Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Space Patroller

Regulars
  • Posts

    514
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Space Patroller

  1. Do tell. I hink it's called 180 degrees out of phase.
  2. Are you kidding? Do you know how HARMFUL that stuff is. If you breath it it will kill you faster than Carbon Monixide Immersion causes the skin to wrinkle The gaseous state causes burns to the body Impact on the solid state can cause injury I'm sorry but now you've got me steamed up. It's not a n ice thing at all And that's just for starters. The EPA oughta have an emergency program to remove it at whatever cost and don't let those damn Replicans water down the effort
  3. How come they don't tell you how many Indulgences you get for each of these religious activities. At least the Catholic Church did that Does that mans that bamboo is good to make the stake to drive through the hearts of Environmentalists, or some other variant of the Vlad Teppes game (as in where I'd like to really stick the bamboo stick)? 'J'a ever notice that you don't see Environmentalists and Pope Urban VIII in the same place at the same time?
  4. Here's the thorough, and necessarily long, story. By saying "We don't what to get involved in Philosophy" the Pro-Choicers are saying we don't want to get involved with facts; any and all facts, We don't want to get involved with princiaples at all. This lets the claim of the pro-lifers stand as true by default. The embryo or fetus is something; i.e. has an identity. This identity may or may not be a human being. If it is then it is entitled to the protections thereof. If it is not a human being then it is not so entitled. ONe of those protections is against murder. and if it is a human being than abortion, under normal circumstances, is murder. If it is not a human being then it is nto entitled to any rights. The pro-lifers claim that it is a human being, with all that proceeds from the above. In Roe v Wade. they were required to prove their case to biological standards. They failed to do so. Hence the decision. The scientific argument was made by proponents of legalizing abourtion with an appeal to biological principle So you had a clash of principles and one side had the better and won. With the aboandonment of philosophy, the Pro-choice movement abandoned principle so we have the equivalent of one side saying that the embryo is a human being and the other saying it's a nice day in Perth or worse Add to that, they can't even make an appeal to "liberty" or any idea that is derived from or implies the use of philospphy without being hypocrites trying to "cherry pick" what is and is not valid to suit their whims. a properly running consciousness runs on the Law of Identity and seeks to organize the material of the sensed in a systematic whole. As such, it gravitates, however incompletely, to principle. Now since the pro-life adheres to principles. albeit the wrong one, it implicitly supports factuality as the basis for decisions. the Pro-Choice having abandoned principle "...not get[ing] involved in philosophy" remains silent on the matter at hand. This concedes the realm of facts to the pro-life side by default. and therefore forfeit the battle. Net result, the pro-lifers win. It's what's called "a deafenining silence [cue up "crickets.mp3"]" Rand's statement about a man with principles, even the wrong ones, is better than a man with none is not primarily about morality, it's about not being a billion stars short of a galaxy: Alfred the Great vs Aflred E. Neuman. And before you con yourself into saying "Aw they don't really mean it": What did Rand say about doing just that? And here's the kicker. Just as the pro-choicers pull a Den Bien Phu from the French side. Bill O'Reilly comes riding in to the pro-lifers' rescue with a tactic that Rand obliterated a generation and a half ago. For those familiar with Fleetwood Mac, it's called the Rhiannon Principle and asks the question "will you ever win?"
