Spano

I second David on this one. I'm not sure what encrpytion method is used for DRM, but modern symmetric algorthms are extremely fast and relatively cheaply implemented in hardware or software. Even if they weren't, it will be a long time, if ever, that I/O catches up in speed to processing power. In other words, it will generally always take far longer to locate and transfer a block of data from/to your hard drive than it will be to encrypt/decrypt it.

I've had the same kind of fading desire to continue certain friendships after discovering Objectivism. I'd say it's just a matter of defining more clearly what one's values are, and therefore seeing the lack thereof in some previous relationships with others. There's also the changing of values that comes with integrating Objectivism -- whereas you may have actually enjoyed certain activities or people before, you don't anymore because the implicitly held value that gave rise to your previous enjoyment is no longer there. I don't think this is a bad sign, as long as you make an effort to introspect and identify what has caused the changed feelings. Plus, it opens you up to *real* friendships, because you won't waste your time and energy with people who aren't worth it. As for the physical withdraw, that's something that might be cause for concern. It's one thing to decline an invitation to a party with a boring acquaintance, and quite another to jump away when they try to pat you on the shoulder. I'd suggest paying close attention when you have such reactions and trying to discover what's causing them if possible. Introspection goes a long way.

Thankfully, Microsoft has vastly improved their OS since the 95/98 transitional era. I think it's unreasonable to take that time as the standard for what a Windows upgrade is today. Even so, I'd recommend doing a clean install of the OS, rather than the upgrade option. That way, you don't have any legacy settings or anything to confuse or hinder the new system -- it will configure more or less optimally with respect to the hardware present. Then add software only as necessary. Oh, I suggest looking into building your own system, even if you decide not to in the end. There are loads of free step by step guides out there, even ones giving complete component lists already known to be compatible (try Ars Technica's buyer's guide along with their building guide, for example). After some initial reading, I think you'll find it pretty simple. It basically consists of following directions and plugging the right cables into the right slots. It's worth investigating, at least.

For one thing, the "wishes" of consumers as such should not be the primary concern of Microsoft. Many people "wish" they could download all the movies and songs they like for free. They wish the never had to pay for software again. But their wish to violate the intellectual property rights of others should have no bearing on Microsoft, morally speaking. In fact, Microsoft morally should refuse to knowingly abet such crimes. Now you can argue whether or not DRM is the best business model for the various parties involved and whether the current implementations of DRM are ideal or not. But you can't simply toss aside the attempt to protect intellectual property because it violates the wishes of the consumers. I don't know the details of all this, but there is one massive contradiction in your complaints, namely the fact that Microsoft *wants* people to use its software for multimedia, and that it has committed millions of dollars and man-hours to achieve this goal. Unless you have some special inside knowledge, I think its borderline absurd to suggest the Microsoft would spend years to implement a product that would be found frustrating and unsatisfactory to "Joe Consumer". Do you propose that the entire leadership of Microsoft is ignorant to the user experience, or that they just don't care, or that they're actually trying to commit business suicide? As for your allegations of "racketeering", it is not a crime to sign business agreements. "Independent" filmmakers have no right to Windows, even if Microsoft did decide to lock them out (again, what would motivate them to do this?).

An update of the mad veterinarian's sign. If it's too blurry, it reads: "Faith takes the soul beyond what the eyes can see." I wonder if his soul operates on fluffy or fido beyond what his eyes can see?

I think it's safe to say it's a satire site:

After reading the section on aethetics in "Ayn Rand Answers", I'll have to revise what I said earlier. I was mistaken in suggesting the Objectivist aethetic judgement is fundamentally focused on the projection of rational values. Rather, Ayn Rand seems to hold that art is the projection of values in general, and that therefore art can be good even if the values projected are irrational/evil. In other words, good art would consist in the skillful concretization of the artist's metaphysical value-judgments, regardless of whether those value-judgments are rational. In other other words, aesthetic evaluation is not ethical evaluation. For example, AR was asked about the novel "Anna Karenina", which she says is the "most evil novel ever written." In her reply, she says Another relevant passage: Since we're talking about poetry here, I may as well include relevant parts for that as well: I couldn't really get much out of that, except that she likes a few poets. Finally,

But of course it doesn't -- it's based on feminism. And since when do most proposed restrictions on anything make sense?

What benefits do you see in such changes?

True, "content" isn't a very good word. I think I meant something more like theme. My intention was to highlight the idea that the "substance" of a work of art is more fundamental to its evaluation than the specific way in which it is implemented. But I haven't yet read The Art of Fiction, so that's one I need to add to my list.

