Olex

You got nothing on me. Play Zyel mod for Diablo2 LOD. And just get to Nightmare level, then you can talk to me. EDIT: Useful addition to the topic follows. I'll sail along with other posts here. However, I'll expand with more detail. Yes, playing games can waste your time. But it is in no way deterministic. Games are nothing more than tools. How you use them is up to you. If you play games to escape from reality to experience some "fun," then it is a waste of time. If, however, you play games for some constructive purpose, then it is a whole another deal. Consider my thoughts on playing a game: Playing a game means I won't be producing more for my personal project. However, this alone is not enough to say games are wasteful. For the same reason, one could say that education is wasteful, since you aren't working. But you can be working - improving your logic and reasoning for example. Take Diablo2, for example. While original game is far too easy. Many mods provide a very tough challenge. And I find myself assessing situation and my armor to see which way I should improve it and how, what spells to enhance and which to drop, etc., etc. This is exactly what I find myself do during programming: finding what should I tackle first, how, what code to improve and which to erase. Thus, I found a way to enhance my skills in a different environment [coding versus playing Diablo2], which makes those skills even better. If you have played such games like Fallout 1 or 2, and you've spend 2 hours configuring your character before actually playing a game, then you know how much assessment effort can go into the game. Bottomline: games aren't bad or good. They just are. How you approach them is what makes your interaction with games good or bad. Furthermore, people play the same game differently. Thus, I come to conclusion that calling games bad and wasteful is the same as calling a hammer bad and dangerous for your fingers.

I disagree. It doesn't make sense to me. Just like in the famous quote: "Road to hell is laid out of good intentions." A good intention doesn't make an idea any more right. If the idea is wrong, it is still wrong. Quoting Ayn Rand from the article "How Does One Lead Rational Life in an Irrational Society?": Of course, when your life is threatened, you can't speak up, but otherwise, I follow the quoted principle. P.S. The article goes into some depth as to why it makes sense. Read it, if you have not.

1st place: Queen 2nd place: Pink Floyd, Urian Heep, Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin 3rd place: Classic, Jazz, Ambient

Ugly, very ugly. However, it does reflect the modern state of affairs in USA. Also, what is that grey cloth around her? It doesn't look like part of the statue abomination.

That's how it works in real world. See Sweden welfare post on forums.

And I suggest a practice: fall off your bike. I have made quite a few rolls over the front bar. Funny thing is I would have problems doing the roll intentionally, but during accident there is not time to feel nervous - you simply want to survive. [Hmm, I rolled over my head during tennis game once. No injuries or bumps.]

You definitely needs some funding. If I had 40 billion to spend like B. Gates, that's what I would do. About the land, I don't think there is a patch anywhere for you to take for free, as all the land is taken or claimed by one or another country. So, the real option is to buy the land. And that is definitely possible, so long as someone is willing to sell you a piece. (Think Russia [before USSR], USA, and Alaska) I bet some territory in Africa could be easily bought from one of the countries there. This would be much cheaper than buying from a developed country. After you have bought a land, it gets tricky. Technically, you should be able to claim a creation of a new country. [Think break up of USSR] Though, you have to get others [like UN for example] to see you as a country. After that, you are free to roll, and make the country of reason and freedom. If done well, intelligent humans should flock as they used to flock to North America from Europe back in the day. [i know I would.] The key in the end is the initial resource. P.S. However, modern Mulligans seem to be tired by society and want to do "good" to be remembered by people. [Yeah, I know, how dumb is that?]

It sure does. I agree with observations. Ancient Greece and Rome serve as good examples. Think of the statues of that time depicting thinkers who weren't flimsy like James Taggart.

I like it, but it needs some structure. Clear beginning (a short paragram) will improve it.

I'd use the money to build a John Galt country.

Btw, how come Chinese ISP's aren't blocking our forums from you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall_of_China I'm pretty sure, we have phrases like "human rights," and "democracy". Wouldn't that mean you are breaking your country's laws by visiting our forums?

I agree in some ways, Bill Gates can be seen as James Taggart. Especially, if some of the things I've read about early MS are true. (when Pall Allen was still there) http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060330.html Yeah, that would be a view very close to hedonism. It still has to be moral. [Not to mention that happiness is an emotion, so must be carefully analyzed for truthfullness and proper reasons to be happy.]

I've found that there is an article "How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?" in "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand. I've not read it yet, but will soon. EDIT: there is a discussion on it, on our forums: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...aded&show=&st=&

