aristotlejones
-
Posts
188 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by aristotlejones
-
-
I just watched 5 to 9, the latest episode of House M.D., which was mostly about Director Cuddy instead of being all about House for once. According to my tear-O-meter, it was one of the best TV episodes I’ve seen in a long while.
I don’t want to give away too much of the plot for this episode, but if anyone ever gets off their encounter-suited butts and produces Atlas Shrugged the movie, this actress gets my vote for Dagny Taggart. She’s smart, sensitive, subtle, sexy and strong. She directs a world-class teaching hospital, managing the strong egos of an entire hospital of doctors and staff like she was herding a room full of cats. Ok, she gets scratched once in a while, but it comes with the territory, and she somehow manages to outstubborn most of the cats into getting what she wants and deserves.
She has a major challenge where she ultimately has to stand alone against a lot of people, and puts everything on the line for what is truly the right and objectively just thing to do. It also happens, for once, to be the elitist thing to do. Also, in the situation, she takes advice from many of her peers, and there is an “Atlas” moment where she realizes her job is on the line, and House comments that she will probably just cave in and give them what they want and still probably keep her job, because she can’t not keep doing what she does. He was implying that she just doesn’t have it in her to do the moral thing. But House being House, that was his reverse psychology trying to help her see what she might not accept if he just said what he meant outright, and that would just take them to a more rational plane where they would have to admit their affinity for each other. But bottom line, it wasn’t House manipulating her, it was her deciding to do the right thing on her own, in spite of manifest excuses to avoid taking responsibility and having an emotional escape hatch. She was the epitome of a rational man, in Ayn’s sense.
The actress who played Lisa Cuddy in this episode would make an exceptional Dagny, as her portrayal of Director Cuddy in this morally noteworthy scenario shows she has the chops to lend Mrs. Rand’s novel the authenticity it deserves.
Anyone know anyone who can pass this along to whoever holds the rights to the movie? (or the casting director?)
Stay Focused,
<Φ>aj
-
A couple more centuries of devolution and we'll be down to the level of Canada!
Yah, but we never had any worthy ideals to corrupt.
<Φ>aj
-
Well, to his credit, he didn't kill any rational animal...
And this is how the police responded...
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2...cer_accide.html
Just one daft canuck's opinion, but it appears your country is devolving...
<Φ>aj
-
I was wondering if anyone knew of any non-objectivists who have supported self-interest or defended the ideas of self-interest?
Riley Crane, MIT Physicist who led the Media Laboratory Human Dynamics Group to win the DARPA Network Challenge joins Stephen on the Report.
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/#clip251946
The winners of the DARPA Network Challenge applied a viral incentive structure (i.e. highest rewards for most useful information) that allowed them to find ten red balloons randomly positioned around the continental US in
just under 9 hours!!
While other reports on this particular challenge focused on its geekiness, leave it to Colbert to find the self-interest angle to the method they applied to actually win.
On a more general theme of which the above is an example, X-prize type competitions reward the self-interested competence of the winners, and also reward by exceptional ROE, the organizers of the competitions.
Or to quote one X-prize winner, Burt Rutan: See what free men can do!
<Φ>aj
-
Happy Light Bulb Day everyone!
Especially apropos this year, given how effective a few rays of artificial light shined into the darkened monasteries of environmentalism have been in loosening the chains of irrationalism.
Cheers,
<Φ>aj
I used to like "Happy Lightbulb Day" as an alternative to saying Merry "Son of a Religious Delusion" Birthday (Ech-mas).There was talk about how much Edison and like inventors brought to the world. But I also learned how much Edison used government pull to sabotage Tesla's work, the inventor or Alternating Current. If it wasn't for Tesla, we'd still be living in small towns using morse code. So, I'm not as excited about connecting Edison to Rand.
I sure wish we could make Ech-mas time a period where we could celebrate objectivism with friends. Regularize it. I mean, the only reason I like the Ech-mas season is for Boxing Day, the day when all small business owners purchase their tax writeoffs for the next year.
I guess "Happy Acheiver's Benevolence Day" has just too many syllables.
But there was a time when I would reread Atlas every year, between Ech-mas & New Years, or at least read the Anthem "i" chapter in place of "Twas the night before Ech-mas".