From a couple things I've read, it seems that the trilogy idea has been abandoned. For example, see: http://www.threesources.com/archives/003680.html

Touché, madam johnglatline . I didn't mean to imply that the intention of the artist is all there is to great art, as if my stick-figure drawings should be displayed in museums simply because I intended them to project proper metaphysical concretizations. Certainly the artwork must be skillfully done as well, because otherwise the content is obscured. It's a matter of communication; a work of art has a message to convey, and the style or implementation is the means by which that message is conveyed, whether it consists of paint strokes or sentences or couplets or musical notes. But I think that a high degree of skill should make the implementation transparent, not the object of appreciation. For example, when I look at this painting by Bryan Larsen, my reaction to it as art doesn't consist of noting immediately the fine lines of the cabling or the colors of the water or the detail on the man's shirt; it consists of seeing achievement, applied reason, and subjugation of nature for man's purposes concretized before my eyes. Fundamentally, I think the value of art comes from that immediate emotional reward -- the particular skill involved may be a secondary area for admiration, but it doesn't substitute for the concretization of values. So yes, skill is necessary. But I don't think a poet who alliterates skillfully about minutiae or metaphysical irrelevancies can be properly called a good artist, nor his poems good art. Hope that makes sense.

As I understand it, this question isn't really answerable because aesthetics from the Objectivist point of view is fundamentally concerned not with technique or style, but with content. Ayn Rand defined art as "a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments." Not included in that definition is any implied requirement of medium, subject, technique, or style. She was primarily concerned with the artist's purpose, of what he was trying to accomplish -- not with the technicalities of how he goes about it. So from the Objectivist aesthetics, there is nothing much to say about the poem's technique as such. Whether or not there are skillful uses of the various literary devices is irrelevant to any discussion of its artistic merit. What is relevant to aesthetic judgment is whether the poem fulfills the purpose of art qua art, which is to concretize the artist's metaphysical value-judgments, i.e. to project his view of the world. In the Romantic Manifesto, Rand writes: If you agree with her view that art is a need of man, that it serves the purpose of emotional fuel which is drawn from art's ability to "make one's metaphysical abstractions fully real to oneself" as Peikoff puts it, then I'd say this poem deserves criticism because insofar as I can understand it, it depicts a man unsure of himself and neurotic about the views of others. If the purpose of art is to fuel myself, what value can I draw from reading the mind of a neurotic second-hander? Even if I recognize that he is the opposite of how I want to be, it is only because I've got some other source for the positive view, such as the Fountainhead. Even in The Fountainhead, Keating was depicted to serve as a contrast to Roark; a novel purely about Keating wouldn't have been able to achieve the same goal, namely the inspiration we can derive from contemplating the vision of Roark. I'd be interested to know whether Eliot wrote this poem in order to warn the reader about the pitfalls of second-handedness, or to point out what is in his view an inescapable flaw of human nature.

I think it would be wise for the administration to announce publicly the purpose and results of such strikes, rather than let them be reported by the BBC as if they were supposed to be a secret. We should be advertising our willingness and intent to kill terrorists wherever they happen to be. This is not to say I don't approve of strikes like this, but Bush could do a better job of marketing them. On second thought, I guess that would presuppose a certain level of moral certitude. The hesitant "War" on terror continues.

That's odd, because I use Opera and haven't had the problems you describe. The site works pretty much flawlessly for me. It might have to do with your settings, not that I have any idea which ones. Are you using the latest version of Opera (9.10)?

I'm moving into a new apartment and have decided to get some artwork to cover the bare walls. I'm a big fan of the romantic realist artists at Cordair Fine Art, but the $400 or more for a print is a bit out of my price range. Therefore, I went to looking for other art that I liked, but which I could actually afford to hang on my walls. I visited www.art.com, which has a huge selection of fairly cheap prints, and managed to find some I like. Here's a link to the gallery of those that caught my eye: My wish list gallery Does anyone else have any favorite art, especially in the romantic realist style, that is available online and affordable? If so, please share!

I highly recommend softwareNerd's suggestion: start by writing, in stream of consciousness style, all your thoughts to yourself and get them down on paper. Don't worry at first about the cohesiveness of this, just write as quickly and as much as possible, feeling free to skip around when different tangents strike. Then let this journal entry of sorts sit a couple days and come back to it and read it again, as if from a different person's perspective. In doing so, you'll be able to see any logical inconsistencies or ideas that lack clarity. Finally, proceed to write something more cohesive from this rough material. I also second thejohngaltline's suggestion that you "Fight the feeling that you need to remind her to love you." Make the letter a statement of your own feelings and reasons for those feelings, not a series of demands or questions directed towards her. As frustrating as it may be, the only person who can figure out what she thinks is her. Your primary concern, of course, should be yourself. It's more important that you understand yourself than that you "convince" her to love you, if it comes down to that. Hope that helps. Good premises.

I'll add my recommendation for this movie. I thought Will Smith did a great job of acting and conveying his struggle and joy of success. Definitely worth seeing.

I think one reason for this is that choosing a rational philosophy takes more effort than choosing mysticism. The nature of a rational philosophy is to scrupulously focus on reality and make identifications and integrations, and do this on a constant basis. Mysticism, on the other hand, is inherently easier in the sense that it rejects the need to focus on reality or integrate all of one's observations in a non-contradictory whole. Why do some people have seemingly no trouble choosing to be rational? I'm not sure, but I'd guess such people are more acutely aware, whether implicitly or explicitly, that being rational is valuable and being irrational is harmful, and they seek the good even though it requires more mental effort.

