ruveyn ben yosef

Your America consisted largely of church-going folks in the 18-th and 19-th century. And it still did in the 20th century. Your America was never overly fond of atheists, and many atheists (and agnostics) had to disguise themselves as church going Americans. Many people in the Unitarian-Universalist church were "closet" atheists. Did you know that Tom Paine, the advocate and spokesman for independence was, after his death, reviled as an atheist by many Christian folks. They spit on the memory of the man, whose writings had a great deal to do goading Americans into fighting against England for their independence. Paine, in the later portion of his life was spurned by many, and died lonely and isolated. This was partly because of his anti-religious attitude. And be careful of what you wish for. You probably would not be comfortable living in a Secular-Humanist Community. Atheists and agnostics they are (for the most part). They are also dedicated altruists who live to share not only their wealth, but other people's wealth. Being secular is no guarantee of being acceptable to Objectivists. I would rather live in a town that consisted mostly of New England Congregationalists (who are Christians, but very tolerant of other beliefs) than among dedicated Secular Humanists. I live in New England, so I know what I am talking about. The Congregationalists go to church on Sunday and are righteous folk who mind their own business during the rest of the week. The ones I have lived among or met are (for the most part) decent and honest folk. They do business straight and square and they do not "get in your head". Not bad, yes? Some of the secular humanists I have met are self-righteous anti-Christian bigots and very far to the left politically. Ideologically their movement is slanted left politically. They tend to be statists. This people want to make other people -Good-. They want to create a world without Sin. Beware! Consider Horace Mann, the father of public (mis)education in the United States. He was a Unitarian Universalist who probably prayed to whom it may concern, and he substituted the State for God. He latched on the the Prussian model of State run, State funded schooling which commanded that all the little boys and girls go to State schools where they would learn to be good little citizens. Und Zey Vill Enchoy It! Mann and his ilk won out and now we have schools were good little boys and girls pray to the U.S. Flag but don't learn to read very well. Is this what you really want? Think about it. ruveyn

It depends what you mean by -religious-. The majority of the Founders were Deists (non-Trinitarians). Most believed in some kind of g/God. Jefferson (for example) was a believer but rather unorthodox in his faith. He also felt that the established churches were corrupt. Most of the leading intellectuals of the Enlightenment were believers. ruveyn

Yes

The economist joke I heard goes as follows: If you laid out all the economists that ever were in a straight line (head to foot) you could not reach a conclusion. Which raises a genuine question. If the economists know so much, why aren't more of them millionaires or billionaires? ruveyn

Rand used sarcastic humor in -Atlas Shrugged-. For example at Cheryl's wedding, Cheryl says to Dagny -I am the woman of the family now- (or some such to which Dagny replies -I am the man of the family- (or some such). Francisco uses sarcastic/humorous quips. So Rand used one kind of humor, at least. I don't think Rand went in for puns. If she had here is how Dagny's arrival in the Valley might have gone: Galt: What are you doing here? Dagny: I just thought I would drop in . (rim shot). ruveyn

I doubt it. The question to which I responded is: why do (some) people like sunflower seeds. I simply pointed out that sunflower seeds have several healthy components (and I cited a place that lists them). And properly prepared, they are quite tasty. ruveyn

1. They are tasty, especially if hulled, roasted and salted. 2. They are healthy to eat: From the Wiki:: Health benefits In addition to linoleic acid (an essential fatty acid), sunflower seeds are also an excellent source of dietary fiber, protein, Vitamin E, B Vitamins, and minerals such as potassium, magnesium, iron, phosphorus, selenium,calcium and zinc.[6] Additionally, they are rich in cholesterol-lowering phytosterols.[7] They are also low calorie food in regular sized servings[clarify]. Eating sunflower seeds is more healthy than inhaling tobacco smoke. ruveyn

-Origin of Wealth- by Eric Beinhocker You can get the page on amazon.com by typing in "Origin of Wealth" ruveyn

