BrassDragon

Well, it depends on the situation, of course. In this case, from what I know, I would say the government acted properly. Do you?

It doesn't seem like the curfew violates citizens' rights to freely assemble. Nor does it seem like questioning everyone passing through such an extremely high-crime area constitutes an "unreasonable" police search. I would welcome such a thing if I lived in that town. Well clearly it IS helping the situation - by helping the police apprehend criminals. And at some point, the people living in that neighborhood have to bear responsibility for choosing to live there, rather than leaving. I don't have a problem with the situation... the proper government response to a super-crime-ridden area is to do whatever is necessary to apprehend criminals. That said, I don't have any information other than the article, so my comments are somewhat speculative. Based on the information in this article, if you went outside at night in this neighborhood, you'd very likely be murdered.

I'll second that. I particularly liked the comment about the role played by humanities professors.

That's a reason? Why? How does observation "dictate" the point of life? Why is it necessary to accomplish? You haven't convinced me on man's nature yet. Your statement that there is nothing immoral about choosing the machine doesn't seem to sync up well with the rest of what you've said.

Not sure that they would be under this hypothetical scenario - but I, personally, think humans have free will.

This song doesn't perfectly match my sense of life, but what better answer to this question could there be than: Anthem, by Rush.

I don't agree with this. If you believe that people behave deterministically and do not have free will or the ability to use reason, you might still criticize someone, with the hope of deterministically "forcing" them to change their behavior - since it is obvious that criticism often does "result" in a change in behavior.

I don't think that has any bearing upon the morality of Linux (though I don't think you claimed that it does). In addition, I think Linux and Unix adhere to a certain design philosophy that's really independent of the way they've developed historically. I think even if Unix had never existed, an open source operating system not unlike the Linux-based OSs of today would have been developed.

Yes, and others as well - thanks to everyone who has been knowledgeable... and no problem for those who aren't...

Thanks for posting this! I enjoyed this and have been interested in de Grey's ideas since hearing of them several years ago. Dan: Your conclusions might be justified, but I don't think this video is (or is intended to be) any sort of comprehensive or academic statement of what de Grey's after. Seems to me like he spent a few years arguing that this was possible (and talking a lot about the science), and now he's trying to convince people that it's worth doing. Hence the focus in this video on convincing people that this is an important issue in the first place. de Gray might be a quack to some degree, but at the same time, the idea that we could drastically extend the length of human life is highly plausible to me. We've made so many scientific advances in so many fields, yet we're not living longer than ancient people who lived fully healthy lives. (e.g. old people in our civilization and old people to the ancient Greeks are not that much different in age)

I don't really agree with the sandwich thing, but I do agree that this thread is bizarre, because it's consisted of a bunch of people who know very little about Linux and open source coming to sort of inaccurate conclusions. For example: Generally speaking, Linux and open source are perfectly moral. Yes, there are people like Stallman out there, but that's the exception, not the rule. Huge companies like IBM and Novell have invested heavily in open source because it results in better software and works for their business models. Individuals often make improvements that they want to see, and if they want to see those improvements expanded upon in future releases of the code, it makes sense to contribute back to the community. Besides, that's a way of gaining feedback on your code and networking with people. So... to say "well it's moral sometimes, and it's immoral sometimes" doesn't really convey any information. Linux is not special in this regard; that statement is true of it only to the degree that it is true of any generally good thing, like eating a sandwich (e.g. one wouldn't say "I'm just claiming that eating a sandwich could be good, or it could be bad"). I'd like to try to correct a few other bits of misinformation I've seen... (1) Linux probably doesn't contain UNIX code, and if it does, it's not a significant amount. Look up Unix on Wikipedia and read about the SCO lawsuits. I don't believe there's any reason to say Linux is "government subsidized" in any direct sense. (2) Linux is a great platform for personal computing, even apart from programming. I've set up Linux for my mother, who is disabled, because, basically, it's easier to use. This will not be the case if you have hardware problems, but that is less and less common these days - and many major PC manufacturers (e.g. Lenovo/IBM, Dell) now offer Linux pre-installed instead of Windows. An additional interesting tidbit: Apple's OS is based on open source - specifically BSD, which is "more" government subsidized than Linux.

I don't think we need to agree on that.

I would just add that the kernel project, headed by Linus Torvalds, is only one of many projects that go together to make a working operating system. I think Linux is better for end user activities :-) For people new to programming, I would highly recommend Python. You can use it on Windows or Linux. To get started, go here: http://www.python.org/doc/current/tut/tut.html That said... us geeks should start our own thread rather than hijack this one if we want to talk about what tools we prefer and so on. I would encourage anyone replying directly to my comments here to do that.