I think you're misunderstanding the essence of the "product of your environment" theory, which is the denial of free will. As I understand it, the people who believe we are products of our environment discount the existence or importance of free will, i.e. of choice. In rejecting this theory, Objectivism is rejecting determinism and saying the human beings do in fact possess free will. Of course people will be likely to choose to act like wolves when all they've ever known is wolves. This doesn't mean they don't have free will, or that children don't have free will until they "realize it". Free will is more fundamental than the choice to act like a wolf or act like a human being -- it is the choice to focus on reality or not. Feral children make this choice equally as often as "normal children", i.e. every time they do anything.

Today I was going through a file my parents have kept for me since birth which mostly consists of reports cards and such. I was surprised and amused to find a "Pupil Progress Report" from my time in a "2-3 year old" program at a Christian school. Since I have no recollection of this school, this was news to me. The report consisted of 3 solid pages of items where you're graded on whether you can or cannot do certain things. Here's a few random items from my report: "Plays with other children: Y (yes)" "Willing to share playthings: S (sometimes)" "Shows desire to be obedient: Y" "Can throw a ball: Y" "Knows first name: Y" "Puts on coat with little help: N (not yet)" "Can blow his own nose: N" In another section, I found: "Talks to God in prayer: Y" "Memorizes Bible verses: Y" Imagine my surprise. As a little tike I may not have been able to put on my coat or blow my nose, but I could talk to God, by golly! On the one hand I found this to be hilarious, but on the other hand I found it disgustingly dishonest. Indoctrination certainly starts young. It's no wonder people grow up believing in God...they can't even remember a time they didn't. Thankfully that was my last time in that kind of school -- I wasn't once even taken to church. It makes me shudder to think of bible thumpers getting 2 year olds to "talk to God." Anyone else have experiences like this?

Johnglatline, here's where I think the problem lies: your second statement requires evasion of the first. The people who write these papers can only pretend they are doing honest work. In actual fact, they knowingly do work that will be used dishonestly and are thereby supporting such vice. To use the analogy of a gunseller, a gunseller would be immoral if he were to, for instance, knowingly sell weapons to communists who used them to enslave nations. A moral gunseller acts on the premise of selling to honest, rights-respecting buyers. If he's tricked into selling to a criminal, then he's mistaken, not immoral. But if he knowingly (or through evasion) sells to a criminal, he is immoral -- because he is explicitly rejecting rational prinicples. The same prinicple is true (albeit with less violent consequences) with these "research" services. I also agree with David Odden that college students helping others cheat are directly harming themselves by lowering the value of their own degree (of course, the universities are doing this quite well on their own). When employers find a person with a high college GPA to be incompetent, the degree loses its value for all holders, not just the cheater. Cheating aside, I'm almost ashamed to think of some people I know who will be counted alongside myself as "college graduates." Thankfully it's not yet to the point of incompetence by association.

I must be culturally deprived, because I've never heard of this inscription practice. How long can these inscriptions be? That second example you gave seems far too long to fit inside a wedding ring.

I'm surprised by Peikoff's wording. While I agree with his assessment that the philosophical danger of the right is stronger than the left, I wish he would explain why he doesn't address the left's obvious desire to surrender in foreign policy. He's right to note the paramount importance of philosophy in human life, but the idea of sacrificing the last remnants of self-defense in foreign policy in order to combat the long term theocratic tendencies of the right is hard for me to swallow. Of course, he'd probably point out that philosophically, the right really isn't committed to self-defense, but to altruism -- a conclusion supported by the current foreign policy decisions regarding Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. If anything, the right's commitment to self-defense seems to be mostly limited to talk, with little corresponding action. To me, the controversy over voting left or right has strong parallels to a lifeboat situation, which leads me to be all the more confused by Peikoff's inclusion of "immorality" in the choice to vote. The fact is that both choices will result in more evil, and that the debate among Objectivists reduces to which will result in the least increase in evil. If we were on a sinking ship, it would be silly to condemn people as immoral because they're forced to select between two alternatives that aren't life-promoting. Similarly, I'm not sure I understand why Peikoff would use that term in reference to the larger lifeboat scenario that is modern politics. It's fine to argue about various facts and trends that would enable one to pursue the lesser of two evils -- but to condemn those who choose one or the other as immoral? On the one hand, we can vote for the left who will surrender in foreign policy but won't threaten us with religion (though the left, too, is embracing religion, at least publicly). On the other hand, we can vote for the right who will surrender more slowly in foreign policy, but continue to push religion. This is no clear choice. Come to think of it, I'm surprised Peikoff makes such a strong distinction between left and right, given that both share a fundamental philosophical commitment to primacy of consciousness metaphysics, faith-based epistemology, and altruistic ethics. Given this, how could one come out strongly in favor of either side? Thoughts?

Huh? Where do you get the idea that I "assume that no form of online gambling can be moral"? I've never said that.