  5. The original mission was as a ferry/transport to a proposed manned space station. The Liberals killed that off and then The shittle became a camper as every agency in the government wanted a piece of the action and caused "mission creep" Obama is a wonder, the world's first biological ventriloquist's dummy. It's the teleprompter operator that's doing the voice-over, too. Obama just lip sync's
  6. I see we're talking about different things. US particiapatory politics is more than just advertisement and we have a two-party system that is for all practical purposes, locked in. Third parties do not compete on an equal footing with the Republicans and Democrats. In our system there are many groups that participate in different ways such as advocacy and spreading ideas but aren't professionals. This is what I was talking about. At this point in time, I know of no active persons or groups that profess to be Objectivist. Working from Rand's quote we could claim to be the true right ("The 'swing to the right' is a move away from collectivism and toward individual rights"). While she did excoriate conservatives, she did not reject outright the left-right notion (excetp maybe on very limited and technical grounds for not delivering on the implicit promise). It is from the New Right Coalition and Rand's statement that I am working. Another oft used model is the circle, where the left and right meet ach other Trying to introduce a new paradigm means that you still have to create a smooth transition from the old. If I were not an Objectivist and you tried to use the model that you are using (of which I have no knowledge anyway) I'd be likely to say "Huh?" and you'd have about 9 seconds to latch me. The best way may be with something humorous. Making persons laugh is a good control mechanism. I used to use "the right ain't always right ", which has about 3 different sub-meanings and sets up as oxymoronic
  7. True; and as an Objectivist of two generations experience, I know that Objectivism was made to be used in the world as it is; "...a philosophy for living on earth". Objectivism is a tool like a saw, but if you don't get the wood to saw, then how useful is the saw? Objectivism pre-supposes that existence esists. The relevant corollary here is "Identity". Politics is a social activity. To prove that: Would you need politics if you were the only person in the Universe? In any social activity knowledge of what is true must be spread amongst the particiapents. As they adopt or not adopt the ideas, they test them in their own minds. The "best" idea isn't worth jack until it does something in the real world. As Rand said the "abstraction" is a two-way trip, from concrete to abstract then back to concrete. Now if you never come to the table or the field, but try and re-position the players at that table or field it gives the aura of being a kibitzer telling the players how to play the game and givew the impression of being a poseur; something about talking the talk but not walking the walk, and the player say "If you're so damn good, sit in and play, if not go back to your airy-fairy Mickey Mouth Club: In other words S**t or get off the pot!" Nobody likes or respects a no-show who runs his mouth. If you say "I don't like the field" they'll say "Aw; he doesn't like the field. Poor baby maybe you want us to wipe your little nose for you". The players operationally define the game because they're in the game. Why should they think any different? Besides which, active participants of our like have staked out a position on that field which means we have an existing, meaning an in-the-real-world, presense to start with You don't take Normandy if you don't hit and stay on the beach: A ____ in the ____ is worth ____ in the ____.
  8. Franken? In Congress? In Washington DC? Hey what better place for a clown than a circus?
  9. I'm an anti-nazi nazi Ziss is Mayor Hochstetter of ze Dusseldorf Gestapo. Ze Fuhrer says zat you are to stop being Nazis. Now you vouldn't want to disobey ze Fuhrer, vould you? By ze way, Hogan, ze spellCzech is yumping all over me. You vouldn't happen to know anyzing about zat, vould you? I zink I vill have to put it under arrest.
  10. Don't forget, Rand did give us D'Anconia. But to get back on topic. For me. You isn't an Objectivist until you sez you is and even then.... To demonstrate the latter clause: For decades Avi Nelson has associated himslef very closely with O'ism, perhaps even claiming to be one. The facts are these: 19 years ago he supported religions convocation at a state college commencement in New England and said just about a year and change ago that he's an agnostic. Do tell!
  11. Something that's about 50 years old and maybe consists of 200,000 at most, is going to "reposition" something worldwide of 130 years standing and is the standard for the world and from no point on the field. Yeah, sure. Hell, even Rand didn't try that. I wonder why. What do you think your chances are if she didn't try it and what do you think she knew? The libertarians tried that 37 years ago.
