prosperity
-
Posts
305 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by prosperity
-
-
I've never heard of him, but his theory seems more wishful thinking than anything. Cool map, though. I doubt Tennessee would ever go with being part of a North-Eastern region.
I can definitely see Texas as "the Texas Rebublic",
-
Your not taking over Google the company. He means, taking over the results of their searches. There are ways to make it where you are on the front page of a Google search, which in turn guarantees lots of traffic.
That's exactly right. I've been a little irritated at google for a while...I think their search relevancy has kind of gone down the tubes a little (well I guess it depends on what you're searching for)...but there's been times where the search results had absolutely nothing to do with what I typed in the box...so then I got an idea.
Anyway, I'd like to see more of my stuff on the first page because it's good material.
-
Talk about doomsday:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB123...0709638419.html
An easy read, but I've never heard of the guy, anyone else?
-
Why take over Google?
Wouldn't it actually be cheaper to make a new search engine for example?
No, it wouldn't. You need two things for a search engine. The engine (not the hard part if you are good at coding), and then you need people searching on it. I have no desire to compete with google, I just want to make money from them by climbing up their search results and tapping into their existing clientele.
I need a few other people who would like to do the same.
-
There was no room for this in any of the categories under "activism". But, this is a modified version of a copy of a "letter" I sent to a local college in response to their "Earth Day" celebration. It's been modified to suggest people invest in real green (money) instead of artificial green (environmentally friendly stocks). I did not receive a response, though, perhaps others on this forum would like to pass it around, or link to it from their site...
http://www.twintierfinancial.com/the_uncom...lly-respon.html
-
Hello,
I'm trying to find folks on this board who own websites, preferably related to money and finance, that would like to join me in taking over google
Seriously, I have a proposal that would be mutually beneficial (and relatively cheap to implement) to help increase our placement in the SERPs, provide the Objective information that is desperately needed out there, and generate more traffic and, of course, money.
If you want more info, please PM me with "SERP strategy" or something similar in the subject line.
Thanks,
-
DON'T LISTEN TO PEOPLE WHO TELL YOU IT IS "HARD" TO GET "INTO" AN INDUSTRY!!!!!
Why? Because this is B.S. What they actually mean--and no one will tell you--is that there are a billion people all trying to wedge themselves into the obvious door, so the thing you need to do is make your own door.
This isn't necessarily a difficult thing to do, it's just that there are *no* guides or roadmaps. The only thing I've found to get started is that if you want to make films/write books/paint/whatever, get out there and start doing it. Get yourself a camera and start making some films, then find some way to put them out there where people can watch them. Don't try to get the job/find a publisher/find a client. MAKE STUFF. The job/publisher/client will find you once you start regularly circulating your work.
People keep telling me that I should look for a publisher for my novel, and my response is always "why do I need a publisher for a novel that doesn't fully exist yet?" Heck, once I've finished it there are dozens of ways I can get it out in the world.
All the really interesting people you'll ever meet got their position through a non-obvious door. So can the advice and the road maps and start doing things instead of planning what you're *going* to do if you ever find the time/money/inclination.
I'll second that. One of the most famous authors in the world (and I believe the highest paid at the time) began as an uneducated factory worker. You might have heard of him, Jack London.
Aside from his socialist leanings, he has an incredible story...
As far as film goes, Quentin Tarantino learned his trade working as a video store clerk, not in film school...with the Internet and the technology available today and with social media sites like youtube, there are so many ways to accomplish what you want...it may (or may not) be difficult, but it is definitely not impossible.
-
Any update on this?
Does this prevent it from being put up on youtube like the rest of them?
-
A nice reductum ad absurdum for you
1) a schizophrenic person thinks he see a cat next to him , he based on that experience knows that he haze a cat therefore according to your logic he haze a cat
2) However other persons observe that there is no cat , it’s a figment of imagination of this person and that he is patting the air not a cat this again is 100% true according to you.
3)because 1 and 2 can not be true the argument fails or are you arguing that A is NO A and A at the same time?
