Unconquered

Objectivism is as pro-science as any philosophy can possibly be, since its metaphysics and epistemology provide the only foundation for rational science (upholding the law of identity, and logical reasoning as the only means to knowledge.) It is the environmentalists who are, in fact, anti-science. What they do is not science, it's religion. They have *faith* that Man is inherently evil and should be hindered (i.e., destroyed), that nature has intrinsic value apart from a valuer. You might be interested in www.environmentalism.com.

France is home to some of the worst philosophers of the 20th century. As I understand it, they were responsible for "postmodernism". I only know of a single instance of somebody in France posting on various lists and boards that I've read over the years, that I can recall. Also, historically, I think there's a lot of significance to the fact that ex-British colonies/influenced areas were highly successful. (Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and of course America.) But what did the French leave behind? Vietnam, Cambodia, French Guiana, Haiti, ... Quebec, Louisiana, ... It would be very interesting philosophic detective work to find out the fundamental reasons why the results are so starkly different.

That's funny. Would that be like, there are days when your left brain isn't talking to the right? That's a clever one. Though I would note that you don't have to be Moore to hate Ford.... (I had a Contour. Worst Car Ever. Thank goodness for the existence of Toyota.)

I recall liking a number of Laumer's stories. As I remember he has a very pro-individualistic, anti-slavery spirit. I don't recall reading much of Dickson, I should give him a try someday. Have you read anything by George O. Smith? The main book that I remember is The Complete Venus Equilateral, a collection of related stories about a relay station in solar orbit, designed to facilitate interplanetary communication when the sun is blocking direct line of sight. (Talk about forward thinking.) As I recall he also portrays some very independent, anti-bureaucratic characters.

HUMAN REASON IS RADICALLY SUPERIOR TO FAITH Reason is a unique human capacity to grasp reality, and its root is the use of logic. Logic, to use the concise definition of the great philosopher and writer Ayn Rand, is: The art of non-contradictory identification. It is reason which provides a mechanism for taking the raw, observed facts of existence and integrating them into a coherent whole using logic as a guide. The product of a process of reason, is knowledge. Logic rests on the fact that reality cannot contradict itself, that a thing cannot be, and not be, something at the same time and in the same respect. The human mind can hold two contradictory ideas at once, however, and it is therefore the role of logic to tie the mind to actual reality. Reason rests on the fact that our observations of existence provide all necessary and sufficient information in order to form conclusions about existence. It denies the existence of miracles or that there is some inherently unknowable other-world that must be revealed by means other than the senses. What then, is Faith? It is the act of a human being willingly accepting a supposed claim of knowledge without supporting evidence - either no evidence at all, or insufficient evidence to support a claim. There are many variations to this lack: a lack of observed facts, or a lack of logical reasoning to integrate facts to tie them to an abstract conclusion. Generally, faith amounts to substituting a process of reason, with a process of emotion: a supposed statement of knowledge is made because the faithful person merely feels it to be true - or, as is typical with religions, they refuse to challenge a claim out of the emotion of fear - either an other-worldly fear of God's retribution for doubt, or a real worldly fear of torture and death at the hands of others who punish for doubt. Since reality is what it will be regardless of the ideas of men, then men who hold and act on the wrong ideas are then at war with reality. This is a pointless and futile war that only reality can win. In the words of Francis Bacon: Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. This is only form of obedience a man of Reason can accept - obedience to the facts of reality and to logical integrations of those facts. This, again, is in direct contrast to Faith. Unlike Reason, Faith is inherently social - it demands that a man deny his own senses and his own reasoning in order to accomodate the claims of others, who offer no, or insufficient, reasons for their claims, insteading supplying an insolent demand to obediently believe. A concise, humorous example of is: Who are you going to believe: me - or your lying eyes? Faith suggests that eyes could lie; Reason knows that they cannot. Now the real question at hand is: Which is *better*, Reason or Faith? And better is measured here on an ethical scale, and thus is connected to a particular view of what is good, and bad, for human life. Stated simply, if one's measure of the good is that which benefits human life, in reality - the benefits of increased life, of better life, of a non-sacrificial life - then it is clear that Reason is incalculably superior to Faith. Historically this has been shown countless times. The greatest reign of the Christian religion, the height of its power, is aptly called the Dark Ages, for its massive ignorance, brutality, and short lifespan. And the most religious countries on Earth today, are also the most ignorant, brutal, and anti-human-life. This is a fact. So in summary: Since Reason permits men to act in accordance with reality, it permits men to live in that reality. Faith sets men at war with reality - and reality will take its bloody toll every time. If one values life - and even more, a good life, here on earth, here in reality - it is Reason that is unquestionably superior.

Do you have any theories as to why the difference in recent years vs. the past?

There's one sure way - just don't be in business All the anti-trust laws do is make a business a potential target if they (1) have a lower price than competitors, (2) have the same price as competitors, (3) have a higher price than competitors, (4) have no competitors. The only logic is that those 4 conditions literally cover every logical possible combination of being in business.