  12. First. "Pro-Choice" as it is presented today is incompatible with Objectivism. Bear in mind Rand's quote "A man with principles, even the wrong ones, is better than a man with none". Now c1990 Avi Nelson was subbing for Gene Byrnes on the WRKO AM 680 midday show and had as a guest either Kate Michaelman or the spokesperson for Mass-Choice. He asked the $64,000 question "Do you think the fetus is alive?" the anser that came back was "We don't want to get involved in philosopy". If you are an Objectivist, need I say more? What makes this significant is that this person was acting as a spokesperson for the Pro-Choice movement. On another front. a leading figure associated with the Right, Bill O'Reilly said, toward the end of his radio career that "You can't say that the embryo is alive because it isn't. But it is a potential life. That's how you fight the abortion crowd". Set the Wayback Machine to 1977, The place: Ford Hall Forum. Ayn Rand said "The embryo is a potential life, not and actual one. The actual takes precedence over the potential..." This is sound Aristotelian philosophy not restricted to Objectivism. Since an actual is real and a potential is not real and since the real takes absolute and total precedence over the non-real, the actual takes absolute and total precedence over the potential. For one thing, as one ptentiality actualized it eliminates the others that compete with it. O'Reilly greaduated from Harvard. This is a remarkable change in positon and he also impaled himself upon Rand's sword at full speed and doesn't seem to have realized it (must not have a nerve in his body; that's GOTTA hurt) or else he's being disingenuous
  13. From the previous post: I have Safari but I can't find the equvalent of Intenet Options/Firefox Options to locate a "colors" option and turn it into a hi-vis dispalay and if I use the relevant control panel or Accessibility settings it buggers things up, I use Fx/Tools/Options/colors bg=black, text=white link=green and since visited and hover don't workd, they don't matter. This way, I can flip in and out of hi-vis mode with no problems. There's also a way to use this color scheme to create "invisible ink", which I explain in the console documentation, for keeping moderately sensitive material on a sub page in a customized version (for which I provide the instruction and material) and my notes on Accessibiity shows my own console, which has been customized, in two views, normal and hi-vis Now, FireFox has a built-in spellcheck that ZIP mentioned earlier and I finally found. That puts a red line under the questionable material. But it's a dark red line and if there's significant light in the room I really can't see it worth a damn and even if the light is low, it's still hard to see. I'd love to be able to mess around with it to get it to yellow. Which leads into where I was going to go. If you grab your own, you can customize it. I've done that and added a sub-console with room for another dozen categories. This means that we could start a brisk trade in functional pages like FireFox does in extensions and add-ons. I wonder where we could put them. All you would have to do is make the page and associated files, zip them up and put them somewhere. I put mine in the service department
  14. 1. The Space Shuttle. Whole new technologies. Served for so long and did so much 2. Hubble Telescope 3. The US highway system 4. the Boeing 747 5. Hadron collider 6. U.S.S. Ronald Reagan: Representative of the New Supercarrier 7. X-Prize ship 1. The Space Shuttle. Whole new technologies. Served for so long and did so much 2. Hubble Telescope 3. The US highway system 4. the Boeing 747 5. Hadron collider 6. U.S.S. Ronald Reagan: Representative of the New Supercarrier 7. X-Prize ship
  15. This question was settled 38 years ago: There was an orgaization that was primarily (very) O'ist with some libertarian that put out pamphlets and buttons, two of which I had. ONe was a kind of magenta and said in black letters "WHO IS JOHN GALT?". The other was a kind of lemon peel yellow with black letters and said "FIGHT FOR CAPITALI$M":. That outfit was called the New Right Coalition. It's chief spokesmen were Steve Zerak and Gordon Nelson I came into contact with it from a friend who attended Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Since an 85% O'ist group has already declared itself Right and that is a fact then I guess that kind of settles it. There was also some to-do with that chapter of the YAF that split down the middle about purging the O'ists but the boss of the capter wasn't having it. I know, but this was 1971. On the other hand, Buckley did bounce us out of the Conservative movement along with the John Birch Society in about '65 but I see the cons are looking to us to save their chestnuts. We ought do it, but at a high price
  16. Hey; I said it was the smartest FORUM, not the smartest post, right? I put that somewhere else. I thought I put that damn Kryptonite back in the lead box.