If we want to get objectivism to seep into the culture, we need to start thinking about replacing or revising the existing holidaze. Take the best, and leave the rest. Keep the capitalistic celebration part and throw out the religious part. Keep the recognition of earthly dieties, and scrap the mythical ones. Celebrate with friends who share your values, instead of feeling one must endure the dysfunctional monkey customs of your particular genetic lottery.
Rand was right that the sacred is important. We need a holiday that celebrates the best within us, among those who truly care. I don't know what we should call it, but I know we should start doing it.
Be seeing you...
<*>aj
-
So, Astro Boy's father decides to homeschool, and gives him a stack of books to read. Top of the pile is Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, followed by Descartes, then Leonardo Da Vinci. Astro Boy goes: "Pass, Pass, Mmmm!"
cool.
<Φ>aj
-
If they start arresting us for being against them, that will be the time to shrug. Free speech is the key.
I guess you missed Post #159 Where Lord Monckton was shoved to the ground.
http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=240014
or Post #122 Where a journalist was muzzled and arrested for questioning "climate data".
http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=239463
And how is it any less oppressive if a qualified scientist loses his career for questioning the data upholding "what everybody knows"?
Won't it be too late if we wait for Khristalnacht??
<Φ>aj
-
As far as it goes Copenhagen was not a win for the greenistas, but it also wasn't a triumph of reason or science...This has been the norm for so long now... at what point does Atlas shrug?
Reason Magazine's Friday Funnies is titled "The Climate Change Debate" and can be seen here:
http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/18/friday-funnies
<Φ>aj
-
Um, link doesn't seem to have the clip anywhere. Try this one:
http://justjared.buzznet.com/2009/12/16/ir...-out-watch-now/
<Φ>aj
-
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/...global-warming/
The Financial Post which suggests: "The real inconvenient truth" is that humans are overpopulating the world.
The real "inconvenient truth" is that parasites and hypocrites are overpopulating the world and destroying civilization.
Remember parasites & hypocrites are lazy or they'd be principled.
We return you to your regularly scheduled soma...
-
Would loving your parents be unconditional?
I'm confused. Someone help me clear that up.
I'd suggest you look into some of Nathaniel Branden's books on the subject:
http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/in...php?cPath=21_24
And for two free samples of this thoughts on Love & Relationships:
http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles.php?tPath=3
In my opinion, love is always conditional because people have free will and can change for the better or worse, or they can just grow apart. But they do have a choice about who and how to value.
<Φ>aj
-
...the urban heat island effect has a negligible impact on large-scale averages...
A 6th grader...showed otherwise.
I suppose the eco-preists at the CRU could plead they were only acting in good faith in trying to follow the precautionary principle. It only takes a kid with some time on his hands and a good father to disprove their rationalizations. But the precautionary principle is insidious in our current paradigm, and is used to excuse all sorts of terrorist, achem - government encroachments on our health, longevity, road safety, transportation, opportunity, happiness, creativity, property rights and liberty.
A clever antidote to the precautionary principle is Extropy Institute's Proactionary Principle.
From their site:
What’s wrong with the Precautionary Principle?
The precautionary principle has at least six major weak spots. It serves us badly by:
- assuming worst-case scenarios
- distracting attention from established threats to health, especially natural risks
- assuming that the effects of regulation and restriction are all positive or neutral, never negative
- ignoring potential benefits of technology and inherently favoring nature over humanity
- illegitimately shifting the burden of proof and unfavorably positioning the proponent of the activity
- conflicting with more balanced, common-law approaches to risk and harm.
"The precautionary principle, while well-intended by many of its proponents, inherently biases decision making institutions toward the status quo, and reflects a reactive, excessively pessimistic view of technological progress. By contrast, the Proactionary Principle urges all parties to actively take into account all the consequences of an activity—good as well as bad—while apportioning precautionary measures to the real threats we face, in the context of an appreciation of the crucial role played by technological innovation and humanity’s evolving ability to adapt to and remedy any undesirable side-effects."
For more, goto:
http://www.extropy.org/proactionaryprinciple.htm
<Φ>aj
- assuming worst-case scenarios
-
Yet I'm still unable to point my finger at anyone seriously pushing for a type of Kantian or Kantian-descended philosophy. To some extent the church was enabled by Kant, given his justifications of sacrifice and mysticism, but even they aren't coming up with anything new. I simply don't see any philosophical movements outside of Objectivism.
How about the rationalist, anti-science philosophy underpinning the environmental movement? At least implicitly.
