Concerto of Atlantis

I don't know about every little detail of ARI's structure, but a good 'not for profit' organisation can be extremely profitable. It's just that their profits may not always be monetary.

Heh. I also have an AE-1 (Program). They're great little cameras. My main camera however is a Canon T-90. At the moment I'm saving up to buy a 85/1.2L lens. They're fantastic for portraits. What lenses do you have? Here's a picture of my AE-1.

Are you asserting that a small business can't compete with a much larger organisation? Because if you are, that is wrong.

I refuse to be one of these spineless 'new age' 'nice guys'. Thankfully there are still plenty of females out there that want to be pursued with confidence, who enjoy the whole 'chase' associated with courtship and understand what it means to surrender yourself to a man. If I ever get attracted to a woman, I ALWAYS let them know - and I do that for my sake. It would drive me insane if I were attracted to someone and they didn't know. But going back to the original issue of love at first sight... I don't believe in it. Yes, there are a lot of things one can decipher about someone at first sight - i.e. physical characteristics, poise, confidence, etc. but this alone is not enough for me to rationally identify their values and see if they are compatible with mine. First appearances can also often be misleading.

I see how these covenants are the capitalist alternative to zoning. However, what is the real difference between a person with more wealth building a huge house next to your smaller one and a company like Walmart opening a huge store right next to a 'ma and pa' store?

Say someone owns a piece of land on which he has built a single story house. Next to this block of land is a vacant block. Someone else purchases this vacant block of land and builds a massive three story house on it. Consequently, the owner of the single story house is unhappy because the three story house blocks off much of the natural light that he used to get in the house. Because of this, the value of his property decreases. The owner of the three story house basically argues that since he rightfully owns the block of land, he is entitled to do whatever he likes on it. What would be the solution to this problem?

I remember reading (perhaps on this forum, I can't remember) that Ayn Rand believed that love at first sight was possible. What were her reasons for this?

I watched the Clinton speech today. If there was an award for the person who could speak for the longest amount of time without actually saying anything, then Clinton would win - uncontested.

I'm yet to see any games in Perth. I live in Melbourne so of course I've seen many games at the MCG. I have also been to the Adelaide Oval (always ends up dishing up some great games), The SCG and the Gabba. I used to play cricket competitively at High School level (I was captain of our team), but after having entered university, I simply don't have the time. I still play for fun with friends, my brother, etc though. I am a right-arm pace bowler with a pretty erratic action. I get a lot of wickets with bounce and pace, but I also tend to go for a lot of runs because my accuracy isn't great. I am also an aggressive lower-middle order batsman. I have been disgusted with what has happened with the Murali affair. Despite the mountains of evidence that has cleared him of chucking, the Australian 'public' and the media simply ignore all of it and continue to call him a chucker. Granted Murali should just ignore all this and keep touring Australia, but sometimes these 'fans' make me very angry. A couple of weeks ago, in England, Murali bowled to some county cricketers in the nets with an elbow brace on that ensured that he could not straighten his arm. Surprise surprise, he still managed to extract prodigious amounts of turn off the wicket - both with his stock off-break and his doosra. How much attention does this get in the local media? Absolutely zilch. The fact that people want to destroy the career of this outstanding cricketeter reveals how screwed their psychology must be. Anyway, I am also a big Wasim Akram fan - man that guy had such a beautiful action to watch. And that swing! wow. Some other players that I admire at the moment are Dravid, Andrew Strauss, Flintoff, Pollock, Kallis, Aktar, Sangakkara, Warne, Lara and of course, Tendulkar. I hope the India vs. Australia series later on this year will be as good as the last one. Can't wait.

Ah, good to hear. I am also a big cricket fan - grew up with it in Sri Lanka, and now I live in Australia so I get to see games in some of the greatest venues in the world. What do you think about the whole Muralitharan saga?

Which of course, is this:

Great story. I drive a Series III RX-7, and I'm still very much amused by the expressions I see on peoples' faces when I tell them that the cylinder count is zero... And when I tell them that the displacement is 1300cc. As far as Rearden's car goes, I don't know exactly what Ayn Rand may have been inspired by, but I always see a Jaguar E-Type convertible in my mind. However, the E-Types were not around when she was writing the book, so it couldn't have been that.

"so, then, a wage is based not on the actual value of the effort but of the value the employer puts on that effort. or that the actual value is not the work put into it but reward given by the employer. " No. A wage IS based on the actual value of the effort as determined by the market. It is not based purely on the employer ONLY because an employee MUST accept the offer of the employer to make that a wage. If no-one accepts what an employer is offering, then the employer will have to raise the wage that he/she is offering to the labour market. if the effort of a salesperson means that the company sold 25% more this year than last, they are still only entitled to whatever the original wage agreed upon. Employees are always entitled to try and negotiate a better deal for themselves, as long as both parties are participating in the negotiation process voluntarily and for mutual benefit. If, because of the effort of a particularly good salesperson, the company sells 25% more, then: A. The salesperson has a strong chance of getting a raise because B. The employer will recognise the value of retaining this employee. In that case, both parties negotiate voluntarily, and both parties gain. The salesperson gets more money and the company retains a valuable employee. However, as soon as you bring the government in, you are entering force into the equation - and that is no way to negotiate. if an employer can afford to pay more without effecting his own life, should he? or should he pay the absolute lowest possible? am i wrong to think that Galt would say to take no concern for others, only worry about your own productivity and profits? If an employer pays more, it WILL effect his life. But I think what you are referring to is a case where it will not effect his life significantly to pay an employee more, because he is extremely wealthy. Let's go with that scenario. Again, it's a matter of personal choice. If the value he gets out of giving a raise to an employee (e.g. employee is retained, is more satisfied, his productivity therefore increase) is greater than the money amount that he increases the employee's wage by, then he'd be a fool not to give the employee a raise. However, if the value is less, then it doesn't really make sense for him to give him more money. I think you may be suffering to some extent from the old socialist mantra of how it 'pays' to 'exploit' workers. Marxism and its various derivatives never seem to recognise how it can make financial sense for a company to give incentives, better working conditions, etc. to its employees. But the fact is, that in a lot of cases, treating your employees well can lead to real benefits for a company. It is also perfectly legitimate for you to worry only about your own productivity and profit. Because the assumption is that everyone else will do the same, and people will only deal with each other only if mutual benefit is possible. And I think I highlighted that above. I myself try not to support companies that i feel take advantage of their employees, as well as companies that move jobs overseas in order to pay signifigantly less than they would here. sometimes that means paying more for something than i would if i didn't have these beliefs.. (part of my personal philosophy is to use your purchasing power as a voice. i wouldn't give money to a political party or other organization i didn't agree with, so why give my money to a corporation or business who's business practices i don't agree with) I'm not going to get into why there's nothing wrong with a company outsourcing work to overseas places where labour costs are low. But you are well within your rights to use your consumer voice to say whatever you like - EVEN if what you are saying MAY be irrational.