  17. To recapitulate, without getting into the specifics. I just mad OO the smartest forum in the world.
  18. Prior to this post, there was a tie between this and my "Space-O-Forum". In terms of innate content, this is the top pooch but Space-O-Forum, in keeping with the idea that the utopias that wrere the societies envisioned in th e "space shows" of the 1950's and particularly Space Patrol, has, by virtue of linkage, a kit that does things and leeads to things of interest and use. Particularly relevent to these civilizations was math and science. The implicit and sometimes stated basis of this was Reason. Given that, Space-O-Forum could also lay claim to being the smartest forum in the world, at least in terms of problem-solving and acquisition of data with which to do things which makes it the dynamically smartest forum in the world Now, what would happen if I took the "toolkit" that is at Space-O-Forum and put it hear as well? I had a link to the download page for this in Productivity. That was before I set up Space-O-Forum. Having a link to the item itself kind of makes that obsolete and this leads to a download page. If one of the mods or Web God wants to put one here, that's doable So, I took the smartest forum content-wise and "kit-based" or "frankenstein"ed it with the dynamically smartest forum in the world http://www.console.spacepatrol.us/001forumstart.html This is what I use as my Fx homepage. It all started in the hunt for something as good as but more readable to me than the Windows calculator and then it went on steroids. I might as well really stack the deck and add the "Portable Space Patrol Academy" http://spacepatrol.us/forumacad.html
  19. [puote] “We Have a Duty to Save the Earth; We Must Support H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” Am I to believe that she used the uppoer case in this manner? if so, then don't bother communication with her. This kind of thing has for years been the halmark of the metally Ill or the religious fanatic, It imitates things in the Bible connected with God as in "His Glory", His Will" , etc. It is also used in certain instances in important legal documents as a statement of principle But for something so speculative (at best)? If that usage is true, While I cannot make a diagnosis without an interview and testing (contrary to proper practice), I have to say that there's cause for concern that this is a manifestation of SPS: Sick Puppy Syndrome.
  20. How sad for them. I almost feel pity. What of the child that they were, and that still lives in them, that was excited at a new discovery? It's one thing, in a mixed system to "do what you gotta do" but to reach the stage that you describe? It's like being a quadraplegic mute.
  21. Do you think the collectivist will care about the initiation of force against individuals? It is, after all, a collectivist At least this way, I can obliterate the chimera of usefulness. Besides, it's usually a part of a larger discussion and I don't want to get distracted by, for that debate, a side issue, and since we're both adults then the adversary has settled his mind on the larger issue. Besides, having pointed out the failure and stupidity doesn't rule out the moral argument since both are true But this was an example from real life on more than one occasion used to point out a certain type of behavior.
  22. The fact is, at this time, all that existis is left, right and center. So you're going to be one of them. Rand said, regarding the "swing to the right". a term coined in 1968 as far as I can tell "[the 'swing to the right'] is a movement away from statism and toward individual rights" and she was a registered Republican The answer is what is the most compatible with Objectivism. The modern abortion rights movement has now become specifically anti-philosophical and I know this for a fact. Is THAT compatible with Objectivism. One does not have to be a Conservative to be on the right and libertarian is such a broad brush that it could include O'ist political theory at this time; the problem is what else it included or subscribed to or has done so over the last 30 years. Also Rand made her remarks about conservatives over 40 years ago. Things have changed since then: Read "Earth Day". She did not see that coming in '66 and that kind of junk was more associated with conservatives anyway. so it's a case of "Who'd'a thunk it?". In reaction to the eco's, the conservatives swung more toward Reason, so there was a bit of a reversal here. In 1978 I said "All our liberals have become conservatives". "Other" is meaningless by virtue of not having any specifics therefore lacking an identity, whicn means "make them up and hope for some fairy dust". Is THAT compatible with Objectivism? Nor is politics isolated, it is a deriviative of ethics which is in turn derived from metaphysicis and epistemology. This means that you band together with the ones you are most like. What do you have in common with eco's, antiphilosophical abrotion rights advocates, food, safety and health nazis and the whole PC'ist left? Now the center. What did Mr. Myagi say about the middle of the road and what has Rand said about the middle of the road? Actually one could legitimately be a centrist but only by virtue of being a collection of extremes that average out to 5. My antipathy to drug laws and school prayer is balanced by my support for gun rights and the death penalty. These four characteristics of me are absolute so I fall in the center on a scale using those as the questions. However, If you looked at my metaphysical stand (Primacy of Existence) My ethical stand (moral absolutism) and my epistemological stand (logic-driven), I resemble more a conservative than a liberal. At one time or other, Rush Limbaugh has voiced support for every metaphysical, epistemological and ethical principle for which we stand (where he fails is in some of the follow-through and specifics). Alan Combes has become such a lunatic that I've lost all respect for him; recently calling Howard Zinn a patriot. and reducing all disagreements on Global Warming to relativims via "anyone can find scientists who agree with what they say". I have a video of Bill O'Reilly, for whom I have a lttle respect; as little as possible reducing Barney Frank to a name-calling caricature of Daffy Duck, stopping just short of "You're disthpicable". And Framk is supposed to be a sharp guy. This is an alliance, not a love fast. The only thing that makes Mark Sanford a hypocrite is that Republicans are linked to being more than dogs rutting on the side of the road. For conservatives having a mistress is a step down, for the left, it would be a step up.