I think the bloated evil thing was a symbol of global corporatism. The little people took it down and bound it, just like in -Gulliver's Travels-. The whole video was a tad over the top and was conceptually muddled. Note low the Leaders in Government are muddled and helpless. It is the masked man who broke his chains that is focused and knows what to do. ruveyn

Klaatu asks Gort for a smoke: Klaatu, Barada, Nicotine. ruveyn

Edison and Faraday were both poor boys, autodidacts and geniuses. They had many similarities. ruveyn

Klaatu used enough force to convince the earth folks he was serious. His purpose in coming to earth was not to destroy it, but to warn earth folks against bringing their warlike ways to the races on The Other Planets. In fact Klaatu invited the earth folks to join his -in peace. I loved that movie. It was Thomas Hobbes -Leviathan- in capsule form. ruveyn

This article is to continue a discussion that emerged on the thread about anti-union ads. Thomas Alva Edison is rightly hailed as one of America's geniuses. He invented everything from sound recording, to motion picture cameras/projectors to incandescent glow lamps and the power systems necessary to light them up. His style is very much his own and he several things going for him. He could concentrate as few others could. He also needed very little sleep. And he was -smart-. I found a rather good summary of Edison's style on the wikipedia. Please have a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edisonian_approach and in particular the summary given by Thomas Hughes (a historian) under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edisonian_app...ison.27s_method. Edison's intellect and mode was not like that of Newton or Einstein who were inclined to develop general theories. Hughes points out that Edison worked on particular applications and did not develop general theories about the inventions he and his team created. Edison was interested in inventing and producing his his inventions. He made use of theories that were at hand to him and when no theory was available, he did systematic hunt and try. This is how he developed metallic filaments for his incandescent glow lamp. Edison also worked on systems. So he not only invented a glow lamp (which was invented earlier and independently by John Swan in England), he produced a system of generating the electricity and carrying the current to the point of application. Swan did not do this. Edison's style was very American. America did not become home of theorists (with a few notable exceptions) until it inherited the cream of Europe's science community just prior to WW2. Edison was first and foremost a -practical man-. He was not interested in general results, rather he concentrated on specific products which he could produce and sell. I guess one could contrast Edison with Einstein. Einstein, did not start his scientific career in some German university. He worked several years at the Swiss Patent Office and he was no stranger to practical (and sometimes impractical) inventions. But his heart and soul was committed to finding out how the universe worked. At Einstein put it, he wanted to read the Mind of God. Even so, Einstein had over 20 patents in his name. Edison created a team of top-notch engineers and craftsmen. He inspired them, the goaded them, he brainstormed with them (as you will see if you read the above reference article). He created one of the earliest and most effective industrial R and D head-shops in the world. Einstein was closer to being the isolated thinker, although he had no qualms about picking the brains of some close friends who did have university connections to find out what applicable mathematical techniques he could make use of. But Einstein was at his best alone and at his writing tablet or blackboard. Edison was a bottom up man and Einstein was a top down man. Consider another interesting pair of differing intellects. Michael Faraday, who had barely a line of mathematics to his name and James Clerk Maxwell who in addition to being on of the most brilliant theoretical physicists was a top of the line mathematician. Faraday was both bottom up and top down. Maxwell was mostly top down. Faraday started off as a bookbinder's lad and working in a book binding shop gave him access to many books on science. Faraday was a poor boy and could not attend advanced schools (the English class system made it very difficult for poor boys to get to university). Faraday was an autodidact and he got the attention of Humphrey Davie one of England's top scientist. H.D. gave Faraday a job and that is how Micheal Faraday bootstrapped himself into the English scientific establishment. Faraday was one of the greatest experimentalists of all time. In addition he had a fantastic ability to -visualize-, a characteristic the Edison also had. Faraday's ability to