It's not the same thing as directly controlling it, but you *can* get set up on the TiVo site to remotely schedule recordings. The problem is that the update frequency is too low (as I understand it, I've never felt the need to use this feature) to reliably capture something scheduled the same day, since the TiVo calls home for updates only daily - i.e., it pulls, it isn't pushed out. Now if you had the TiVo call home every 10 minutes or half-hour, then it would be probably be good enough. I doubt that their infrastructure is designed to handle that kind of traffic though. More the point I don't know of any way to tell the box to do it (short of looking for a hack - there is a book titled "TiVo Hacks".)

You just haven't noticed the ARI ninja that's been stealthily watching you...

A "flat tax" is still an income tax, and as such, is bad. It is anti-savings, particularly coercive, still provides some justification for an IRS, and other objections. Far better would be a national sales tax, which is not anti-savings, is easily implemented, does not require long term bookkeeping, and provides no particular justification for an IRS. It is also inherently "flat", and any incremental percentage increase is a smaller amount taken, unlike an income tax. (i.e. each percentage point of sales tax increase does not correspond to decreasing your earnings by 1% - you could have a 100% sales tax that would double the cost of something, but a 100% income tax would take everything.)

Are you familiar with Microsoft Word, or the free word processor in Open Office? What motivates you to want to write a word processor when either of these tools are extraordinarily powerful? Microsoft Word can also be extended via VBA macros or even compiled extensions.

Thanks very much for taking the time to answer, I found your answers useful.

Scott - can you answer a question I've had for awhile? Is it possible to trade, perhaps actively, in a tax-free retirement account, so that one would not need to go through the hassle of accounting for each trade for tax purposes? I understand that there's penalties for withdrawing from such an account, but I'm focusing just on the aspect of trading within that account. If it is possible, are there regulations/limits on such trading, differentiated from what one could do in a regular account?

One round that he hasn't tried, at least from what I read on the site, is the Glaser safety round, which is packaged to travel as a single coherent projectile and to penetrate to some depth and then fall apart into its constituent pellets, delivering all of the energy. Going through a wall tends to start the disintegration process as well.

You (donny) apparently ignored most of what I said, so I am not inclined to continue this, but I will try once more: Define the concept "pollution". And explain how there can be *anything whatsoever* emitted by human beings or their creations that doesn't fall under this (putative) concept.

There may be those reading these boards who think that some opinions are representative of Objectivism and Ayn Rand's views simply because they're posted here. I want to note that the above comment represents neither. (There's a marginal issue regarding a child with serious genetic problems, but even then, just abandoning it to die from exposure and dehydration or to wild animals is hardly justifiable, and the criteria would hardly be "dissatisfied", which in this context, is practically advocating whim-worship. Somebody can be dissatisfied with their debts, that doesn't give them a free pass to evade the responsibility.) Children have rights, and it is the responsibility of their parents - who are *causally responsible* for the child - to look after it. That does not mean that anybody is responsible for *other* people's children, just their own. (This fact is one of the reasons why anti-abortionists are so anti-life, because they want to impose a massive burden on the unwilling living.)

I think the point you are confused about is the environmentalist notion that "pollution" is invariably bad. "Pollution" is probably an invalid concept, when you get right down to it. It package deals the notion that *anything* produced by Man is destructive. If that's true, you should die right now, because no way are you, or anybody else, going to survive at all without "pollution", including exhaling CO2. But that conveniently fits the environmentalist agenda too - the most consistent ones do identify that only without humanity would their "ideal" world be possible. (I'm not saying that you're a deliberate environmentalist.) The real issue is showing objective harm to somebody else. If somebody dumped a cyanide solution into a stream that left their property and went on to yours, and poisoned you as a result, you most certainly do have a right to sue them, and it might also be a criminal matter. They *are* violating your rights. On the other hand if somebody is careful to keep it on their own property, it is indeed their own business. This is not just a hypothetical, cyanide solutions are routinely used to leech out gold in low grade gold ore in otherwise marginal mines in sparsely populated areas. So think: Objective harm, not: "Pollution". And keep it in context. If you build your house next to a freeway that has lots of carbon monoxide during rush hour, the freeway was there first, you didn't have to live there, and the CO levels are not lethal either.

And what is your source for this claim? From what *I* have read - and this is confirmed by the very recent reconstruction of the 1918 virus, including animal tests - the virus is not your "everyday" flu virus. It was so lethal for a number of reasons, having to do with its specific genetic makeup, especially its non-typical ability to infect and destroy the alveoli of the lungs. See this article. The 1918 virus was notable for killing young, healthy adults. When your lungs have been turned in a bloody sludge, you don't need bacteria to kill you (though I'm sure they aren't helping). Some viruses are perfectly capable of killing all by themselves.

