of redeeming the USA. Pointing out something like "A right does not come at someone else's expense!" is ignored usually. This is no longer the land of the free. Is Australia much better?

I use google chome almost exclusively and I've never had these problems. Update chrome perhaps? or Flash?

Has anyone else noticed that an embarrassingly high number of fantasy books are extremely similar? There are details that occur with far too much similarity to be accidental. The whole genre seems extremely derivative.

That whole video is filled with junk science. FAIL.

Essay 1 The assignment was to write about "Cultural Differences" What cultures? The ones in the half-dozen or so stories we read. What differences and what about them? Not given. How long? I think it was 750-900 words or so. What grade did you get? Any comments? Haven't gotten it back. I imagine he will dislike it at least on idealogical grounds Enjoy! Assimilation or Preservation? Whenever a group of people moves from one place to another or is surrounded by another culture geographically, they all face a choice. They all must chose to either attempt to preserve their own culture or adopt another. Culture arises from the dominant philosophy that the culture has already consciously or unconsciously chosen. When two neighboring cultures disagree on how knowledge is gained, or even if knowledge is useful or any number of basic assumptions conflict is guaranteed. Assimilation is easy, desirable, and good when the fundamental paradigm of the two cultures is similar, but very difficult when one culture is clearly more successful at coping with life on Earth. In Yellow Woman and a Beauty of the Spirit cultural clash is obvious due to a basic misunderstanding of Western culture. The author seems to think that all Western culture is extremely superficial and is greatly concerned with appearance. “The old-time people thought that it was crazy to attach such importance to a person’s appearance” (McDonald 306) She also seems to think that Westerners never take considerations of personality into consideration when looking for a mate. “In the old-time Pueblo world, beauty was manifested in behavior and in one’s relationships...” (McDonald 306) The Pueblo culture is clearly based around collectivism while American culture is all about individualism, and assimilation, if any, must have been very long and difficult. In Civilize them with a Stick, Indian children are sent involuntarily to an oppressive Catholic church run school. There young children are whipped, beaten, and generally abused for small offences. The goal of this school must have originally been to prepare the Indian children to be productive members of society. Unfortunately with such cruel treatment, the children grow to hate the school, and the American society it came to represent. The author observed everything from severe beatings to sexual harassment, all of it ignored or condoned by authority figures at the school. For two cultures are as different as Native American culture is from American culture this must be the worst possible way to attempt assimilation. Exposing the culture to be assimilated to hypocritical religious organizations could only serve to convince them of their own culture’s superiority. One would hope that most Native Americans eventually found out that American culture is the most tolerant and friendly in the world, but it might not ever be possible with the obviously wrong and continual abuses the United States federal government of the time subjected them to like the Cherokee Trail of Tears (Hill). What probably doomed American Indian assimilation was US government attempting to force them, in contrast with other cultural groups, like the Amish, which were allowed to assimilate, or not, at their own pace. Arranging a Marriage in India is not really that much of a huge culture clash. Much insight into the Indian culture is had though, as the author explores the thoughts of an Indian girl about to go through the process. “How can you agree to marry a man you hardly know?” “But of course he will be known.” (McDonald 625) In India there are many different social castes and the bride and groom must be from the same social class, a concept completely alien to any American. Each family considers many aspects of a prospective bride/groom including personality, intelligence, height, even skin color and occupation. Many gifts are exchanged to celebrate the marriage, not just to the new couple, but between each family. After two years of searching for a match the mother in the story has still not found a match. Prospect after prospect is eliminated for often very petty reasons. This one is too educated, this one is too poor, and this one’s mother is too attached to her daughter. This is all starting to look like a Seinfeld episode. Perhaps the next prospective daughter-in-law will be eliminated for having man-hands? This is all not without reason because marriage in India is taken very seriously and every possible factor must be acceptable to not just one, but two families demanding perfection. Even after the wedding the new wife is observed and judged in every way by her new family. In the past if the new daughter-in-law was not well liked, she might even be killed to collect dowry from other families over and over again. This is why a dowry of any kind is illegal in India. (McDonald 631) Since India has been influenced by Western culture, there would not be a very large deal of adjusting to be done between them. Indian and Western cultures have many basic assumptions in common when it comes to philosophy, certainly, far more in common than European Americans and Native Americans. When two cultures come into contact, they can either assimilate or try to preserve the important aspects of their culture. This process can be forced, but it will almost certainly backfire and fuel resentment for decades or longer. The stronger culture will always override the weaker one with time. A good example is the fast spread of Muslims in contemporary Europe. For whatever reason, “native,” if you will, Christian Europeans have had a precipitous drop in birthrate. Massive Muslim immigration and birthrates have skyrocketed. The difference between the two is so great that is estimated that many large European countries will be majority Muslim by 2050. (Michaels) So, the question is, will the Europeans assimilate into Muslim culture, or will they try to preserve their culture? Works Cited Hill, Sarah H. "Cherokee Indian Removal." 