4) The classical strategy to this is to play subjectivism and word games you see you can argue that every person in 1 and 2 are 100% true in their frame of reference however this negates a objective reality. Identically if you argue that Einstein and Newton are 100% true , they are not. One persons models reality better the other that’s why one is false and the other is write. And this is named validating something against a objective reality not believing in a subjective personal truth where everyone is 100% true. Finally every experience would be equally true making superstition a fact by default because it would be true in this persons “frame of reference”. However the point is that we can never know what this objective reality is and can never have 100% certainty we are not a brain in a jar or in the matrix because every prove ultimately rests on our senses and they can be deceived example drugs (or is a LSD trip 100% real and we have weird stuff around
). Now on god
As a Gnostic Atheist I know there is no god simply if god is defined for a perfect creature that “loves” me I know there can not be a god because something perfect would not have the need to love anything (or create any thing it would be perfect already having everything it needs ) and if something is not perfect then it can simply go insane or misjudge on some occasion. Besides all knowing conflicts with itself (how can god know he isn’t in a matrix ?). However this doesn’t negate the possibility of the existence of something that is incredibly powerful and evil or/and insane that could be named god however worshiping it would be pointless.
What the crap are you talking about?
1) a schizophrenic person thinks he see a cat next to him , he based on that experience knows that he haze a cat therefore according to your logic he haze a catI'm not talking about a schizophrenic person, I'm talking about "the wrath". I'm assuming he has a normal functioning brain - that he isn't schizophrenic. The point, I think, he was trying to make was that he had to entertain the idea that reality could be other than what he perceived it as (a view of skepticism). My argument is that it is what it is. Actually, my question to his statement was "why", and that his assumption was arbitrary, which it is - assuming that he was being serious.
The first question is "how do you know that you are schizophrenic as versus dreaming as versus...?". You either have an answer to that question which presupposes that you know what reality is and that what you are experiencing is a dream or an altered state of reality induced by a chemical abnormality in your brain or some other abnormality that causes you some type of cognitive trouble in processing the data you take in. The other alternative is that you don't know and that your assertion is arbitrary.
However the point is that we can never know what this objective reality is and can never have 100% certainty we are not a brain in a jar or in the matrixYou're starting with an arbitrary assumption. The onus of proof is on you to prove that we are a "brain in a jar" or stuck in "the matrix".
because every prove ultimately rests on our senses and they can be deceived example drugs (or is a LSD trip 100% real and we have weird stuff around tongue.gif).That's not true. Your sense organs have no power of volition. Your eyes see what is really there, they have no choice what to do when they are acted on by stimuli. In the case of drugs, for example, your eyes are still seeing what is there, but your brain cannot process the data properly because you've literally taken mind altering drugs, not sight altering drugs.
This is one reason to not do drugs, by the way (especially LSD, which is - I think - probably one of the most toxic substances you could put into your body).
A second point that could be made is that even if one or two of your senses are damaged (you are born or become blind or deaf), this does not prevent you from discovering reality.
A third point is that your knowledge of what LSD does defeats your argument as it presupposes that there is reality, and then there is the drug induced "alternative".
-
Certainly apes that have been taught limited language have shown the capacity for conception.
No, they haven't. You are confusing the intelligence, and possibly the "consciousness" or "conscious awareness" of apes or chimps with actual conceptual ability to understand the process of abstraction. No doubt, apes and chimps are intelligent, but that does not grant them the faculty of reason that is required to form concepts. Dr. Locke talks a bit about the confusion in an article about psychology here.
They regularly use nouns to represent toys, fruit, etc. A gorilla that signs "I want banana" doesn't mean a specific banana (ie, a banana he remembers eating yesterday), but just a banana. Give him a banana that's a little larger or smaller, or painted a different color from the one he had yesterday - as long as it smells and taste alright he'll accept it. He is referencing the concept "banana", no?Who is "they"? In other words, which apes have done this? From the information I have available to me, these types of experiments were flawed and filled with experimenter bias. On their own, without prompting, the apes in question were unable to understand concepts.
Likewise, infants, can be taught limited sign language, and will sign when they are hungry or want a bottle. Give them any bottle (not just a specific bottle) and they're satisfied. That does not mean infants have rights, does it?Well, human beings aren't apes now, are they? Humans have a conceptual faculty, apes do not.