Of course there's a right. Do you think that the U.S. belongs to you or "society"? The fact that there are irrational anti-immigration laws in no way affects that right. Who in the hell is "we"? Oh right, and Ayn Rand should have stayed in Russia to be an unknown martyr on the altar of communist sacrifice - then "we" all would have been better off! You seem to think that a dictatorship - and any Islamic theocracy is a terrible dictatorship - will somehow abide dissenters. And *atheistic* dissenters who would rationally believe that Islam and Allah are a complete bunch of crap. Perhaps you should spend at least 5 seconds actually concretizing your ideas! People are brutally tortured and murdered every single day in those countries for far less. The U.S. should accept *any* person into this country who is capable of taking care of themselves (or who have relatives able to do so) and who do not pose an objective threat to the country, without any of the ridiculous hassles currently involved to become a citizen. Unless you are an American Indian, if you're an American you owe your existence to the ability of your ancestors to have immigrated here, many long before stupid anti-immigration laws came into being. The U.S. could physically handle every person on earth and still have a lower population density than the U.K., so there isn't even a lame objection about room. Anybody who has ever driven across the country knows that this country is virtually empty outside of the large cities.

Yes, thanks.

The mutation concern is real because it happens routinely. One possible pathway is to have, for example, the same individual be infected with H5N1 bird flu AND a more conventional, airborne infectious strain of flu simultaneously. This person's body then provides a convenient incubator for trillions of viruses to potentially interact and to start mixing up genes. Many mutated versions develop, this person sneezes and spreads them around, and the epidemic starts if the right combination evolves.

A followup thought about fusion power from seawater deuterium (as one example of future energy): how you can practically combine atoms into molecules - or split molecules apart - depends a lot on available energy. Given a really huge spike in available electrical power from large scale deployment of cheap fusion, you could - if necessary - start to extract CO2 back from the atmosphere and split it back apart (again if necessary) into its components to get carbon and oxygen. Plus a vast array of other chemical processes that would become economically possible. One thing (of countless things) that environmentalists miss however is that "global warming", even if mankind's CO2 emissions do contribute, would be a distinctly good thing if it averts an ice age. Unless of course they think that burying e.g. Canada and Europe under a mile thick slab of ice would be ok

I might do something like this. Other guy: Well fuck me. I guess you've nailed it. I know it requires some level of focus, which is probably difficult for you, but perhaps the discussion could be limited to facts and logical reasoning, saving your crudity for your everyday life. With one study, supplied by the neo-con Heritage Foundation and the WSJ, you've managed to deduce that socialism doesn't work in the real world. Actually there's an entire century showing that socialism doesn't work, if you count hundreds of millions of innocent people slaughtered as "not working", which apparently you do not. 1) The squalor that is sub-saharan Africa is about as laissez-faire as it gets. Where does the Congo rank on this list? You are equivocating on the term "Laissez-faire". "Laissez-faire capitalism" means that the government's actions are only to protect individual rights, including property rights, and do not interfere with freely chosen trade. It does not mean anarchy or "the freedom for a government to do anything that *it* wants without restriction", i.e. dictatorship, i.e., the governments of the great majority of Africa. 2) Higher per-capita income DOES NOT in any way imply higher standard of living. I suppose if there's no relation between the products of capitalism and standard of living, that is true. Otherwise, it's ridiculously false, as most inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa would tell you if you bothered to listen to the people affected by your bad ideas. 4) If socialism doesn't work in the real world, why does Western Europe enjoy a higher standard of living (better healthcare, lower crime rate, etc) than the U.S.? Western Europe in fact does not have better healthcare than the U.S., and neither does Canada. And crime rates ought to consider the fact that a socialist government's actions are themselves criminal on a massive, daily scale. Considering average national crime rates as some indicator of "standard of living" can also be seen as ludicrous if you considered the (non-government-subset) crime rate in a dictatorship that had execution for any crime, no matter how small. I bet the crime rate is pretty low in such a society compared to the U.S. - are you going to argue they have a higher standard of living? (Probably so, since it would most likely be a socialist dictatorship.) But the real issue is not simply the bad practical effects of socialism, which are countless. The real issue is that socialism - in essence, the view that any private property can be confiscated at will by the government for redistribution as it sees fit - is immoral and against the proper nature of human beings, which is to use their own minds in order to advance their own values, for their own life. Socialism is not simply impractical, it is not rationally ethical. In my philosophy, Objectivism, morality and practicality are in harmony - in your irrational philosophy, to be moral *is* to be impractical, because self-sacrifice, which you advocate, is inherently impractical on the face of it.

Fission is stone age compared to fusion power. Fission power requires extraction of Uranium, which is not that common, and the waste products are nasty stuff that's very expensive to deal with - not to mention creating Plutonium that can be used in nuclear bombs. If some of the current research into small scale fusion reactors works out, they could also be small enough to form thousands of highly distributed and relatively economical power systems, which is extremely unlikely to ever happen with fission reactors. One source that I read recently indicated that each cubic kilometer of seawater contains more energy in the form of fusable deuterium than the entire known supply of hydrocarbon fuels in the world. I have little doubt that it also outstrips the energy from available Uranium by many orders of magnitude. I don't think your namesake was content to let whale oil lamps dominate lighting by the way Progress is good.

This site has a graph, and a bit of discussion, on the connection between solar output and the earth getting warmer. In short they are closely related. Who would have thought that a hotter sun meant a hotter earth?