Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nate

  1. I disagree. I'll talk to you and/or K-Mac about it in chat or elsewhere if you like. I don't want to hijack David's thread.
  2. No. The IRS number isn't right. As it has already been stated numerous times, the IRS bases their figure on only your sells. Its up to you to deduct your purchase price (cost basis) for those sells. The figure he was given is based on a cost basis of ZERO. Certainly, he paid SOMETHING for those shares? Isn't it great when people give advice about things they don't know about?
  3. Well, first off. Do not panic. I have been audited and handled it myself. Part of my audit included a large number of securities transactions. They disputed the information that I submitted and did exactly the same thing they have now done to you: gave me a ridiculous bill based on a 0 cost basis. Now that you are being audited, the first thing I would do is ask the IRS for a copy of your "information returns" or "IRMF." These are the reports that sNerd is talking about. This way you know what the IRS knows and you can be certain that you don't miss anything that will get you in trouble. After that, create and give the auditor an amended return along with proof (brokerage statements or whatever) and simply tell the auditor you made an honest mistake. Shouldn't end up costing you that much, depending on the amount involved. Even if you hire H&R Block to create this amended return, I would still ask for the information returns (edit: before you go to H&R, obviously.). Good luck.
  4. Just UO for me. I studied the material, not just listened, including multiple listens to selected material and extensive notes. I didn't always fully complete the homework, but I did at least think it over for a bit before continuing. Cost is definitely a factor. I also prefer book format, but not so much that I won't buy the courses. I'm hoping I get the opportunity to borrow some of the lectures. My next listen is probably Advanced Seminars on OPAR. I'm interested in most of the major lecture courses, though. I think they are critical for my understanding of Objectivism, but some (but probably not many) may be able to get along without them.
  5. Nope, not even close. Can't seem to find any in SE WI. At least not any that want to meet. I've only met an ... well actually two Objectivists at a not-so-close-by university club ARI lecture. Sadly, it was the clubs' last meeting.
  6. Against: "Why act on principle?" By Leonard Peikoff available free to registered users of ARI If you are struggling with this issue, then I strongly recommend giving this lecture a listen. It runs about an hour. Hopefully, you will be able to see Peikoff's truck hurtling toward you in time to step out of the way.
  7. I'm going up to Appleton, probably in April, to meet two Objectivists attending Lawrence University. If anyone ^^^ *wink* ^^^ is interested and/or wants to carpool, then please let me know.
  8. http://www.emusic.com/album/10968/10968342.html There are apparently multiple versions of this song. alternately: http://www.rhapsody.com/-search?query=requ...ype=RhapKeyword A quick google search (example terms: name that tune) indicates that there are a number of websites aimed at solving this problem (of unknown songs). One of the results was midomi.com ... I'm not sure how well these sites work, but I suppose its worth a shot. I imagine that the more obscure the music is the less likely it is to work. Ironically, I found a youtube video featuring the song with AS art in the background!
  9. I see that, presumably sNerd, anticipated my next post and changed the thread title. I guess I sort of read between the lines on your post about the upcoming appearance on this thread. On the troubleshooting side, I'm on XP.
  10. Here is the Peter Schwartz appearance sNerd mentions: http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=250601391 Do you think starting a new thread for each appearance is cluttering up the forum too much? These appearances haven't been so frequent until recently.
  11. I just used Firefox w/o the IE tab plug-in. Not sure what other plug-ins I have installed, but it plays fine for me. Edit: Under tools > content > options > file types all I see is QT, WMP, Flash, and adobe, and I'm on version You can look there to perhaps see what is going on.
  12. I think Dr. Brook does an excellent job in his appearances. He is able to communicate something meaningful at least. He also never lets his opponents interrupt his opportunity to speak while at the same time not interrupting them unless it is absolutely necessary, such as if they are eating up all the time, even though they don't extend the same opportunity to him. I do think Yaron would have been more forceful here, particularly when the host and co-guest interrupted him two or three sentences into his opening remarks. The host addresses the co-guest three times during the clip. Each time he is given plenty of time to respond. Binswanger is only addressed twice: once interrupted and once when only a few seconds remained after which the co-guest butted in again. That said, in this case I think the setup was so bad that nothing much could have been done with it anyway. This also happens to be the first time I have seen Dr. Binswanger on television. Also, given the number of appearance by ARI on this program, I find it annoying that they don't pronounce "Ayn" correctly. Apparently Dr. Binswanger feels the same way.
  13. Harry Binswanger appeared on CNBC yesterday to discuss CEO pay. A clip can be found on the CNBC website here: http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=248485965
  14. Welcome to the forum! "The Objectivist Ethics" only covers ... well ... ethics. There are five branches of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics. I would think that OPAR would be pretty good for a foundation. You could also read the more specialized books on the other branches if you are so inclined. (epistemology: ITOE, ethics: "The Virtue of Selfishness", politics: "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", aesthetics: "The Romantic Manifesto") You might also replace the word "rationalism" above with "rationality" in the future. Look in the Wiki to learn why: http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/wiki/Main_Page There is a good introductory video here: http://www.aynrandnovels.com/ARIdeas.php?p...me=intro_course Also, don't be afraid to ask why certain things aren't compatible with Objectivism, but try the search button first!
  15. Good grief. Way to use the new forum member as a trampoline. Welcome to the forum, Eric! Meta, are YOU an "acoholic"? Maybe that's why Prometheus thought DragonMaci asked if he read any other "boos" (booze)?
  16. Wha? So he's an SOB because he's mentally ill? Edited to expand quote.
  17. Welcome to the forum! You might ask a moderator to move this to the relationships subforum: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showforum=72 I think you would do better there. This topic doesn't really fit in with the intended purpose of this forum. (edited to replace erroneous POST link with the correct TOPIC link)
  18. This morning, ADS from THE FORUM has informed us that Stephen Speicher has passed away. If you would like to express your thoughts and feelings, the thread can be found here: http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s...5885&st=160
  19. I received an alert from ARI stating that Yaron Brook was going to be on CNBC to speak against mortgage regulation ... but didn't read it until after the program. I was somewhat frustrated since I keep missing out. After poking around for a while, I found the talk on the CNBC website. Anyone who would like to see it can go here: http://search.cnbc.com/main.do?keywords=Ya...mp;target=video You can also view some of his previous talks with a paid subscription. A free trial is available.
  20. Nate

    Poker as Profession

    First, welcome to the forum. I see you've found the search button, so I'll skip that rant. If you insist! I've taken to the idea mentioned earlier in the thread that poker players are essentially entertainers. As far as them "giving" you money voluntarily, I don't think that alone is enough to consider a profession moral, not to imply that that was your intended meaning. I.E. selling nukes to North Korea could be done voluntarily. I agree that I've gotten a lot of added value from the game as well. As far as people not knowing the odds, I don't think this is necessarily delusional. People playing strictly for entertainment simply might not be interested. As an aside, I'm no longer playing. When I was it was because my primary source of income was unavailable to me. (gov't bs, long story) Ultimately, I just didn't find poker to be a fulfilling career. The money sort of dried up for me too when the new anti-gaming legislation was passed and many of the deposit bonuses became unavailable to US players. (The gov't strikes again!) I played mostly online and the various deposit bonuses were a large part of my income.
  21. So what do you mean by context? How does it differ from a concrete? They are not the same thing.
  • Create New...