(especially apparent in the recent Climategate revelations)
<Φ>aj
-
All my knowledge of Telsa comes from these youtube videos, and since they have a conspiracy feel to it, it makes me question their validity. However, in the videos it seems like Telsa tried to build the motor that John Galt was successful in making?
For an idea of the scale of his accomplishments, go to a site about the book titled
The Complete Patents of Nikola Tesla
with excerpts on Tesla's Automobile & Broadcast Power
http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/tesla.htm
<Φ>aj
-
Good find!
Another from the WSJ by DANIEL HENNINGER
Climategate: Science Is Dying
"Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons. But the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and "messy" as, say, gender studies."
"For three centuries Galileo has symbolized dissent in science. In our time, most scientists outside this circle have kept silent as their climatologist fellows, helped by the cardinals of the press, mocked and ostracized scientists who questioned this grand theory of global doom. Even a doubter as eminent as Princeton's Freeman Dyson was dismissed as an aging crank."
"The East Anglians' mistreatment of scientists who challenged global warming's claims—plotting to shut them up and shut down their ability to publish—evokes the attempt to silence Galileo. "
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405...1993737848.html
<Φ>aj
-
I can already see where this is leading... to a Royal commission...
Establish a Royal Commission to determine the cause and extent of Global Warming
350 Signatures
Published by Cameron MacKay on Nov 30, 2009
Category: Business
Region: Canada
Target: Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Web site: http://www.cammackay.com
http://www.gopetition.com/online/32485.html
also, from Australia:
Scientists call for Royal Commission* into Climate Change Science
Released today. Four independent scientists respond in detail to the evidence that government scientists claim shows that carbon dioxide causes significant global warming. The real debate continues. After the return fire from the skeptical experts, there was not a single point left standing.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/scientist...change-science/
<Φ>aj
-
Good find!
Again the WSJ gets to the meat-core of it...in:
Climategate: Follow the Money - Climate change researchers must believe in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God. By BRET STEPHENS
"...the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent—including the thousands of jobs they provide—vanishes. This is what's known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science. "
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...4250205490.html
<Φ>aj
-
And Patrick Michaels weighs in:
And for the views of scifi author, and longtime AGW debunker, James P. Hogan:
http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/bulletin.php?id=1173
<Φ>aj
Note: for many more anti-AGW, pro-science articles by this author, click the "Global Warming Category" link at the top of the page.
-
Truly horrific quotes stemming from the Global Change crowd. They don't even care if they are right or wrong, just how they are politically in charge.
I just watched Al Gore say the following on the Weekend Update portion of Saturday Night Live :
(it wasn't meant as a skit, he was being serious. it may have been comedy, but it wasn't funny.)
"you know what it means when I see my shadow?... it means the earth is dying."
"...now that I say them out loud, maybe my crazy ideas sound a little too crazy..."
"instead of science, I'm going with "crazy"...
(basically he was saying that if people won't take his BS seriously, then he will start terrorizing them until they do. ha ha ha)
Straight from the Kantian's mouth.
<Φ>aj
-
Actually, the leftists have a losing strategy precisely because reality isn't on their side, but the problem is they can take us all down with them. If anyone knows where we can cut the rope and let them fall to their doom, leaving us free of them, let me know.
The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. A. Einstein
-
From the Accuracy in Media site, three articles:
Climate Smokescreen At The New York Times
which discusses the media's hypocrisy of focusing on the potential illegality of the exposure...
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/climate-smok...the-n.y.-times/
Media Ignore Climate Science Scandal
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-ignore...cience-scandal/
Andrew Revkin Spins ‘ClimateGate’ Story
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/andrew-revki...mategate-story/
Also, from The New Atlantis - A Journal ot Technology & Society:
The Climate E-mails and the Politics of Science by Ivan Kenneally
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications...tics-of-science
"But notwithstanding the e-mails’ route to publication, their actual content is extraordinary. These behind-the-scenes discussions among leading global-warming exponents are remarkable both in their candor and in their sheer contempt for scientific objectivity. There can be little doubt after even a casual perusal that the scientific case for global warming and the policy that springs from it are based upon a volatile combination of political ideology, unapologetic mendacity, and simmering contempt for even the best-intentioned disagreement."
"...the CRU e-mails shows a breathtaking pattern of ideological rigidity and academic fraudulence that is simultaneously egregious and casually self-satisfied."
