Bryan

I argee with your basic point that Windows buttom line the best operating system to use. The primary reason for this is the vast selection of software titles that are only available on a Windows platform. If take away the large software base though, with the release of OS X, Apple is hands down better. They just realeased a "Mac Mini" that starts at $499. Dollar for dollar, its the best home computer you can buy. I think these new low-priced Macs are going to do huge things for Apple's market share. In the Linux realm, I have to disagree with your statement about SuSe being the best. The biggest problem I've had with SuSe, is the bloat. When you install it, they install everything on your hard drive but the kitchen sink. I remember I installing once, after choosing one of the more minimal installation packages, and seeing it installing some file relating to German zip codes. Maybe things have changed, I haven't tried it in a couple years. My personal favorite distribution is Mandrake. I've been wanting to try Gentoo out, but the installation process looks like a weekend long affair. The beautiful thing about Linux is that you can literally do anything you want with it. Depending on what you want to do, there are 100s of different distributions to choose from. I don't see Linux being a serious contender for the average home user market unless somebody completely rebuilds a new graphical user interface for it. The X Windows system that drives all the current Linux GUIs is horrible. Even the best top-level GUIs (KDE and GNOME) in Linux don't hold a candle to Microsoft, and nobody comes close to OS X in GUI quality.

If it is proven by observation that a certain implementation of private roads doesn't work then you could find another implementation that does work. When I think of the privatization of roads I don't imagine mass toll booths every quarter mile. I could see toll booths on major highways that travel long distances, but on side roads, I don't think there would be any tolls at all. They could be funded by local business consortiums, or through bonds sold by companies that are in the business of building roads. Private ownership doesn't mean brick walls and barbed wire fences everywhere. For large-scale projects like roads that are a benefit for everyone, the funding for them would be voluntary instead of our current system of extortion. This type of speculation is far from reality though. If we do begin moving towards a pure capitalist society, the privatization of roads would be one of the last phases.

I absolutely loved it. I can't remember a funnier movie that has come out in the past couple years. The utter ridiculousness of the characters is priceless, especially Napoleon's older brother Kip and Uncle Rico. I am big fan of that "dry" humor. Some of my favorite movies are the ones directed by Wes Anderson, Rushmore, Royal Tenenbaums, and his latest Life Aquatic.

I have Rachmaninov: The Piano Concertos, it is a 6 CD collection of a lot of Rachmaninov's works (obviously including his four piano concertos). I enjoy it quite a bit, but I'll admit that I'm a classical music layman like yourself. There was a little bit about Rachmaninov in yesterday's TIA Daily. Here are the some of the links that they provided. Maybe they can give you a little insight. Interview from 1927 Musical Recommendations www.rachmaninoff.co.uk

On a similar note, I remember when I was a child I had a poster of John Elway taped on my door that came out of some kid's sports magazine. On the back it listed some of John Elway's likes and dislikes, his favorite book was also Atlas Shrugged.

1. This issue could be handled by a legal contract between the two gay partners when they choose to spend their lives together. 2. If there is a gay couple, and one of the adults is the biological parent of the child the other partner could legally adopt the child. This is no different from a married straight couple where one partner adopts the biological child of the other. 3. With a will you can legally leave your property to whoever or whatever you want. I've heard of people leaving their entire estates to their pets. The only major issues I see with gay "marriage" that can't be solved through a contract are those that involve a third party. An example is where one person is the "bread-winner" and gets health insurance for their spouse though their employer from an insurance company. If the insurance company doesn't recognize gay spouses, these people cannot get the same benefits from their employers as their heterosexual counterparts.

The work you are speaking of is "The Question of Scholarships" it is included in The Voice of Reason.

I wouldn't get too excited about the amount of energy that can be extracted from a fly... yet From the article: This thing isn't going to by making any transcontinental jounreys anytime soon . Nevertheless, I find this article fascinating. Too bad there aren't any pictures of the robot in the article, or at the very least some rough dimensions of its size. I decided to add this link regarding the EcoBot, if anyone cares: Crazy Fly-eating robot from the future

I loathe peanut brittle, what camp does that put me in?

I second this recommendation. Dr. Locke's book provides insight for anyone who has a desire to learn through reading. Exactly! The first few chapters of Study M&M address this specifically. Dr. Locke defines "reading" and identifies the differences between perceptual "reading", concrete-bound reading (just reading), abstract reading, and abstract integrative reading (objective "studying").