Well, that would be an abstract concept. Is that where the differences lies?All concepts are a process of abstraction. The "abstract concept" is just abstracting higher level concepts from lower level ones. Apes and chimps can do none of this. A parrot can learn to repeat what I say, that doesn't mean that it has learned the English language. Essentially, that is what you are saying about apes.
-
More awesomeness from Peter Schiff, and more ignorance from an unprincipled douche:
Have you ever noticed that in some of these interviews the "douches" try to cut him off just as Schiff starts making a valid point?
-
They cannot act on principle by respecting the rights of others. Their choices are not governed by reason.
I think this is a good point. They do not choose their values. They are also not conceptual animals. Even chimps. From the Ayn Rand Center:
Animals have rights, goes another argument, because animals possess the same capacity for rational thought as humans. There is no scientific evidence for this claim. Consider the most fundamental fact that contradicts it: chimpanzees, the most advanced of the primates, have been on earth for about four million years. During that entire period they have not produced even the rudiments of a primitive culture. If chimpanzees could reason even at a primitive level, this would give them such a competitive advantage in the struggle for survival that the earth would be overrun with chimpanzees. Attempts to teach sign language to chimpanzees revealed that they did not grasp the actual concepts taught at all, rather they used signs virtually at random to signal for things that they wanted. Here is a simple test that would prove once and for all whether chimps really grasp concepts. Place a pile of objects varying in size, shape and color in front of a chimp and sign: Bring me ten green triangles. Such a test would require that chimps count above seven (seven objects can be directly perceived without counting) and that they abstract the attributes of color and shape, as well as of number, from objects. No chimp has ever come close to such a feat. - source: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...cle&id=5332If they are not conceptual, if they are unable to form concepts, then conceptual terms are inapplicable to them - concepts like "morality".
Besides, how many times to you see a dog taken into court for assault and battery (even murder) of some other smaller animal, or some human?
-
According to sources on Wikipedia, Leonard Peikoff sold the rights (including full creative control, which was a drastic mistake) for $1 million in the early 90's to some Objectivist investor.
They were supposed to have made progress on the script, turning it from a two-parter to a 127 minute movie, and then the Director left for some reason. (I've always toyed with the idea of writing the first 30 minutes/pages and sending it to them for kicks)
Personally, I think a mini-series would be much better for the novel, in terms of depth, but we'll see.
I don't think a mini-series would capture the audience in the same way as a movie would, and you couldn't get the big names that would draw in non-objectivists.
I still like a suggestion I heard once which was to make it a 3-part movie. It's a risk, but if it's done well, that movie would gross a ridiculous amount of money.
-
As far as Hollyweird messing up A.S. - I can see that happening. A friend of mine, who is also an Objectivist, is having her screenplay FUBAR'ed. The movie, if it ever gets made, is going to be nothing like the book it's based on. Though...the Fountainhead was made, and say what you will about the quality of the movie...the central theme was not turned into some altruistic nightmare. Of course, this was a while ago.
...but I'm wondering...how did the rights to A.S. ever get sold in the first place?????????????? It seems totally out of character for the folks at the Ayn Rand Center to let something like this happen voluntarily.
-
Are you serious?
I think he has a good point. At a small age, kids understand "life" not in the biological sense of metabolism, but in a sense of how animals act (that they feel hunger, etc'). So at a small age, if you're telling a child that trees are alive, it's much harder to explain how. It is natural for a child to assume, if you tell him that trees are alive, that they feel pain and hunger.
Kids, maybe. But I've been around some pretty smart kids around the age of 5-7 who seem to have NO problem grasping that trees are alive (and yet different from animals). But, the issue isn't that children may not understand life as it relates to plants or trees...it is, apparently, the poster who doesn't understand life as it relates to plants or trees.
From this, we are to assume he is a small child or failed (terribly) biology in school.
-
I wanted to know if anyone here has ever read Doug Casey's Research (stock research) newsletter, or has any experience with his recommendations?
