Chris.S

This summer I had the chance to be exposed to "Bollywood" tv and movies, and I gotta say, those Bollywood babes definitely give any women in the West a run for their money. Ashwarya Rai is just a small taste of the Indian cuisine

I took your advice as I went to look at another apartment, snerd. It was just as nice as the previous place, but farther from public transit and apparently the current tenants are moving out due to the upstairs tenants making too much noise. I wasn't really interested in getting it, but decided to ask anyways, how the landlord would make his decision if 2 or more tenants were up for the apartment. He basically responded with a first come, first served answer. But then I put it out there that if a prospective tenant were to offer more money if that would help the decision process, and he said no. He actually chuckled and said they usuyally try to bargain the price down. Hopefully the 1st landlady is more responsive to carrots. I'll call and see how her decision is shaping up tomorrow I'll try and see if maybe they need some help gardening or yardwork (they're a little old), or with their accupuncture business upstairs. As far as I can tell, rentals for my price range are few, and of those few, most are in the older areas of the city. Poorly renovated basements with little light and even less head space (4 out of 6 houses so far have had ceilings between 5'8" and 6'). I know that's part of the territory of what I'm paying, and that's why I don't understand why an awesome place like this is going for 750, when others in it's range are really shitty. And so I'm willing to offer more money or more anything to get it. Hey snerd, does the book tell how a buyer can stay out of that trap, or is it more like "here's a sales tactic; now that you know you're armed against it" type thing?

So I arrived back in Toronto last Saturday, and have been sleeping at a cousin's place until I find my own apartment. I've been looking at 2-3 apartments a day since Sunday, but haven't seen anything I like until today. I really, REALLY want this apartment. Nice area, lots of space, 2 rooms even (it was listed as 1 bedroom), 750/month, utilities included. Basically, the place is awesome for my wife and I until I finish school. The problem is that as I was filling out the rental application, another person came to see the apartment, and it was quite easy to see that she liked it, and she asked to fill out an application as well. So I finished my application, and chatted with the landlady a bit, explaining my situation and how long we want to live there, and then left. What I would like to ask is this: how do I sweeten this deal for the landlady such that if our credit check passes (which it will), that I am first in line to get the apartment ahead of others whose credit has passed? I thought of offering $50 extra per month, and my wife had the idea of offering 6months payment up front, rather than the usual 2. Would either of these ideas turn off a landlord to a potential tenant? I can't see how a landlord would turn down more money, but maybe it seems too desperate, or inappropriate or that we might be underhanded folks? I just really want this F'ing apartment and am willing to pay more, even if it's a little over my budget.

I just wanted to add that I think a better line at the bottom of the poster would be "Why so socialist?" rather than "SOCIALISM", but it might infringe on copyrights of the new Batman franchise to use that phrase.

Probably for the same reason Roark never had a full-on debate with Toohey.

The picture and the comments are fantastic.

Name a resource that has ever been used up completely before better technology or a better resource was discovered or invented? I would argue that a higher rate of usage is better for the environment because it causes suppliers to be more efficient in their production. Demand exceeding supply causes an increase in price, shortening the rate of usage. At first this action causes less usage because less people can afford the resource. But then profits from higher prices would be reinvested in better methods of resource production to increase the supply. That's from just an economical viewpoint. Philosophically, environmentalists put trees and rivers and rocks and cockroaches above human life. If a man has a tree on his property and he decides to cut it down, he's a murderer. Man using the environment for his needs is evil. A skyscraper is a den of demons while a tree is a cozy place to live in for a few years. Unfortunately for these people, hardly anyone was adopting their views, so over time they've become less and less openly crazy, until recently they've couched their philosophy in the more middle-class-friendly political term, sustainable development. Similarly, global cooling turned to global warming turned to climate change. Man must use the environment to sustain his life. The only sustainable development he should care about is his own, and the environment is included in that already in the way that a farmer must prevent soil nutrient depletion by rotating crops, or a logging company must think long-term profits by planting more trees, or an oil company must squeeze every drop of oil out of a deposit as possible. The needs of these people cause other people to develop better technology to increase efficiency and profits, and so on down the economy chain. Even if your teachers scoff at the idea of renouncing technology to live like cavemen, they've already accepted the idea by teaching it, they just haven't though it through. People and companies already develop "sustainably", contrary to what your teachers are selling you. The kind of sustainable development preached in schools is the kind where the environment comes before Man's life. If a man has just enough money to build a house, and then comes up against all the ways he must preserve the environment by making his house ecologically friendly and sustainable, he cannot build the house he wants because the additional costs are astronomical. In fact, governments (at least here in parts of Canada, I'm guessing some in other countries as well) are bribing people with tax rebates so that if they renovate or buy a new car, these people will "go green". And even the bribes aren't working because the costs are still too high. Guess why the costs are so high? Because the technology sucks - because hardly anyone is developing it - because there's very little profit motive. And whenever envirotech is implemented, it's a ginormous money sink at the cost of taxpayers because the taxpayers themselves won't invest in it, because conventional technology is still cheaper. The only real way to get this technology going is to use more and more resources at the highest rate you can afford. As for government not enforcing or encouraging environmental agendas: I already covered the tax rebate issues, but there will also probably be plenty of clauses in your local building code that address environmental sustainability. An easy one to demonstrate here is the R-value, or ability to insulate, of the walls in your home. This is because better insulated homes uses less energy to heat and/or cool your house. Obviously using less energy saves a homeowner money. But is it really a function of government to tell people how well insulated their house must be so they can save money on energy bills? Why can't a guy with money to burn build a huge, less insulated breezy house?