It's really quite simple. A job exists ONLY because an employer CHOOSES to create that job. Because they are the creators of that job, then they should be allowed to offer whatever salary they like for that job. As an employee you have three choices. A. Take the job and salary. B. Refuse the job and salary. C. Negotiate with the employer for a higher salary. Now, if you choose option C, you may well convince the employer to offer you more money, if you can justify why you DESERVE that money. Note the difference between showing why you deserve the money and showing why you NEED the money. But the employer has every right to refuse to pay you more. In such a case, you are left with options A and B. It's exactly the same deal when say, you are buying a product from a store. Now, if a company makes a huge profit, and you believe that you played a part in that profit, then go up to your boss and demonstrate to him/her HOW you played a part. If they still refuse, then leave the job. No-one is holding a knife against you. It is also possible that the profit may have had little to do with what you do. If that is the case, then no, your value does not necessarily automatically increase just because the company has made a profit. And if you think that you alone do not have much bargaining power, then form a union where membership is voluntary and negotiate with your employers to give you a raise. Obviously they can refuse, but that is their choice. And you made a point about bonuses and benefits and things like that. I agree that these sort of things are great and make the job better. But if you want to have these things, then you have to prove that you are worth it to the company. The government has no right to step in and force the employer to pay these things for your benefit.

I see having a pet as being a reward. A couple of years ago, I decided that I wanted to buy a dog. I researched all over the net to find a breed that I liked. In the end, I found one - The Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever. But alas, they were very expensive, so I worked hard in my part time job to save up the money for the dog and to ensure that I had enough money left over for vet bills, free treatments, food, etc. To me, it was like buying a sports car or a really nice leather jacket. Having a dog around gives me benefits - he barks at strangers, he gives me exercise, it's good when he goes to sleep at my feet - which keeps my feet warm and from time to time, they do really amusing things. (Like the day my dog got his head stuck in the lid of a trash can and ran around the house in confusion. Now he's quite afraid of all trash cans. In conclusion, I don't 'love' my dog or try to treat it like a human being like some people do, but he, without a doubt, adds to my life.

Congratulations. I find that going away into a quiet, secluded area for a weekend or so is a great way to celebrate. Especially if you go with someone or some people that you consider to be special. Allows time for celebration, reflection and planning for future undertakings. My girlfriend and I recently reached our 2year anniversary. And since any good relationship is based on productive effort and achivement, and therefore worthy of celebration, we will be going to this place: http://www.borokadowns.com.au/ for about a week or so. Should be great.

The Head of McDonald's Australia announced yesterday that they will be undertaking an advertising campaign to counter-act the movie, because they found out through customer research that a lot of people viewed their silence as an admission of guilt. http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/13/1087065034025.html

You're nuts. New Zealanders can't pronounce their vowels properly. That is why they say Fush and Chups instead of Fish and Chips. I quite like South African accents. And French people talking English is sexy. And of course those BBC girls.

No, I know for sure that I have never been taken to that place before - even as an infant. Perhaps I saw a similar location on TV or a magazine or something like that.

Thanks, Betsy. I must say that I quite enjoy the feeling of Deja Vu. It brings out my curiousityand sends my brain racing to find out what may be behind it. Over Christmas last year, I was in Sri Lanka (the country where I was born) and I visited this beach that I had never been to before. I got a sense of Deja Vu that day that was so strong that my head started to spin and I literally had trouble standing upright. Still haven't been able to figure out what may have triggered it though.

I hope this is the right board topic to post under for this subject. Anyway, I get very strong feelings of Deja Vu from time to time, and no-one has ever been able to explain what causes it in a satisfactory way. Do any of you know and care to tell me?

Generally, advocates of 'open mindedness' also tell people that they should be 'non-judgmental'. Now, this should give a huge clue as to what they are really advocating - which is, to accept in any rubbish, and hold that rubbish in your mind as valid concepts, no matter matter how contradictory or evil those ideas may be. My attitude in life IS to be open minded in that I let everything that is said to me enter my mind freely. But once they are in there, I am judgmental. I judge everything against the values that I have chosen for my life. So I say be openminded - the world is great and there is always something new to learn out there - but always judge - from the stranger on the street to the girlfriend you've been with for years.

Why do you like Salinger? Last year I read Catcher in the Rye after having heard many rave on and on about it. I thought that it was an awful book. Badly written, Appalling characters and a plot that went absolutely nowhere. And everytime Holden Caulfield said "That killed me" I wanted to rip the book to shreds. But I am interested in why you find him to be a good writer.

Take a look here: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...97&hl=president