Chops

No doubt most classical music is more sophisticated or complicated than most rock music. Is "sophistication" (complexity) a necessary quality of "good"? Restated, is sophisticated music necesarrily better than rock music. Within classical music itself, certainly Beethoven "Da Da Da Daaa" is less sophisticated than some of Bach's complicated fugues. Does that mean that a fugue is necessarily better than Beethoven's relatively simple "Da Da Da Daaaa" theme.

Divided between 300 million people that's amounting to something like $1000-$2000 per year per citizen, not exactly earth shattering Considering some people (the rich) have much to lose from the threat of invasion, they'd more than make up for their poorer counterparts who cannot afford such things. Combine that with, say, monthly flyers mailed to citizens soliciting donations (perhaps containing a chart to help with how much a citizen could donate), you'll get donations. Ideally, the budget would be completely transparent, showing people what is spent where, in general, so that the citizens know where their money is going. Tell the people what they're paying for: $100 = 25 meals for a soldier $1,000 = a cop's weekly salary $10,000 = the cost for keeping three criminals incarcerated for 3 months (please note that these numbers are made up for demonstration purposes). I really don't think that garnering donations would be all that hard.

I would guess that it would be the threat of damage if the tank is ruptured. 4350psi is an incredible amount of pressure. Maybe I'm wrong and they can store it quite stably. I don't know. Either way, I think it's neat.

I'm still getting the error. From a few minutes ago:

My grandpa, a very religious man, says "goddamn" more than anyone I know, and is the man from whom I got my usage of the word. Meanwhile, my mother throws a fit when I say it. It's a goddamn travesty.

Welcome to the board.

Wisconsin here. I don't think there are many of us Wisconsinites here.

We don't have the technology (maybe it'll never exist) to force a the brain to forget certain memorie (ala "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"), but it's possible that it may exist in the future. The mind can forget things, so it's not a stretch to say that the technology may some day be available to force "selective forgetting".

Welcome to the board. What is Slytherclaw? Is that, like, 50% Ravenclaw and 50% Slytherin?

Moreover, we are unaware of the agreements that were made upon entry. I believe it can be safely assumed that one would be aware of the "no leaving" rule before entry. Ryan didn't bring people down there at gun-point. This is context-dropping. Surely you're not confusing that advertisement (and even the ability itself within the context of the game world) to be an outright endorsement of primacy of consciousness. The phrase "Mind over matter" doesn't mean anything unless put into context. An individual could be considered to be doing "mind over matter" just for inventing something that the body couldn't otherwise do (Airplanes). More generally, because you've had a paltry 2 hours (which is like 10% of the game), and concluded it's message, while we're telling you that everything is not as it seems. Play the remaining 90% of the game and come and argue. Right now, you're grasping at underdeveloped straws and making conclusions based on 10% of the data available to you.

That's pretty voracious, so say the least. Which other books of hers have you read?

To go where, though?

You'd think, but the browser can decompress that stuff faster than your internet connection can download it. The load imposed on the browser for decompressing is practically negligible. Compression, overall, is a good thing with text (not so with images). It's actually one of the 14 rules in the book High Performance Web Sites, which is all about making the client-side experience faster for the user. To quote that book in particular: I don't know what the HTTP responses look like with the new chat program, but it may very well not make a difference. If the responses are only of the nature "Chops: Yeah, I know, Atlas Shrugged is amazing, eh?", then there would be minimal benefit, or maybe even a performance hit. If the responses are more substantial than that, then there should be a minimal improvement. At the very least, the forum and the blogs here would GREATLY benefit from gzip.

How long did it take you? Took me 18 months (not that I found it drudgery, it was, and remains, my favorite book of all time).

Welcome aboard. I, too, am interested in the web development you've done.

And that is their right to do with what is theirs. But if southparkzone.com has the approval of Matt and Trey (or Comedy Central, depending on who actually has the rights), then I retract my previous comment. If, however, that is an unauthorized redistribution, then it is indeed wrong (within the context of Objectivism).

Thanks for the link, sNerd. That's fully preposterous and I hope the company fights back hard, rather than giving in.

I am well aware (I posted that announcement early in this thread, actually), and while I may hit southparkstudios.com for some episodes, I prefer the DVD format and to watch on my TV. But thank you. Your comments about southparkzone.com, though, as you are probably aware are in advocacy of piracy. Whether or not it's legal in the Netherlands or not (where it is hosted) is irrelevant to it's morality. There are plenty of piracy threads around the forum, if you wish to discuss a particular aspect of it, but generally speaking, piracy is immoral.