You're wrong, both about how Objectivism works and how open source software works. Objectivism is defined as "the philosophy of Ayn Rand." There is nothing in Ayn Rand's philosophy that states that working on a committee is immoral, including the quote you cite. A broad claim about the morality of all committees, in all contexts, is impossible to make. To be more specific, not all committees function on the premise that there is a "collective mind." Depending on your definition of "committee," committees are practically a necessity of industrial society; groups of people must collaborate and make decisions together to make certain kinds of progress, and to do so is a good thing. As for the second issue: Open source software is as individualistic as software engineering can get. Software is extremely complex, and programmers in corporations, who write closed-source software, work on highly collaborative teams. Open source software allows individuals to customize code to suit their needs; it is when these individuals choose to contribute their changes back the the community that open source software grows. So even if you'd been right about committees, you'd still be wrong in comparing that to open source.

There is no "Objectivist stance" on Linux, because Ayn Rand never said anything about it. Other posters are right in saying that Linux is perfectly moral. I've never heard of subsidies given to Linux projects - if you know of any, please let me know. BSD and its derivatives are NOT Linux, they're BSD. Linux and BSD are both Unix derivatives. Have you tried programming outside the Microsoft ecosystem? i.e. have you tried real programming?

This is inspiring. I have no doubt that this group will server as an inspiration for Objectivist groups in major cities across the country.

Goddamn "calm, cool and professional people," they need to mind their place. I know, 'cause the real rockstar developers are working on enterprise software.

I think not. The point I made is an abstract one, but here is how it is applied in this circumstance: -If Iran gains nuclear weapons, it might use them to kill people; and it is in the process of gaining them. -Iran continues to support Islamic terrorists who kill Americans If you were the dictator of your neighborhood and it attacked my house, I would destroy your neighborhood if that were the most expedient method of dealing with the threat. That said, note that I haven't been advocating nuking Iran at this point; I think it would be most expedient to bomb their government and terrorist infrastructure to the stone age. The justification: So rational people can live safe and happy lives. Well you can, but I wouldn't recommend killing evil people out of revenge; I would recommend killing them to make the world safer for rational people. EDIT: fixed typo

Isn't any breach of justice a direct threat to rational men and women?

It is not immoral to use it, because in using it you are in no way sanctioning or contributing to slavery or any other evil. It is moral to use it, if it contributes to your happiness (it would contribute to mine). That said, the facts of its construction truly are a shame, and I wouldn't enjoy driving on it as much as I would if it were built under better circumstances.

This looks like it might be fun, but Startcraft was/is like chess on crack

Has anyone had any experience with the Atlasphere? (www.theatlasphere.com) I'm interested in meeting more Objectivists, so I've been wondering if the site has any merit. Unfortunately, they seem to be reporting news from TAS in their news section.

The OAC regular admissions deadline is July 30. For anyone who doesn't know, the OAC (Objectivist Academic Center), which is part of ARI, offers programs in Objectivism at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Classes are conducted online or over the telephone. You do not have to be a college undergraduate to enroll (there are many older people in my class), and the coursework is designed to be "light enough" that it can be done without interrupting other studies or a job. More information is available at http://www.objectivistacademiccenter.org/. In addition, if anyone would like to ask questions of a current student, feel free to send me a message. I've taken the first two classes of the undergraduate program, and will be enrolled in the third in the fall. I've really enjoyed it, and have felt it to be very worthwhile. There is no cost for most college students (including me ).

I'm not so sure. As an Iranian, would you be willing to die or spend life in prison for speaking out against the government? Would it be rational to do so - or a sacrifice? It might be that one's life would be so bad in Iran that fighting the government would be the best option - but probably not necessarily. And remember that politics in Iran fluctuate, just as they do here. The fact that Iran is in such a bad state today doesn't mean it always has been or always will be. I think the most rational thing for someone trapped in Iran to do today, speaking generally (because it would actually depend on the situation), would be to wait for the US to annihilate their bastard overlords. EDIT: Note that I'm speaking specifically about whether or not individual Iranians "deserve" to be nuked for not trying to protest the government.

Thanks! I do think we should unconditionally obliterate all installations of the Iranian government and other criminals (terrorists) in Iran. I still don't think large-scale nukes would be an appropriate weapon; I'm sure there are many people in Iran who would be more rational if it were legal to act upon one's own judgment. If nukes were the only option or bombs were truly prohibitively expensive, I would probably then support using nukes. In addition, nukes would be preferable if more than a very small number American lives would be in jeopardy.