16 January 2008. Encyclopedia of Alabama. 22 Feburary 2010 <http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1433>. McDonald, Ann and Jack Trotter. World Views Classic and Contempory Readings. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2008. Michaels, Adrian. "Muslim Europe: the demographic time bomb transforming our continent." 8 August 2009. The Daily Telegraph. 22 February 2010 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html>. Essay 2 History Compare and contrast the English "Glorious" revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution. Length: 750-900 words What grade did you get? "A" along with 50% of the class....That really makes me appreciate the grade...not! Vive La Revolution! The revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries were all about ruled people realizing that the rule of any government is completely dependent on the consent to the governed. The field of revolution was sown with the widely propagated ideas of the Age of Enlightenment that advocated freedom largely nonexistant before this time. Any government that causes a large majority of its citizens to be angered by its actions, whether valid on not, will reap its own end. This period started the pattern still repeated in modern times, of oppressed people throwing tyrants from thrones and establishing a system of government of their own choosing. The English “Glorious” Revolution was largely caused when James II, being devoutly Catholic, decided to transform England from protestant controlled to potentially Catholic controlled. While it was known that James II was fairly old and would not be on the throne for long and only had protestant children at the time, having a Catholic son in 1688 pulled the trigger on a revolution. The English Revolution was largely a power struggle between the parliament and the King. To limit royal power the Convention Parliament established a list of rights the Parliament would have over the King, limits to the King’s power in general, and rights of citizens that included petitioning grievances, keep arms, trial by jury, not be subject to excessive bail. Gradually, over the centuries, Parliament became increasingly powerful at the expense of the monarch, eventually becoming a figurehead. This uprising was not inspired by ideas; rather, the ideas that were written down in reaction to it caused much thought about the nature of government and its role. John Locke, one such author, had great influence on the American and French Revolutions. Causes for the American Revolution were somewhat unique in not being related to religion unlike nearly any other European events at the time. The colonists already had freedom of religion largely, and Great Briton made no effort to enforce any. Today, with very extensive and powerful tax laws, it seems laughable that a small tax on tea and the Stamp Act caused the over-throw of a government. But in 1776, this is exactly what happened, when the Second Continental Congress declared independence from Great Britain. After seven years of war, with generous French support, Great Britain recognized the independence of America. After a false start with the Articles of Confederation, with a too weak federal government, the United States Constitution was written in 1788. The new constitution featured three branches: a president to execute laws, supervise foreign affairs, and direct military forces; a bicameral legislature (called Congress) to pass laws; and a court system to enforce the constitution and adjudicate disputes. This organization went on to be loosely copied throughout the world; such was its success as a system of government. In 1789 ten amendments were passed by the new Congress, which laid out the inalienable rights that every citizen in the new country possessed without any exception while avoiding the subject of slavery. These rights were greatly influenced by enlightenment philosophies that saw certain rights as natural to all people. The same year the Bill of Rights was passed the French Revolution broke out. The French Revolution was far more violent in political upheaval as well as death than the other two Revolutions. French society of the time was based around the privilege and wealth of very small percentage of people and the horrible suffering of everyone else. When royal government wrote one too many rubber checks Estates-general was called on to address the situation. After a disagreement on how voting should be based with the nobility and clergy attempting to undercut everyone else, the commoners broke away and formed the National Assembly. The National Assembly wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen establishing rights to men specifically, but not women. This ended the many privileges enjoyed by the aristocracy by making everyone equal, but women being a lot less equal than men. The new government was a constitutional monarchy, with the monarch having very little power. With the chaos that followed, many people were guillotined; as many as 50,000 people were executed in this new way. With so much confusion from within and without, the National Assembly was largely unable to enforce its will on the people, even with such extreme usage of violence and the largest army in European history ever seen at the time. Reliance on the military gave the exactly the opportunity Napoleon need to become the first Emperor of France, thus ending the first democracy of France. Thus two Revolutions’ governments still exist today, while France almost immediately lost its own. All the new constitutions recognized new rights that had been long in coming since the Age of Enlightenment. The ideas recognized have irrevocably influenced the modern world with the simple idea that the consent of the governed hangs over the head of every tyrant that seeks to oppress. MAY THE CRITIQUING BEGIN!!!