  23. Too often we hear the cry "can't you be reasonable?" For example when I am discussing some economic plasn with someone and I get the inkling that it centers around redistributionism and I ask, if somewhere this scheme includes redistribution and the answer comes back "yes" I say "Fageddabouddit; Ain't gonna happen". I get castigated for not listining or not being "reasoable" to which I say "Look redistribution doesn't work [then eleaborate on what it has done]. Isn't it stupid to do what hasn't worked or caused destricution and expect something different?" In early 2006, 18 years after Global Warmingism was brought to the fore. RealWeather Radio, an arm of AccuWeather. was asked about this myth and said with clarity and certainty that it was a buncha bull and went into the PSO and all that. Now, the eco's, having still failed to pass scientific muster, not that they ever gave a Rigelian rat's rear about science, which they spend most of their effort and time attacking, are bitching that we won't be "reasonable" and come to some point of agreement. Well, true is true and false is false and that's a metaphyscal line in the sand: i.e. I'm not ganna call a pile of dung a plate of chocolate pudding just to placate someone who's a few days short of a week. To graps why, imagine that you and I have a dispute. You say that 2+2=4, I say it's 6 and you're having none of it. Then I say "Can't you be reasoable and split the difference to 5?" If you have a brain you'll say "No, 5 is just as false as 6 and "reasonaaable" means guided by reason, not entertaining things that I know to be cocamamie. Reason integrates the facts of reality into a cohernent whole and 2+2=5 and 2+2=6 are both as false as 2+2=4 is true" Beyond that, Once I get you to ratify the falsehood by one, I've got you for all of it. You could not object to 2+2=10. You've already fallen off the wall and shattered. The purpose of this fallacy is to castigate you for not being an epistemological wet noodle, not to arrive at truth or honest agreement.
  24. I'm becoming aware of other things about this little gem of mine. It has several modes of basic operation Setup which is just that. Auto; point and shoot, Landscape, Progarm mode; has a larger choce of menus, night, sports: I gess that's a quick shutter for action shots, portrait and movie. These you set before you turn it on. Once you turn it on you have Flash: auto, red-eye, on, off focus: Standard, infinity, macro Capture. single, burst (3 at a whack) Auto-Bracket burst (3 at three different exposures) Menu Size in mp 7, 5, 3, 1.3 and the smallest Quality: Fine. normal, economy Proggram mode extends the menu to include Color: color, BW, sepia Sharpness and color saturation. I just set mine for high Also you can set ISO, metering: center, spot, and EV the latter between -2,0 to +2.0 I really haven't touched these since I don't know what I'm doing Also uses a 2GB SD card 552 images@7m Fine Of course, I do have to feed the beast: 3 sets of NiMH batteries, two chargers (I keep the 4 battery unit at home and put the 2-banger in the bag, 2GB card, minitripod and a shoulder bag in whichI keep that, my iPod Nono clone and full coverage earphones, and card reader (and If I can get it, compact binox). I'm entertaining the idea of getting a 4, 8 or 16 GB card to bring with me. Even at home, I work out of the bag I have a feeling that this thing packs more wallop than I really understnad at this point in time. I just wanted something that could do reasonably well at a decent price and a brand name (Polaroid i739m) 7m camera for $US65 looked like a peachy keen starter to me. I'm not planning to be a professional photographer or even and advanced hobbyist, (what would the normally-sighted say if I became even moderately competent at that level?)
  25. Nothing OT about it. "Libertarian" has been used to paint with such a bread brush that it entrains a gazillion concepts of identity whenever the word is mentioned and lunatics like Rothbard didn't help. How you could support the Iranian and Sandinista revolutions of '79, knowing the identities of each, with the mealy-mouthed "...libertarians cannot be responsible for the outcomes of such revolutions" and not be banned from libertarian publications for life Is a mystery on the order of the Mare Celeste. It gives strong evidence in support of Schwartz' essay (and he used that with deadly efficacy)/ To me, what you give your name to, you give your soul and reveal the contents of that soul and the worth of your name.
×
×
  • Create New...