He seems like a loose cannon philosophically, but I don't know if that has translated into bad investments and recommendations. My first thought would be that it would cause him to be inaccurate from time to time, but I've no hard proof that this is actually the case. A thumbs down in my book is that he appears to simultaneously support Rand's philosophy and libertarianism -
reason for edit: provide website for reference
www.caseyresearch.com
-
Not really. At least not in the sense that I would subconsciously think when hearing thinks like "the tree lives". I think sentences like those cause all these kindergarten-fantasies of talking trees as in "Lord of the Rings", the Toad in "Super Mario", and especially, enables a lot of preservationists to fool us into imagining that the trees in the rain forest are feeling pain for being burned.
Well, but OK, I can stick to the official definition of life then in my further posts.
Are you serious?
-
I'm obviously not being very clear. Please, allow me to try again.
My argument is that, in order to safeguard a laissez-faire capitalist market and economy, laws against the initiation of force must exist. But laws are an initiation of force. If you started with a blank slate, and wanted to create a society with laissez-fair capitalism, you would first have to create laws which protect that capitalism. The individuals in the society would not have initiated force in any way, yet the government's first action would be to say, in effect, "Follow the rules, or something bad will happen to you." Which is coercion.
Yes, if someone breaks a law and the government uses force against them in retaliation, that is not an initiation of force. But that's not when the force began. The force began, was initiated, when the government threatened the citizens with force if they failed to comply with the laws.
At first, I considered this to simply be an issue of consequences. You are free to break the law, but you are not free to escape the consequences of going to jail, or paying a fine. Therefore, a law is not force - it merely tells what the consequences are if action is taken; like when the doctor tells you, "Continue to smoke and you'll die in a year." This is not a threat, simply a statement of fact - cause and effect. But that argument falls apart when used in the case of a mugger and his victim. Is the mugger's demand of, "Give me your money or die" simply a statement of fact - cause and effect? Or is it force?
When thinking in terms of objective Law - at least the way I understand it - you have to think of objective laws as the social application of self-defense. You have the right to your life and your property. But this also implies the right to defend your life and property from those that would take it from you - by force.
In a civilized society (such as ours), it's unreasonable (and there is a long chain of argument to get to this assumption) to expect every citizen to have an army ranger or navy seal level of skill to defend themselves against every possible domestic threat, and logistically impossible for every citizen (individually) to protect themselves against a foreign one.
THIS is where the Government steps in to use retaliatory (not initiatory) force. Remember, Capitalism is a social-political system where "all property is privately owned" not "a system of competition". As a social system where all property is privately owned, the Government necessarily is "living" on leased or borrowed property, acting on every individual's behalf, and has the sole function of applying the right of self-defense by proxy for every individual living in the country.
-
On an interesting note, I challenged my younger sister to actually read the bible. She didn't get through genesis before she came to me with questions.
So I guess we should encourage everyone we know to read the bible, as a method of facing them with their own irrationality.What do you do with those poor souls who don't or won't read the bible and still want to believe in God? You've probably met them before. The "Christians" who don't read the bible (or don't believe it's the word of God) and yet still call themselves Christians?
-
No worse than eating the body and drinking the blood of some long dead impossibility, having evil acts forgiven for the sake of a couple of magic phrases, making the symbol of an ancient form of torture over your body as the sign of your piety.
Mysticism is mysticism all just useless fluff of mindless drones and snake oil salesmen.
What is especially annoying is when you run into someone who believes that magic rocks can cure cancer or that praying will make the paraplegic walk again. The only thing more annoying is when these same people point to alleged instances where this worked and yet have absolutely no scientific proof that it worked - and then proceed to damn (or dismiss) science
-
I'm fully aware of the evidence the SEC had in its hands. Their excuse is that they have too many groups to regulate and not enough man power. I say they shouldn't exist at all. Their services can be provided by competing private organizations, which investors would scrutinize as much as any other company. Instead we have investors blindly accepting what the government tells them (or doesn't tell them) and hoping that, should something go wrong, the government will come in and save the day. The SEC should not exist.