It's certainly not a game of luck. Keep in mind, you're still plenty young to choose a career (Colonel Sanders founded KFC when he was 65), so no need to fret. It's simply a matter of finding what you are passionate about, and that will require some introspection. I'd say it relies on experience. As you work on solving problems (any problems), you'll get ideas on how to do things better, and those ideas on improvement should be what drive you. It seems to me that the more you know about something, the more interesting it becomes, largely because the problems presented to you are that much harder. Also, it's better to think "do I want to do this?" rather than the alternative that many use of "do I want to take the time to learn this?" Focus on the creation/productive aspect, focus not on the drudgery of schoolwork, in which the product is primarily useless, but instead focus on the ultimate product (what you would create after you complete school), and recognize that the schoolwork is merely a step in that direction. Keep it interesting by doing your own projects on the side, separate from school. For example, if you do decide to do architecture, don't resign your architecture work just to school. Instead, on the side, for fun, design your own buildings. Let your imagination run wild with ideas and try to implement them (draw, model, etc). Some of the most miserable people I know are the types that go to work because "it's a job." The types that have no passion for it to do it in their free time, and who would regard taking their work home with them almost as an assault. Conversely, those that do in their jobs the same thing that they would do in their free time tend to be happier. Those are the people that have two things going for them: 1) They aren't doing it for the money, so they enjoy themselves more 2) They focus on it more, because of how much they enjoy it, and they become much better than those who might choose the same degree for "the money" or "prestige" (Keating) So what do you enjoy doing in your free time that is semi-productive?

I appreciate the more concrete examples. Unquestionably, I'll rewatch every episode again (most likely in order when season 11 and 12 come on DVD), and I'll keep my eyes and ears open to try to validate the claims myself to see if I can find any similarities beyond coincidence (Think of Sol's monologue in the movie pi: "Hold on. You have to slow down. You're losing it. You have to take a breath. Listen to yourself. You're connecting a computer bug I had with a computer bug you might have had and some religious hogwash. You want to find the number 216 in the world, you will be able to find it everywhere. 216 steps from a mere street corner to your front door. 216 seconds you spend riding on the elevator. When your mind becomes obsessed with anything, you will filter everything else out and find that thing everywhere.") I'm still very skeptical that the coincidences you've presented are more than just coincidences and are orchestrated as a (subtle) inside joke.

He's a typical manipulator. Asserting that he was clearly influenced by Wynand is far fetched, however. I've seen every episode of South Park before season 12 (I wait for the DVDs to come out). Butters is a quirky guy. There are parellels between Butters and Rearden, just as there are parellels between Rearden and my Dad, who has never read anything of Rand's and knows nothing about her philosophy. Many characters in South Park parallel characters in other novels and even characters in real life. You're finding a few similarities and focusing on those, without focusing on those attributes that are dissimilar: The fact that Butters' alter ego "Dr Chaos" is trying to to destroy the world*, that he's overall not very smart, and that he really DOESN'T have spine, is obvious that he's just a fun, cute, quirky character. If you could provide some hard examples, I've be glad to rewatch certain episodes to attempt to validate your claims. This is a thread about South Park, not Ron Paul (relevant thread), the Iraq War (relevant thread), or Objectivism's overall objections to Libertarianism (relevant thread). Let's try to stay on topic, please. I can't seem to find a relevant thread to direct you to, so perhaps this is something you can posit in another thread. But it's certainly NOT relevant in this thread. I simply don't see a resemblance. Beyond the fact that the chickenlover has red hair and has sex, I don't see a similarity at all between Roark and Dominique. As per your request, I watched that particular episode last night, and then rewatched relevant parts. Overall, the only parallel of any substance whatsoever is the brief mention of the "self-sustaining generator in Colorado," (I also watched that episode yesterday) which, if truly inspired by AS is a very clever little bit. The other claims, though, are simply too thin to garnish any support from me. If you're going to be a grammar nazi, I'm going to do the same and request that Objectivism be written properly, as a proper noun (that is with a capital O). There is a difference between "objectivism" and "Objectivism", just as there is a difference between "liberterianism" and "Libertarianism". I hope you can respect that difference. It might seem small to you, but you felt the need to correct the spelling of penis and incorrectly correct the spelling of semen. * Before you jump all over that one claiming "Galt tried to stop the motor of the world, there's a clear parallel" remember that Galt is trying to fix the problems. Butters tried flooding the world (with a garden hose, mind you). In that regard Galt has about as much in common with Butters as he does with Zorg from the Fifth Element. Edit: brief fixes and added the footnote.

Most of your claims are pretty fantastic (as in "outrageous"), but this one sounds not like a comparison of any kind, but outright conjecture. How are you concluding that Butters' grandfathers are Rearden and Galt (and that his parents are half-siblings)?

It's important to hear the audio as well. The seething hatred in her voice makes it all the more ridiculous.

I've seen the first Powerthirst video, but never the second. Hysterical!

Hitchens (from what I've heard, I've not read any of his books) seems to be more a writer for atheists, rather than a writer that can effectively convert religionists. His books are mounted more as an attack, than as an argument. I could be wrong, though, as I've said, I've not read any of his books. Not sure if you have or not, but you could always try the original book on evolution: The Origin of Species That said, for a book on metaphysics and epistemology, I would strongly recommend Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, which does a thorough job of establishing a rational theory of knowledge, incidentally, one that addresses and dismisses the supernatural.