Grant

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3123/266577...2ce40d278_o.jpg This photo of HK was submitted to Digg 7 hours ago. Looks awesome. Though still no where near as beautiful as NY.

OK, so having thought about it again, here's my conclusion: EW Interview with Jolie: "I don't think like in Wanted — which is an action movie — people should [just] be killed. I think there should be trials and justice. But the idea behind Wanted is not that she's a badass assassin that just likes to kill people. It's that, if you ran into Hitler before he did everything, and you knew, should you shoot him? And I would. These assassins are getting lists: They find out who is going to slaughter other people ahead of time and they remove them." Yeh, I edited my post

What made you think otherwise? Edit:

So, I see the movie WANTED got a bad rep on the front page of Objectivism Online, courtesy of Greg Perkins from NoodleFood. The review: Having just seen this movie for the 2nd time - and loved it just as much this time round - I must disagree with Mr. Perkins. While certain points of his are valid, for the most part, he seems to have missed the point of the movie. It is difficult to point out his flaws without giving too much of the movie away. Beyond the unrealistic physics, I truly enjoyed this movie. I never realised before how amazingly sexy Angelina Jolie really is. She oozes confidence, strength, sex-appeal and feminity. I look forward to her playing Dagny (if it ever materializes). Freeman and McAvoy were great too.

Nope. Nothing of the sort running. Maybe it's on my ISP's side? :-/

Damn it. Window closes immediately every time.

After having just seen WANTED, I'm keen to see Angelina as a heroine in every movie. Talk about an incredible woman. She left me in absolute awe.

Very unimpressive.

Doesn't seem to work for me. I'm using FF3 and have tried IE6.

I've never been able to access the chat. I'm getting the error: (01:12:47) ChatBot: Error: Connection status: 302

I don't like it. Could definitely be better. (I'm a web designer)

Ok, I just finished watching a trailer for a movie called The Day The Earth Stood Still, which in essence appears to be about an alien invasion that attemps to destroy the world. The movie looks like a visual extravaganza, but it got me thinking, what is up with this massive influx of human-genocide movies of late? Why has Hollywood become so obsessed with the end of the world? The Happening, I Am Legend, Cloverfield, etc etc. There are so many of them lately. My guess is that Hollywood is appealing to a general negative view of the world at present and playing on these emotions. Is anyone able to properly explain why this seems to be happening?

Haha, The Happening...AWFUL movie. And not only from a philosophical standpoint. Just plain awful.

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/06/18/angel...-lifetime-film/ What in the hell? Then what were all those interviews with Vadim about? Apparently he even has a signed contract says "Director". This has all gotten a bit strange.

Because firstly, you'll find it pretty darn hard to consume all the resources. For instance, if you try consume all the trees, companies who make money off selling wood, paper etc will plant more to increase the supply. Same goes for every other resource. If for instance water becomes scarce, we'll find a way to turn sea water into fresh water. How will we ever get to the stage where we consume and there's nothing left? If we get to the point where we find there's only maybe 50 years worth left of a certain resource, we'll either find a new way to create more of the resource or find an alternative resource. If anything, with the introduction of new technology, we'll improve our efficiency when it comes to the use of resources.

Earlier today on the ever-popular digg.com, I saw someone present this question as a statement. Given I was slightly bored at the time, I decided to write a little argument for myself, challenging the logic of such a ridiculous statement. I'm sure someone somewhere along the lines has already presented the same (or a similar) argument as it's a fairly simple one, but none the less, here's what I came up with. If there are any flaws or loopholes in my argument, I'd appreciate it if someone could point them out. I like to be challenged. Do we have any responsibility towards future generations? To proclaim that you somehow have a responsibility towards future generations is to imply that they are of value to you. After all, how can you feel a responsibility towards that which is of no value to you? And if you believe that men who may exist in hundreds of years are of value to you, how can you value that which does not exist? Is it rational for a girl to love the daughter or son she may give birth to one day? Is it rational for a woman to love her unborn child’s children? Is it rational for an artist to love an artwork he has not yet created? No. Love, which is to value, is a tangible emotion that cannot be applied to the intangible. There are those who would rather sacrifice their own well-being for the sake of the non-existing, because it is their belief that they have an inherent responsibility to ensure a better world for future generations. I suggest they re-evaluate their premises as this is a fatal philosophical flaw. When men live for the sake of the non-existing, they sacrifice that which is of the utmost value – their lives – for a non-value.

http://www.joblo.com/gore-directs-bioshock So, for those of you who do not know, they're making a movie of the successful video game, Bioshock. Gore Verbinski, the same director who directed Pirates of the Caribbean, will be directing. Bioshock for those of you who do not know challenges Atlas Shrugged. Read more here So, with the Atlas movie going into production soon, and Bioshock having picked its director, we may see 2 opposing (yet very similar) movies released simultaneously or near to each other. Something tells me, given the nature of Hollywood, Bioshock will probably end up being more successful (and well made) than Atlas. Share your thoughts (if you have any).

Yep...a band named Howard Roark. http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...endid=214201787

So I messaged We The Living to ask them if they got their name from the book. Here's the response I got: Hey man, Kinda a delayed response, but you're absolutely right-- the name is from Rand's book. Out of all of her works, we thought it was the best choice for a band name

I saw it last night. Iron Man is my new favorite superhero. Best superhero movie I've ever seen and the ultimate Objectivist superhero movie at that. The movie was philosophically sound. Literally felt like the Fountainhead gone Sci-fi. And yeh, that line from Obadiah stuck with me too, even though you slightly misquoted it I didn't see the bit after the credits though But I intend on going again.

Whoops, I clicked on Kendall's video by mistake. My bad

I love the scene because his improvement on Smith's theory is basically 'rational self interest'. And it's just a brilliant scene is that the right scene you pasted? it's not the ending.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JDoQb6A2YI...feature=related

Ok, I know what the objectivist stance on animal rights are. None. But then why should a baby have rights? The mind of a baby doesn't differ significantly from that of an animal. i.e. it hasn't developed reason or free-will. Am interested to hear what Objectivism's stance on this is. Thanks

Thanks guys. That helped a lot.