As an interesting side note, the initial reason for the creation of the SEC (well, one of the main ones anyway) were the "infamous" stock pools of the 1920s. These were claimed to have injured small investors. The SEC was supposed to end them and restore "safety" to the financial markets.
But, according to the Senate's own two year long investigation at the time, the effects of these stock pools were largely and grossly exaggerated (if they existed at all). To the extent that they "manipulated" the markets, they did so in a way that would be identical (or very similar) to today's brokerage houses - short term massive buying and selling that had a temporary direct effect on financial markets.
Thus, I think you are right...logically, the SEC should not exist (this is not to detract from the fact that it violates an individual's rights to his life and property).
In the end, Congress at large wanted more control over capital markets. Reason? I think we all know the underlying philosophical reason and the distrust of selfishness, the profit motive, and of course, Capitalism.
-
A common problem with many such studies is the fact that they ignore people's ideas and how they influence how we process input.
Philosophy: who needs it?
-
What if one person has a monopoly on all roads in a given area. He charges extreme prices, middle class and lower class people cannot pay the price so cannot use the road. Only the upper class can. But becuase the pric eis so high, the owner gets money.
Without doing any math, let's think about what this implies. How many times do you see a $50,000 income earner living in a neighborhood of $500,000 income earners? How do the road companies make any money by charging higher than market rates for roads in any given community?
You set your price according to your market, like in any other business. That's why you find a lot of "ordinary joes" shopping at Walmart and not so much at Bijan (on Rodeo Drive). The same would apply to roads.
Incidentally, those high class roads might also have features and benefits that everyone would want, inspiring a lot of folks to become successful instead of mediocre. Might also cut down on the riff raff and crime too in a similar fashion that high class neighborhoods with high rents and property values drive out crime and "riff raff" by barring entry through economic power.
I say that even if there were a temporary and unforeseen interruption the market would find a way to continue just as it did when Enron went down. Vehicles would find alternate routes, and the now defunct RCX would soon be divided up amongst competetors and start ups....and because LBOs would be unrestricted, you may not even have that problem with large companies.
-
I don't understand how this would work. If five owners own a stretch of road and I live near the middle of the road, what happens? What if I don't want to buy the "driver's license"? I have a right to access to my property. Say I won't buy your license. If you won't let me through your check point, you are attacking my property rights.
And what happens if one of the owners of this road says, no, he wants to charge a toll, while the others go with the license idea? Who settles the disagreement?
Further, what about proportionality? Would the person who drives 100k miles per year pay the same fee as the one who drives back and forth once a week to a nearby grocery store?
I think on another thread someone mentioned road companies leasing part of their property (on the side of the road) to gas stations and stores and such...in this view, it would be no different than a mall that charges businesses $$$ per square foot of space.
I don't mind the existing toll roads for major highways, and an EZ pass system would help with congestion.
One thing that seems to scare some people is a road company buying up roads and then arbitrarily granting or denying access to the roadway, like you mentioned.
Of course, this could be solved with unilateral contracts before the road is even built or ownership transferred to private interests (something I've not heard anyone suggest yet) eliminating the fear of denial of access.
A registration-type of contract (your typical bilateral contract), or I think some members mentioned a few other neat ideas that would be effective in overcoming this. Gasoline tolls similar to the gas tax might also make it more of a "pay per use" system, assuming that the road company is large enough to avoid people buying gasoline on his road system somewhere and then driving off onto someone else's road system.
Taxes and Self-Interest
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
Just as an aside, in America, there used to be a time when we didn't have social programs like Medicaid and Medicare to take care of the poor and the elderly. The system worked, and health care was affordable. You have to realize that insurance was never designed to cover everything from a box of kleenex to heart surgery. It was meant to cover what would be considered a catastrophic financial crisis due to medical care for families.
Since your health is, for the most part, in your control, there are some things which are simply not insurable. This doesn't stop the Government from trying though.
...the best example of what would happen in the health care industry at large if it was "de-socialized" is the LASIK eye surgery example. Prices have gone from many thousands of dollars to - locally here anyway - a few hundred dollars per eye...and the technology is FAR superior to what was available just several years ago.