Ah, good post. Let me comment from my slightly older position (+5 years). Yep, right to the point. How is it that they live so bad, and yet feel that they can judge you? Based on their experience? No, that is nonsense, if they are living badly, then they can't judge you. Though, they do anyway, b/c they feel the age has given them something they didn't have. Really, no kidding. Imagine someone who is stuck with a wrong idea. At the age of 15-20, they don't feel that good about it, b/c they are not old enough to be certain. But then as they get older into 30+, they suddenly feel that their age has given them permission to feel that their wrong idea has somehow turned to be right. The usual flawed logic is: "Well, by 30s I should know what I'm doing [though I don't feel right], but I should, so it has to be so [but it's not]." The only solution their mind can give is to construct a mental block over it. Admitting that you were wrong about something for 10-20 years takes courage, but feelings get in the way and they wouldn't let themselves feel bad about themselves for being wrong. So, they deny it. You might as well ask yourself who are you to say that A is A. The bottomline is you have a brain, you are capable of logic and reasoning. If you can't judge based on your logic, then what else could you do? You are in position to judge. That's b/c the reason is the age. Here's a usual flawed logic here. How can you know how this is, unless you have experienced it firsthand? Or how can you know me if you have not seen everything I do for past 10 years [or whole life]? One might as well ask "How do you know all apples are attracted by gravity if you have not seen all apples?" B/c you have logic, and you can build abstract concepts. Those who are in denial with their life, had very likely damaged their logic. Thus, they can't use it to build abstract concepts. Thus, they don't get how you have come to think what you think without all experiences they have had. Thus, they turn to your young age as your fault. [Which it isn't anyway.] Luckily, it's your choice. Just like in Atlas Shrugged: you can feel bad and pity those who don't want to live [in proper meaning of the word] and thus giving up your energy on them. OR you can concentrate on your life and what you like to do and do it. I have found from studying others that they often don't know what to do, but they really want to feel like they know their goals. Instead, they end up following someone else's goals, and never discover their own. Yep. Good. Enthusiasm is your energy, don't let anyone break your concetration and waste it on meaningless things and worries. "Real world" is a construct other people use to show their apparent wisdom. [those people of whom I talked about above]. You've probably heard of many more similar claims: "Wait till you get a girl-/boy- friend, and you won't have anytime free time left," "Just wait till X, and you will find you've lost Y." You are right, there is no real/surreal life. If you open your eyes and look, you'll find it the way it is. What is really scary, is that they basically, preaching non-thinking. "Oh, you can't be smart enough yet, don't think about this." Keep your eyes on these things, and don't let yourself accept them. It's true in many cases. However, for us who think, it is meaningless, since most people think little or none. With age, you can clear see how people who think and who don't, grow further and further apart. It astonishes me to see this. However, I keep watching myself not to expend my energy trying to change them. We, who think use reason, those who don't - don't use it. So, if we try to teach them, we can only use reason, and they don't get reason. So, you will be figthing a brick wall. I've become to quickly judge how logical a person is before any attempts to help them see anything. They do follow religion pretty well, however. It doesn't use logic, it doesn't make you think, that's why many who don't think like it. Religion speaks their language. Yep. If you keep improving yourself [this includes logic], you'll find it is easy to identify such things. Luckily, it's also possible to identify the good things and people and stick around them.

Google for "curving grades" Here are some articles on the issue: http://archives.thedaily.washington.edu/19...late040997.html http://www.dailylobo.com/media/storage/pap...w.dailylobo.com

So, presidency is in question? Why not tackle the real problem here? [The premise of the need for the woman of hero worship] Presidency is simply an example here, isn't it? If the premise is true or false, then there is no argument in Presidency either way.

While you keep us all excited about your coming ideas and reasoning ... ... mind clarifying what specific idea you are pointing at? EDIT: spelling

Ah, thanks! This makes more sense now.

I'm aware of that. Xbox 360 does have 3 cores, with each capable of running two threads in hardware. However, one core is used for OS stuff, so you only get to use 2 of them, thus only 4 threads. 1. Xbox360 core are really nice solutions, since they don't force you to change much. You simply to get to run on two cores, like some dual-core Pentium D solution for PC. Xbox360 is a nice transition from current hardware without big flaws or hoops that developers have to jump through. 2. PS3 is a different animal. (all according to latest announcements by Sony) Yes, it does have one core (looks to be able to have 2 threads as well, not sure if one is taken for OS), but those 7 elements are a pain. In short, they have very little memory (256K) and have a limit on the execution code size (looks to be like graphical shaders on GPU). So, basically, Xbox is like 3 big football players, versus 7 little guys with one team manager of PS3. Xbox360 has a far better approach for its products (video games). PS3, however, requires a serious redesign of architecture to fit its 7 SPE. Thus, I used PS3 as an example of multi-processing gone bad.

Depends on your currently selected theme.

You have to be really careful here. While it looks like both of you agree on the same example, it is still needed for a person to abstract the correct concept out of it in order to properly apply it elsewhere. The bottom line is: one needs abstract thinking, you can't substitute it with concrete/specific examples. Of course, examples do help if the person has a good abstract ability. Furthermore, you might be falling into a trap of thinking they understand the concept. Example: chess requires quite a bit of knowledge and understanding of abstract concepts of the game. Now, imagine you know them, and playing against somebody you've never played before. You might easily confuse their ability if judging from specific moves they have made. It requires a lot more analysis to assess one's ability of playing chess. Same applies to philosophy. Ouch. This idea can lead to so many problems (and probably did). Computers are awesome in this case, they execute what they are told very well. Humans don't. There is Russian wisdom: "Teach a fool how to pray and he will break his head" (for example, by hitting the floor while praying) A fool is a fool. You can't substitute his poor intellect with something else to "patch" it up. Though, something needs to be done, so we don't have fools running around commiting all sorts of crimes everythere without knowing that it is a crime/immoral. Luckily, decent intellect can be taught during early childhood. Indeed. Just as when studying Math, you need to start from the basics and then move up to more and more complex/involved concepts. And if you were to show someone a math concept that is beyond their current level of understanding, they might be tempted to accept to answer with a common: "I'm not smart enough".

Oooh, I have got to memorize this one for future use.

Oh, this is a very nice approach. In details: (answer to "why?") First, create an environment without men. (Futurama episode of characters landing on the planet Amazonia or one really old Polish movie) Apply Rand's view. Get stable women leader. Next, introduce an appropriate reactive solvent ( men ). And get a sudden reassignment of leadership and its validity as measured by values of hero-worship. This shows an energetical imbalance in the system. While this alone doesn't prove any stance in the topic, it does show a possible problem. If this was in physics, one could say that we have a way to create free energy on our hands: small addition (1 man) leads to large reevaluation and repositioning of leadership in the system. Since, free energy doesn't exist, this means that we have stored energy somewhere that is being released as men introduced into the system. The trick is to figure out if this extra energy is imposed by the theory, or if it actually exists.

Welcome. You call that a lot?