rl096

I think Alfred Centauri's answer, post #3 is the best answer.

I *do* understand your question, and to answer part of it (the "why people like big muscles"), I answer with: "they just do". Partially biological, partially cultural, partially mystical (just kidding!). Why do man men like slender, long-legged, brunettes, and other like petite, athletic-type, blondes? No idea, and they probably don't either. Some people like cheese, some prefer mustard. Why are we drawn to beautiful faces, and not others? Strangely, a beautiful woman (at least the face) is universally considered beautiful - across cultures. There are exceptions, of course, and many "average or typical" woman can go either way, since beauty is partially in the eye of the beholder. However, distinctly ugly woman, are pretty much considered "ugly" by everyone, and the same goes for beautiful ones. I think it is the same for the physiques of men. There are variations, such as "extreme" muscles and exaggerated proportions, but a slender, tone, male physique is universally more attractive than a heavy one. Why? Don't know, but it is.

Really cool 3-minute video about what our G gets away with... http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/699.html

Anders, I would like to address your "solution" as opposed to your question. How the universe was "created" is beyond my understanding and somewhat unimportant (to me). What is important, is how it was *not* "created" or "started". You said..... "No eminent scientist represents that our perfectly-orderly universe can be explained ex nihilo without a Prime Cause." My response to this is, "Then what/who created the 'Prime Cause'?" And we delve into infinite regression. Some would say, (perhaps you), that "The Prime Cause has always existed, and needs to explanation." I say, "That's the way I view the Universe." In other words, why is it that the orgin of the Universe requires explanation, but the origin of "God" or the "Prime Cause" doesn't? Whatever you say about "God", I can say about the "Universe". It is a much larger leap to believe that "God" has "just always existed" than to believe that the Universe has always existed. Why add and extra element into the equation? Isn't "nature" enough of a incredible, mysterious experience? Why must we humans add an extra entity? Why not add two? Maybe "my" God created your God! Etc. Nature is enough, leave it alone.

EXCELLENT points Krattle!

My suggesstion is to find out what you REALLY want to do, and do it. Period. You live once. Perhaps you can start it part-time and transition? Don't waste another minute.

I found out she is a brilliant African-American woman who believes strongly in the teachings of Ayn Rand. Very fascinating is how she describes that liberal colleges will not hire her because she refuses to tow the line of teaching Black students to be victims. Instead she believes in teaching them to be independent and pull themselves up from their bootstraps. Here is the where I got the article: http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/20...f-anne-wortham/

It is refreshing to encounter an AA who believes in liberty. Anne Wortham is Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University and continuing Visiting Scholar at Stanford University 's Hoover Institution. She is a member of the American Sociological Association and the American Philosophical Association. She has been a John M. Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, and honored as a Distinguished Alumni of the Year by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education. In fall 1988 she was one of a select group of intellectuals who were featured in Bill Moyer's television series, "A World of Ideas.." The transcript of her conversation with Moyers has been published in his book, A World of Ideas. Dr. Wortham is author of "The Other Side of Racism: A Philosophical Study of Black Race Consciousness" which analyzes how race consciousness is transformed into political strategies and policy issues. She has published numerous articles on the implications of individual rights for civil rights policy, and is currently writing a book on theories of social and cultural marginality. Recently, she has published articles on the significance of multiculturalism and Afrocentricism in education, the politics of victimization and the social and political impact of political correctness. Shortly after an interview in 2004, she was awarded tenure. I posted her article on my web site here: http://sites.google.com/site/mptpro/home/p...ics/annewortham I hope linking to my site is allowed! If not, I will post the entire article in this thread.

I like it, it's good.

"The scientist Dr. Samual Sterns (a.k.a. Mr. Blue) is bizarrely offputting; presumably this portrayal of a amoral scientist was intentional but it put me out of the flow of the story and reminded me that I was watching an actor." I completely agree. This was a weird part of the movie and broke the rythm. Wasn't sure if he was suppossed to be funny, amoral, "crazy" or what. Stan Lee makes an appearence too! He drank the infected milk. My understanding is that Samuel L Jackson's character from Iron Man is putting together the Avengers with Iron Man and Hulk. That was the point of the Hulk's very last scene.