Welcome

From what I have seen in this thread, The Durande refuses to see that his statement "the universe has mass" has the same invalid meaning as the statement "the universe has anti-lock brakes". You could give examples of "the universe has [insert invalid characteristic pertaining to the concept of universe here]" until you are blue in the face, but I'm beginning to doubt that he will ever concede his error in thinking, to himself or anyone else. I empathize, I hate to admit that I'm wrong too, but Durande enough is enough.

Objectivists support private charity as a means of redistributing wealth if individuals choose to redistribute their wealth to something or someone else. This is a favorable alternative to government extortion where your money is forcibly taken from you and spent in manners that you may not approve of. A large-scale "act of god" such as the tsunami in Asia, seems to be a reasonable cause to donate money to. Donating to a private charity to aid the victims makes a lot more sense then government "tax relief". If you donate to a private charity you have a lot more control on where and how your money is spent. I would say the above reason or something along the lines thereof is a valid argument for donating to charity. You can derive personal value from giving to a cause that you feel is just. It is wrong if you give more than you can afford (then it becomes a sacrifice) or give to a cause that you know is unjust (such as a filthy hobo begging on the corner until he has enough nickels for a handle of vodka).

A lot of companies that do cancer research that are non-profit, thus there are no "shares" to be purchased. If you think your money would be best spent in a non-profit organization and the cure, not the profit is your primary goal, a donation would make more sense than an investment. Not knowing anything about the companies currently doing cancer research and lacking a selfish interest in a cure for cancer, I have no idea where the best place to put money would be.

I love wearing all my burlap hippie-shirts!

I doubt that you could. In order to get a court order for a right of way there has to be some pretty extreme extenuating circumstances. I'm not talking about direct property seizure here, I'm talking about reasonable disagreements between neighboring property owners. I'm on your side about property rights, I'm just trying to point out examples where two parties property rights are in legitimate conflict. What has to be presupposed about court arbitration is that the court is objective and fair. We all know that this is not always the case, but that is another discussion altogether. When cases go to court the court looks at the situation and makes a decision that is reasonable and fair for both parties involved. It could be the case that the judge says, "No, it is unreasonable for you to demand a road cutting across this man's property. I cannot allow it." But he can also say, "A road along the edge of the property is not unreasonable. There is simply no other place to construct a road, so that his man can access his property. Special considerations will be taken when constructing the road to make sure that the environment is disturbed as little as possible. You will be paid an annual fee of $2.00 per square ft of your property that this road takes up. Hopefully at some point in the future you will realize the benefit of having such a road built on your property should you choose to develop it, or sell the land to someone else who does. Please submit a contract for this right of way for me to approve."

Christmas is over, but let me give it a try. 1. Yes, atoms have mass. (no, the periodic table is valid.) 2. Yes, all these items are comprised of atoms therefore they have a mass. 3. Yes, golf balls and piles of them have a mass. 4. Yes, all these things are part of the universe. 5. Yes, you can answer in the affirmative to all these questions, but you still cannot describe the universe in terms of mass. The universe is existence. There are things entities that exist that can be describe in terms of their mass. You can even add the masses of as many of these entities as you desire to obtain some relatively large number. But you can't describe the universe (existence) in terms of mass, or color, or beauty, or a multitude of other characteristics. What is the mass of the universe? What color is the universe? How beautiful is the universe? Do you see why these questions don’t work?

Soulsurfer provided an excellent counter example that points out the error you are making. Read it again, maybe it will click the second time.

I agree that prearranged contracts would circumvent all these problems. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred a contract exists and everything is fine. But there are those isolated cases where there are problems. Let's put this gas situation into context here though. Somebody will own the surface of a huge tract of land out in the middle of nowhere (when drilling a well, its is designated by a 40 or 80 acre spacing unit, every single mineral owner within that spacing unit gets a royalty on any oil or gas profit from the well), they don't live on the property, they don't even use the property for anything, its just there doing nothing. I'm not talking about somebody who has a half an acre in a subdivision and you go in there with a tractor and dig up their back yard and put a huge pump or oil derrick there. This is land that is of no value until the oil or gas is discovered. The surface owner is offered a large annual compensation for the use of the surface so that he can actually turn a profit from his previously useless land by doing absolutely nothing. He refuses, leaving all the mineral owners that own the land below high and dry. There is no contract that pre-ordains what to do if this situation arises. What do you do? Why would you automatically default to his rights over the rights of the mineral owner(s)? If it taken to court and the court forces him to take (his now larger) annual profit for his previously useless land, what exactly is being sacrificed? The only thing that I see being "sacrificed" here is the surface owner's irrationality. This situation I describe is not an exaggeration, it occurs all the time.