visualize compensated for his lack of mathematical background. Faraday was not locked into the Newtonian view of interacting bodies. Faraday's came up with what Maxwell turned into the field concept, one of the foundation stones of modern physics. The colaboration between Faraday and Maxwell was one of the most fortunate in the history of physics. Out of Faraday's experimentation came the first electric motor and with Maxwell's superb theoretical mind the theory of electrodynamics, as we know it, came to be. Now who was Edison most like? Faraday or Maxwell? Faraday for sure. Edison found his Maxwell in Nikola Tesla who in addition to be an inventor and as close to a wizard as ever there was, was a theoretical genius as well. Unfortunately the association between Edison and Tesla did not turn out as happy as the association between Faraday and Maxwell (neither of whom were businessmen and neither of whom had egos on steroids). Nikola Tesla** with his first rate theoretical talent developed the superior form of electric power generation and movement of current from generator to point of application. Edison, in addition to being focused also had a stubborn streak and he refused to see the virtue of alternating current. Edison invented direct current generation and that was his baby and, as far as he was concerned, there was no other. Even geniuses like Edison, can go off the track. But so did Tesla. Tesla blew two fortunes trying to develop wireless broadcast power transmission. He failed at that. Edison had his d.c. obsession and Tesla had his wireless power obsession. In any case Edison was the quintessential bottom up practical scientist and inventor. People like Newton, Maxwell and Einstein were mostly top down. Newton, it should be noted was not just a theoretical genius. He too was a practical inventor. His greatest applied/experimental work was in optics. Newton invented the reflecting telescope with a parabolic light receiver. It is the prototype of most of the great telescopes of the world, including radio telescopes. Where ever one sees parabolic dishes pointing to the sky, there is the spirit of Newton. I want to make it plain that the bottom up vs top down approaches are not a better/worse kind of thing. Both are necessary for progress in the natural sciences and they correspond to differences in how people think. Among the great bottom up men you will find Lavoissier, Faraday, Charles Darwin* and Mendele'ev who formulated the periodic table of elements by empirical investigation. There was no quantum physics or Pauli Exclusion Principle to guide Medele'ev. The periodic table is an example of brilliant empirical work. It was the springboard for modern chemistry. Leo Szillard was like Faraday. He was a top down bottom up man. Leo Szillard patented the chain reaction (actually a specific design to achieve a chain reaction). Another bottom up man who never received the praise that was due to him in his lifetime was Gregor Mendel, a priest, who spent years studying plant heredity. He invented the gene concept, but as a result of his systematic and minute study of plants. Darwin never had the gene concept, so he could not correctly specify the mechanism of variation upon which natural selection works. ruveyn *Charles Darwin wrote at least as many words on barnacles as he did on natural selection. ** Nikola Tesla was also the true inventor of radio, more so than Marconi.

Hannibal Barka was surely one of the top five commanders of ancient times. The man who defeated him, Scipio Africanus is up there too. Hannibal made the same mistake as Isoruko Yammamoto. He awakened a sleeping giant. He did not destroy Rome in his initial attack and Rome emerged stronger than it was. There is an old saying: any blow that does not kill, strengthens. In the same class as Hannibal was Spartacus. He was outnumber and "outgunned" by Rome, and he gave the Romans holy hell for a while. But he did not defeat Rome. Spartacus made one serious error. He stayed to fight longer tha he should. If he had led his army of ax-slaves north over the Alps, the outcome would have been much different. But numero uno in the ancient world was Alexander, the son of Phillip, he who was called The Great. Alexander conquered Old Persia and it never could put itself back together again, even after Alexander died. Alexander and his cronies remade the Near East. Ptolemy not only conquered Egypt, he even figured how to become Pharo. And it was he, also tutored by Aristotle, who built Alexander's city in Egypt, which eventually become the Brain Capitol of the World for several hundred years. Indirectly, Alexander gave us Archimedes. ruveyn

The Axiom of Choice is a set theoretic axiom (which is independent of the other axioms of ZFC). It has no directed significance with respect to a physical theory of the world. It is purely mathematical. ruveyn