Holy shit that is scary. Hail! The first United States Emperor! May death come quickly to his enemies! ...Won't be long now... Buy an Obama, or better yet, a specifically Emanuel supporting bumper-sticker to avoid summary liquidation.

I thought I did have the french correct but I guess not! Thank you very much for your critique this was exactly what I wanted. I'll accept a bad grade I just want an explanation less contradictory and vague. You don't even know the full assignment and you can explain better how I didn't follow it than my teacher. Thank you very much for your time! I somewhat knowingly did not follow the topic given, but it was so vauge I just didn't know what else to do but twist it into something I could write about for at least 700 words! All of the stories that were given for reading lack any significant conflict at all, and often, for example, describe a subway ride and then it ends! When they do have conflict they blatantly assault reason or Man's mind in a philosophic sense. It's very irritating. We watched a movie for one class period called "Cool Hand Luke" where the main character escapes twice, and is caught both times. The End. Credits roll. Thanks for wasting my time teacher! How do I deal with this?

OK, this is my essay, the things in quote tags are from my teacher. The brackets within quotes are my comments on his comment. Besides critiques on the essay, does anyone have tips on how to deal with such an ENG101 teacher? I have heard from other students to simply brown nose and and guess whatever the teacher wants, but I refuse to do so. Should I just avoid the things I hate about every meaningless story (read: post-modern of the typical type)? Human conflict essay A is A Human conflict is the struggle between individuals or countries to get what is wanted or needed. There are two ways of doing this: either you can take it with force (looting) or you can trade for it. (Capitalism.) Capitalism is voluntary trading to mutual benefit when individual rights are respected. When you trade things like money or work to get what you want, it is not a zero sum game. You or your business provides a service, and in exchange you receive money. It’s a "win-win." When you make it your business to take whatever you desire by force it is a zero sum game. What happens when you run out of loot? Failure of the authors of our stories to understand such a basic alternative in how you can try to live your life is obvious in the stories we have covered so far. In the Fall River Axe Murders, Mr. Borden is depicted as greedy, always searching for a way to make a buck. This is stated in a way as to make the reader equivocate selling goods or renting property with robbery. Unless I make a mistake, selling something requires a voluntary buyer. If someone is choosing to purchase whatever he sells, then this is plainly not robbery. Mr. Borden also owns many rental properties, and when a tenant cannot pay, he has a right to evict them. It is not anyone's, much less this character's duty to provide free shelter to the poor, so by kicking squatters out of his building, Mr. Borden commits no crime. So, if by the negative attribute of greed the author means the desire to take unearned wealth, then Mr. Borden is not greedy. The story does not seem to indicate that Mr. Borden is a mob boss, in any case, whatever his personality problems may be, he certainly did not deserve to die, as this author seems to want the reader to believe. Mrs. Borden is described as pig-like and willing to eat anything. One wonders what the author would think of most modern Americans. A good portion of the population now could easily be described in the same way, but not because of constant eating, because our life is so easy! Lizzie is given reason after reason after reason as excuse for murder by the author. So what now, a hot summer gives you an excuse to kill? Corsets make murder acceptable? If she is the actual murderer, none of this excuses it. She made the choice to kill and no one else. She alone is responsible. It would seem to be though, that if she did it, she would have been proven guilty. Since she was not found guilty, she was an alleged murderer. We should not say she did it, we should say she was accused of it. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Murder is a small crime in comparison with the next story. In the Argentine Ant we are taught that the use of Man's mind is useless. The main character's first neighbors Claudia and Reginaudo use every insect killing substance they can get their hands on, most of it ineffective at best. The most vicious chemical solutions Man can devise for this ant problem are worthless. (Not my experience at all.) The second neighbor, Captain Brauni, has devised many complicated ways of killing worker ants, which he himself admits is pointless if it does not help kill the queen ant. Why does he continue with the whole effort if it has not succeeded after so long? The “ant man” is no better. He comes monthly for years putting out “poisoned” molasses. Why do these people tolerate a “service” that plainly doesn’t work in the least? The message given by the author must be don’t judge results, only intentions. Good intentions build no bridges. It is truly the height of evil to advocate the willful suspension of one's consciousness. What is the correct solution according to the story? Brute force (hard work) or denial is advocated. "There's no other remedy. Work, just work." (pg 67) “"The best poison against ants," ... "is this." and he raises his glass and drank it in one gulp." (pg 61) Brute force and denial of reality did not make the fantastic technologies we have at our fingertips today. Brute force did not fashion this computer. Brute force does not power my home. Denial of reality in any form does not solve any problem. Only the unceasing application of reason and refusal to deny reality at any level by hundreds of brilliant men and the money of millions of investors all working for personal profit has brought me the technology around me. It is no accident that whenever communism (looting) needs an effective design to do something, they very often steal the design and copy it. We have seen that the word greed is often misused, and running from one’s problems or pretending they are not there is suicidal at best. Most of all, we have observed that trivial reasons never justify murder. If you are having a bad day, except in self defense, don't kill anyone. It's a terrible faux pa. 79 or a C is what my "strongly" written essay gets...