Actually these types of situations occur quite frequently. Not to the extreme where somebody is "trapped" in their home surrounded by someone's property who will not let them pass, but let me give an example. Let's suppose you purchase land in a mountainous area and desire to build your dream home on it. Due to geographical restrictions, the only way to build a road to your property from the main road is to build it along the edge of property that somebody else owns. The other landowner is reluctant to allow you to do this, even though he doesn't live on this property or even use it for anything. You offer him more than fair compensation to build the road, it actually adds value to his property if you build the road on it, but he still refuses. Is your land doomed to stagnation until you can afford a helicopter or have enough money to build a tunnel? Why must you suffer because of someone else's irrationality? Right of way agreements that are organized through courts are common resolutions to these types of problems.

Doesn't the government protect rights to assure that the condition of having rights is fullfilled? The guarantee of rights is implied by their protection provided that the government is effective in that protection.

I would recommend Atlas Shrugged, The Ayn Rand Reader or For the New Intellectual. For someone with no prior knowledge of Objectivism, AS would be the most entertaining introduction. The other two are basically compilations of excerpts of Ayn Rand's work that provide a good introduction. The title essay in FNI is an excellent rebuttal to the dominant philosophies throughout human history. I empathize with your hesitance to recommend OPAR. I too have recommended this to people and they seem to lose interest quickly. It is not a good introduction to the philosophy, but it is very good at bringing everything together after someone has already had some exposure to Objectivism. If you look at the suggested reading from aynrand.org, they only recommend OPAR after reading FH, AS and 22 essays.

To start off, please do not put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. I never suggested anyone surrendering his or her rights for "the common good". I am specifically talking about a property owner that owns land that has oil or gas reserves being able to access those reserves, extract them and sell them. This has absolutely nothing to do with the common good as such. Of course multiple parties do benefit from the action; the property owner, the oil company that operates and markets the gas, and the person who purchases the gas. When original land titles were issued, a landowner owned all the land from the surface all the way down to the core of the Earth. In some cases when land changes title, only the surface title changes hands and the original owner retains the property (and all the rights applicable to that property) below the surface. This being the case, it can be argued that when you purchase just the surface rights to a piece of property you do so with the understanding that the owner of the property below the surface may need to access his property at some point in the future. A similar example is when someone purchases a house in a development where there is a homeowner’s association. The buyer understands that in order to live on the property he must abide by the rules and regulations of the HOA, he does not have complete and total property rights. Getting back to the surface and mineral issue, it can also be argued that the mineral owner understands that when he gives up his property rights to the surface that he may not be able to access his property below. So when a dispute arises, which landowner is correct, the surface owner or the mineral owner? Both owners have legitimate claims to their land. It is not a simple issue, and it can be even more clouded if both the surface and mineral titles have changed hands many times. A lot of the problems could be avoided if well-defined terms are drawn out in a contract before a title change takes place, but in a lot of cases they are not.

The disagreement here comes from your idea that there is "no right to access property". I say there is a right to access property and it is derived from the property ownership rights. What would be the purpose of owning property if you cannot use and benefit from it? If someone is using their property to block access to your property they are violating your property rights.

If two parties cannot work out an agreement, that is where that courts come in. Through the legal system you do indeed have a right to force an agreement. To give a concrete example, right now I am working in the land department of an oil and gas company. It is a very frequent that for a given piece of land the person who owns the surface of the land (0 to 200 ft in depth) is different from the person who owns the mineral rights to the land (200 ft and below). An oil and gas company will set up a lease with the mineral owner to drill into the land to exact oil or gas from the mineral depths but they have to work out an agreement with the surface owner to set up the equipment on their land. Most of the time the surface owners are more than happy to allow the oil company to operate on their land because they are compensated very well monetarily for the inconvenience. But in cases where an agreement cannot be reached, it has to be taken to the courts or arbitration. The oil company has a right to the land below the surface and the surface owner cannot prevent them from accessing it.