I agree with the two posters above. It is the PRODUCERS decision who to distribute their wares. If they do not request financial payment, then so be it. Capitalism is not centered around money, but trade. Ie, "trader principle". So, the thing you give in return is 1) adherence to the GLP license (or whatever license they are using; 2) you are "advertising / promoting" their product by using it and talking about it, such as you have on this board. This leads to, hopefully, more people and companies becoming aware of it, and a small percentage will fully adopt it perhaps, 1) contribute their time, money and resources to help the linux project. 2) Some may choose to pay for help, support and guarantees for x-years of updates (Connical, makes of ubuntu, does this.) Also, some firms, such as MySQL, get acquired by for-profit companies for millions of dollars. I hope this helps.

wow. "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." I don't think there is much you can say to change his underlying philosophy. The only "hope" you may have is to pose a "thought experiment" in the vein of Atlas Shrugged. Have him imagine a world where the producers say "enough" with the taxes, interference, meddling and regulations of the government, and just they "go away". Perhaps to some distant land or island. All that is left is the mighty government and the consumers. What would that world look like? Remember, every benefit we enjoy in our society, be it air conditioning, cars, cell phones, contact lenses, shoes etc is the product of a business person / entrepreneur / inventor. It is NOT the product of a consumer, the government, the church or wishful thinking. What is the engine of our society? And what were happen if this engine stops? If we want this engine to continue, should we penalize this engine (ie, taxes), or should we reward it?

Thanks GreedyCapitalist!

GreedyCapitalist, this is a great idea! You offered design help - I'm asking!!! How do you get that text so nice? What point size? What software? etc? I used PowerPoint to create text, saved as a .png, then cropped the image, and uploaded it. Is this similar to what you did? thanks for any help! -Michael

Thanks Daniel, I guess that answers that! However, just for fun, one could take that to an extreme and say that leaving my book on a table at a coffe shop is "..introducing it into a retrieveal system" where someone could take my copy as opposed to buying their own copy at the bookstore next door. Also, I reserve the right to "reproduce" publications such as articles, books, newspaper clippings etc. in electronic form (I used to photcopy) whether the copyright "allows" me to or not. I bought the book (or whatever) and I'll do with it whatever I damn well please! (other than making copies and giving/selling them). Just because something is legal, doens't make it right, and just because something is illegal doens't make it wrong. The copyright could say "...no one shall read this material while wearing a yellow shirt". But, that doesn't mean I'll do so. I know its a silly example...... Anyway, the spirit of what you said I agree with, of course. I guess having those ebooks available for others to (easily) download, would be similar to leaving 100 photocopied copies of a book at the coffee shop (next to the bookstore!). thanks for the response - technically I can't make any copies or make avialable in any form the books I bought. regards, Michael

Hi MinorityOfOne, thanks for the tip. I meant to put a password thingy and disclaimer that it should only be downloaded if one owns the originals. (Which I do, of course). I'll do it now. I also finally registered for this site! This is probably the wrong thread for this......but I have always had a question concerning the above issue. I will put a password on my site, but for academic inquirey, is one actually in violation of copyright laws just by making the books (or music, or software etc) *available* to others? Isn't the person who acquires the items the one who is in violation? This issue was really brought to my attention of the music industry's suiing of the file-traders, actually the ones making the songs available, not the ones actually downloading it! anyway, thanks for looking at my site! regards, Michael

bbrown, now you know four! I have heard of Ennio Morricone and have probably seen ever spagetti western ever made! Yes, his tunes can be very catchy. As for music, I like too much to list, but some that may be of interest to Objectivst is, of course, Rush (famous 80's rock band from Canada) who are fans of Ayn Rand. Their music often has themes of individualism and freedom. I recently discovered a band called Amethystium that plays new-agey-atmospheric music that is great for working and reading. This is a great thread, by the way! regards, Michael