I hate to be the first to quote Ayn Rand on money, but what the hell here it goes: Money is unconsumed wealth. The whaler you mention accumulated a store of unconsumed wealth from his toil on the high seas. Gold does have intrinsic worth. Have you ever noticed that the most common elements are simply just the most commonly fused elements in a star's fusion? Gold is rare, as are other elements beyond Iron, because they are a net energy losing fusion. When a star runs out of stuff lighter than iron to fuse, it dies in one way or another. But some fusing of heavier elements does occur. Gold should be a fairly rare element indeed compared to other elements like just simple hydrogen and helium. One more thing: money's value is abstract when it is fiat currency. When you use something with actual value like gold, with its nontarnishable, shiny, and extremely malleable exterior, its not abstract value, its a barter. It would be like trading a horse for a gun or something like that.

I imagine that this claim is more an expression of great frustration and pain of seeing friend after relative after co-worker more or less abandon reason. Though I have no idea if the original poster has observed this, I see this way too often. I think as Dagney Taggart did in Atlas shrugged, that maybe I shouldn't expect rationality anymore. With this whole global political situation really makes it difficult to be optimistic. It is only made worse when people of your own age who should have no trouble accessing a world of information via the internet just choose to not seek facts or reason.

uuughh those comments following the article do not improve my opinion of Libertarians at all!

I'm not buying this game. I've heard from several people that this "story telling device" in the Russian airport forces you to kill helpless civilians with a machine gun. Thats crossing an uncrossable line for me. no thanks.

I don't upgrade unless it comes with a new computer. The easiest, cheapest way to make your computer faster is buy a ton of RAM sticks and get as many and as high capacity as you can. 2 gb is a good amount to have and should be fine for most uses I think. It cost me about $60 to put this amount in my laptop. Laptop RAM is more expensive than ram for a desktop since it must be smaller. The difference in application running speed between the two 512 mb sticks and the two 1 gb sticks was huge! Make sure you get the correct kind for your computer, let a best buy employee help you find the correct kind as long as you have your computer model number, but don't sweat it, you can return such computer parts, no problem.

It seems to me everyone has given good advice so far, I would just like to add a thing or two: You said you live in Michigan? Move out of the state as fast as possible! It sucks in MI right now and it's only going to get worse. I think MI is actively losing population due to state government over taxation and mismanagement. Move to Texas or South Carolina or any other state with low taxes. Seriously, get the hell out of Michigan. The population of that state may never figure out what went so horribly wrong before the only people left are the state government. If you have a clean background consider jobs that require a security clearance (usually if you don't already have one the company will pay to have one run.) Less competition, better pay, for simply not being a criminal and not having a terrible credit rating. (Your student loans shouldn't be a problem)

It seems to me that either bowing or a handshake would be fine especially in this context (Japan). The emperor did bow reciprocally so no disrespect to either side occurred. (Unlike King Abdullah who I don't believe bowed back, and who's country nationalized/looted all the American oil wells in his country, which kinda precludes any signs of respect) I've always liked the idea of bowing anyway, you can keep your hands clean and there is no chance of exchanging germs. *edit* 10:02 added additional comment Upon review of hotairpundit photos, Obama really does seem to be bowing a bit lower than other dignitaries which is hilarious and sad. Moron.