Sell positives, downplay or spin negatives. Really good salesmen do this, while mediocre salesmen lie. You can tell the difference on each salesman's returns or cancellations at the end of each month. That you're getting taught that you must lie in sales is ridiculous. People know when they're getting swindled.

I read the beginning and end of that because it's way too long, but it sounds like your friend is of the same type as a former friend of mine. You might want to reevaluate your friendship. Or if he's willing to sit down, shut up and think, you could baby-step him through Epistemology and Ethics before Politics.

Thanks. I think other people have said it better than I could, I'm just kinda putting it in my own words, since I will have to debate this kind of thinking in an upcoming class titled "Sustainable Development and the Environment". There's no course description offered, but I can guess what it's about...

"Sustainable development" equates, and even puts above, the environment and potential later generations with current and actual human needs. It also assumes that humanity will only ever have the current level of technology, with no innovation or invention, yet keeping the same population growth, leading to "unsustainable development". What it does is cause stagnation because all new "development" must include keeping the environment in as pristine a condition as possible. That means zero "growth". Unfortunately for the construction industry (my industry), environmental sustainability tests and projects will soon be needed everywhere before a company starts building, further adding to the cost. The only time I agree with this sort of project is if building in a place may cause harm or other difficulties for the building or the owner in the future, and only for the purpose of preventing or solving those happenings. The first 3 critiques in that wikipedia article you linked are good places to start I would say. However, John Baden seems to be trying to push some contradictions in advocating for "free market environmentalism". In the end, a free market will solve any issues of "sustainability". Profit motive and new more efficient technologies will ensure that the world doesn't end because we killed too many trees or burned too much oil or mined too much metal.

I just remembered: Babylon A.D. Vin Diesel, oh how you disappoint.

I wonder if they realize that what they say is exactly the same BS that terrorist muslims repeat. Can't they go to jail for threatening stuff like this, or does it have to be a direct threat to a specific person or people? I guess they could wimp out and say that they meant that God will do the damage, but I'd think any judge worth his salt would see through that kind of lie.

Yeah, I'm not really sure where the problem is. It's a charity, and nowhere on their site are they saying to steal from the rich or promoting harsher regulations or taxes. Sure, Robin Hood may have been a sketchy hero, but the popular Disney and Kevin Costner portrayals have him fighting unjust royalty, and not because it was "for the poor", it was for himself (revenge and love). Also, I think they wanted to have a more specific heroic visual and catch-phrase. Rather than something like "Be a Hero", it's "Be Robin Hood". It invokes the visual of a rugged, swashbuckler-woodsman who helps out poor people. Donating to a large, branched, unspecified charity may not be your thing, but certainly there are people who have been in any of those tough situations and can sympathize and would like to help out. And with the economy going in the shitter, more and more people are in those situations. I think your time could be better spent rather than piss and moan about a seemingly benign charity organization.

What's kind of funny is I think this video will work better turning Canadians against socialized medicine than Americans. We deal with it every day, or know people who do. I think Crowder really nailed it with this video, however, there could've been more interviews as well as a bit more information and questions. Definitely going on my Facebook page.

One doesn't need to have lived in a ghetto or favela to know that the only economic system to help people there is laissez faire capitalism. Private ownership, not nationalized economies, will revitalize a country and help it to prosper. Continuing to argue for social welfare on this board, with all the information available to you of Objectivism and especially economics is a complete negation of the reality you keep telling us to look at.

/cheer!

"it seems"! I may have been exaggerating a bit

You kind of answered yourself in your post. Government has no proper right charging you for your right to own property. Ownership of property is not granted by government, it comes from your right to life. That boat is private property, and seems to be a business. Payment in living there includes the ability to give your say on where to go next. I think there are similar set-ups in condos and apartment buildings. The argument of "you're free to leave", if you accept the idea, means you've accepted that the government has a right to take your property (money) for the right to own property (land), as if the government owned all the land within its borders and was graciously allowing you the use of a small piece for awhile. It also means you've given up the fight for your freedoms. Basically, the difference is that you're freely paying to live on that boat and accepting whatever rules are there because it is private property, but you already live on and own private property and government is taking little bits by force.

I think if that happens, people here aren't going to like it and will probably say so. Every soldier who's died so far has been in the news, and I think more of our guys dying will put some pressure on whoever is in charge to stop letting it happen. And families of soldiers getting the word out to non-military families helps a lot too. But I really don't think guys on the ground will follow these rules in hot areas anyways, not with 1 or 2 deaths a week coming from Canadians it seems.

While I disagree with holding back on the amount of force necessary in these situations if in danger, I think these new guidelines are being imposed in order to transfer more responsibility to the Afghans, and get NATO/ISAF out (that includes Canadians btw). It's not that it's kindler and gentler, it's that we want less of our own being killed for policing actions that the Afghans should be responsible for. Patrols, house invasions, everything. Baby birds have to learn to fly sometime.

Unbreakable was really good. Haven't seen it in years though.

Honour Rolls are made to celebrate achievements. They're supposed to be the by-product of doing well in school, and "doing well" is supposed to be measured objectively through testing. Doing well for the sake of getting on the Honour Roll is a misplaced value, but the rest of what this guy says could be straight out of Tooheys mouth, and some of the comments from other parts of TF. Thankfully though, many of the comments recognize this guy's douchiness and speak against it.

Seven Pounds is really bad.

This was my main reason for wanting an aisle seat. I'm too polite to bother sleepers unless I'm gonna pee my pants. A lesser reason is just being able to get up and walk around a bit, even if only to the bathroom. I don't mind waiting for debarkation, but it does make sense to get off the plane faster to get through immigration faster. Whatever happened to zeppellins? Those things were so spacious! Thanks for the link, I'll plan my seating really well this time.