"Unquestioning loyalty to a political platform is understood to be the precondition of scientific authenticity."
<Φ>aj
We have learned from much experience, that all philosophical intuitions about what nature is going to do, fail. Feynman
-
I was a little vague in my wording. I meant more along the lines "If I had figured out an already-patented method of seed planting on my own, could the patenter prosecute me for using the method without his consent?" It does not seem like it would be proper for the patenter to do anything to me, since all I've done is use my own mind in the same way the patenter did. I just couldn't claim that I came up with the idea, of course.
From the USPTO website:
What Is a Patent?
A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. U.S. patent grants are effective only within the United States, U.S. territories, and U.S. possessions. Under certain circumstances, patent term extensions or adjustments may be available.
The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention. Once a patent is issued, the patentee must enforce the patent without aid of the USPTO.
There are three types of patents:
1) Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof;
2) Design patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture; and
3) Plant patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant.
=========
One issue that needs to be explained is why intellectual property is necessary. Innovators need to benefit from their creative activity or they will have no incentive to innovate. However, innovation needs to progress in a timely fashion, without some inventors or companies holding extended monopolies on core technologies. A patent system balances the right of the inventor to benefit from their creations against the right of the next inventor to be allowed to improve the state of the art even further. That is why the patent has a delimited term, and increasingly onerous maintenance fees towards the end of that term.
An example of this need for balance so that every one benefits, is the story of medical forceps used it to safely extract a baby from its mother. For 180 years a single family used forceps they designed to deliver babies, but kept this technology a secret because it would not be to their benefit to let the world know how they performed this life saving service. If they let people know how they made their forceps, everybody would be making knockoffs, probably substandard ones at that.
Because there was no patent system available in the 16th century this family could not sell their forceps in public, which would have been a much wider market share, especially if they had a monopoly. But also if that monopoly was limited to say, 20 years like the current system, another inventor would be able to improve upon the design of forceps, and then be able to benefit for the next 20 years. So instead of keeping a life-saving technology a secret for 180 years, and only one family benefiting from a very limited market share, instead they could have had 20 years to sell their forceps all over Europe and elsewhere, and then for another 160 years eight other inventors would have a go at improving the technology. This is why intellectual property is necessary and proper. And you can thank Thomas Jefferson for devising the US patent system, which made our modern technological world possible.
I could say more, as IP is my field, but since I spent most of August rewriting my website (www.inventive-solutions.ca) I suggest you might want to look at some of the extensive material I have posted there.
<Φ>aj
-
It has been 3 days and still almost no coverage in the main-stream media.
It was a weekend afterall.
A discussion about the coverage so far:
The CRU hack - What a difference an internet makes
Unlike the BBC's attempt to bury the lead and evade the moral aspect of the emails (see my last post), the story made the NYT today:
Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute - NY Times
The avalanche has begun...it is too late for the pebbles to vote. Kosh
<Φ>aj
-
Not to mention how far this program must extend for it to be completely voluntary; government medical research; government produced medicine and medical supplies, government employed doctors, government built hospitals and facilities, etc. etc. etc.
Also, the government becomes competition for medical services in the "free" market.
Reason Magazine just posted a short article and a video titled:
Reason.tv: Would ObamaCare Kill Medical Innovation?
goto: http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/23/reas...-obamacare-kill
The video includes a discussion of the healthcare system system in Canada.
<Φ>aj
Lisa Cuddy on House M.D. as Dagny Taggart
in Movies, Shows, and Theatre
Posted
Seems the current backers agree with you as I just found this in imdb:
-------------
Comments:Producers in talks with Charlize Theron to possibly adapt this as a mini-series.
Status Updated:28 January 2010
More Info:See more production information about Atlas Shrugged (2011) only on IMDbPro.
Note:Because this project is categorized as being in production, the data is subject to change; some data could be removed completely.
--------------
Personally, I'd rather not have to watch Aeon Flux do Dagny, as Atlas isn't primarily about physical but moral courage and that requires an actor with the gravitas to pull it off at the scale required. (Railroad tycoon anyone?) This isn't a judgement on Charlize's acting abilities, just the physical aesthetic she has shown. And a well cast younger actor could do the scenes from Dagny's earlier years, as the main story takes place during the pinnacle of Dagny's career/deprogramming.
<Φ>aj