Andrew Grathwohl
-
Posts
360 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Andrew Grathwohl
-
-
There really is no argument against computers which are "exactly like humans" performing tasks as well as humans, except the one: they don't exist.
It appears we may be on our way, though!
http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2102735/ibm-unveils-chips-mimic-human-brain
-
Don't worry about it, guys. He has no chance.
-
If memory serves me correctly Jimmy Wales and Diana Hsieh were dating at one point. Wales was definitely and vocally on the Kelley side of the Peikoff/Kelley debate, which IMHO indicates at minimum a serious weakness in his understanding and/or application of Objectivism. Would he be a better Senator than Bill Nelson? Probably. But I'm not sure I'd pick him as a desirable standard-bearer for Objectivism in the arena of electoral politics. Paradoxically I'd be more inclined to support him if he runs as a generic "pro-freedom, pro-defense, pro-secularism" candidate than as an explicit Objectivist.
If Jimbo does run, will his opponents not attempt to discredit him by bringing up his Objectivist connection?
-
http://race42012.com/2011/03/20/you-heard-it-here-first-jimmy-wales-considering-senate-run/
Would be a very promising candidate, if you ask me! He'd probably be the first self-proclaimed Objectivist to run for Senate in US history.
-
I am convinced that there isn't a single Objectivist working on this film.
-
Property rights are not a meme, they are the application of the principle of rights, in various societies. In some contexts, the application of that principle often means someone doesn't get to draw a physical line in the sand and say: no one can cross this - because such a line might actually contribute to a violation of someone else's rights. The principle isn't the line in the sand, it is far more complex than that. It involves related concepts such as rationality, justice, etc.
I don't understand the analogy. I'm not saying that a property owner is drawing a line in the sand and saying "none shall pass." I am saying that the property owner sees police speeding down his road as potential destruction of his private property. I could easily envision a road owner not wanting to risk lowering the value of his property (or his land that the road is on, or the other properties on that land that may or may not be his) to a police pursuit that has nothing to do with the owner's interests.
The example was intended to pose as an abstraction of the true meat and potatoes of the question I'm trying to ask. The question is to what extent, if any, that a laissez-faire capitalist government could encroach upon the wishes of a property owner if the protections they're aiming to accomplish are of no concern to the respective individual. To me, it sounds like either the government would be unable to guarantee the rights its citizens have to do what they wish with their property (so long as it is not initiating force against others), or it would be unable to use every possible means of guaranteeing an efficient and effective police force. Surely, there is a way to allow both things to happen?
Since there are other options and you have made it clear that this property owner does not wish to have even police exceed the speed limit, then the police would not be able to violate that person's property.
However, I see this as a very unlikely scenario. What rational reasoning would someone with the capacity to own and operate a successful road have for not allowing police on it? And, if you can come up with a good reason, then why wouldn't you respect that?
Well, as I alluded to above, the immediate reasoning I would consider is the potential to lower the value of the road or to disturb the land (and other potential properties on that land) that the road owner possesses.
If I travel 65mph on a private road that the owner has forbidden travel at greater than 60mph, am I not violating that road owner's rights? If not, why not? If so, aren't the police obligated to stop me from violating the road owner's rights?
I would imagine that this would be the job of private industry, no? The police couldn't be in the business of policing roads as they do today if the roads are privately-owned.
This right of passage is commonly now formalized in the property deed as an "easement."It would be hard to argue that a police "hot pursuit" is not reasonable and customary.
I agree that, if there is no explicit statement against driving furiously down a privately-owned road, then the police would be able to do so. That could very easily be reasonable and customary. However, does the property owner have the right to specifically outlaw such things from happening on his property and forbid individuals from using the road if he has a specific reason for doing so? As I said before, what if the property owner doesn't want that kind of thing happening on his property? Perhaps he owns the road because he owns a bunch of shopping plazas that surround it. Maybe he doesn't want potential customers being put in harm's way. Maybe he doesn't want the loud noise disturbing consumers he is hosting on his privately-owned and operated property.
But the reasoning isn't relevant, is it? Surely, a laissez-faire government couldn't prohibit a restaurant owner from disallowing any racial minorities from entering his place of business - even if the rationality is (obviously) completely devoid of reasonable and customary considerations? We have the right to be idiots if we want, as long as the rights of others aren't being violated in the process.
-
I got asked this question recently and was pretty stumped by it.
In a fully capitalist government, the government would consist of all functions required to protect individual rights: the courts, the military, and the police. The government would not be allowed to trample on one's right to property. The government would also not be allowed to own any property that wasn't directly related to those legitimate functions. The government would be in the business of protecting the property rights of its citizens - not trampling them. Following this logic, it would necessitate that the government would not own or operate any roads. All roads would be privately-owned.
So what would be the appropriate response to the following scenario: the government police need to respond to a crime-in-progress (let's say a bank robbery) as quickly as possible. Perhaps the road options are limited to only a few different paths. Perhaps one of those options is by-far the best path to take. Does the government police force have the right to speed down an individual's privately-owned road at fast velocities, sirens ablaze, even if the road owner makes it clear that speed limits are to be obeyed by all, including police and other government workers?
Essentially, the question boils down to how the ideal Objectivist capitalist government reconciles the issues that would exist between private-property protections and the efficient, effective execution of legitimate government tasks that would rely on private property and private individuals to accomplish successfully. If the protection of private property rights must exist in this society, how could other legitimate government protections be guaranteed to be effectively carried out? Could anybody point me in the right direction here?
-
I've had my try at advocating the Objectivist viewpoint on Reddit several times. The key is how you choose to word your argument. When being straight-forward and uncompromising in your remarks, expect downvotes. Lots of them. However, the more targeted you make your remarks - the more specific to a concrete issue - the more likely you are to get sympathizers and supporters.
The Reddit community, like most massive online communities, does not like to deal in large overarching concepts. Most have little to no integrated concepts behind their understanding of epistemology and metaphysics. The community is also getting younger and younger, which unfortunately has led to the upvote/downvote system turning into more of a "whose comment is funniest" contest rather than an indicator of the comment's overall contribution to the discussion topic.
-
Btw, has Watson answered any questions incorrectly?
Yes. The computer got answers wrong not only when it was willing to buzz in, but even when it was the first contestant to do so.
-
- Thats pretty harsh, you dont think smoking in any way can enhance your experience of life?
Its obviously not a requirement, but to dismiss it as having no upsides and even being a "vice" seems kind of silly.
Fine dining is not a requirement of life, and certainly rarely something missed by those whom have never tried it, aswell as a serious health hazard when overdone - that does not mean its necessarily a bad thing.
I didn't say that smoking cannot enhance your experience of life in any way. I said that it is nonessential. I smoke a pipe 1-3 times a week, and I would be the first to tell you that it is not an essential aspect to my life whatsoever. Anybody who did view smoking as an essential part of their lives would probably not be smoking tobacco (or probably even cannabis for that matter, which I also used to do).
Going on the assumption that everyone views sex as enjoyable (which they don't), it would still not be a necessity to live a rational life. Likewise, just because of the harmful effects of smoking, it hardly categorizes the user as someone who cannot lead a rational life.
People who do not view sex as enjoyable have serious issues that need to be resolved, and they most certainly do not live a rational life. Leonard Peikoff even said that sex is more essential to life than art.
-
That's circular reasoning. How does one know it is in the public domain without confirming with the original source? I'm coming from a background as a Wikipedia admin, so I'm used to people claiming PD when it's not necessarily the case. But in this case I am not too concerned, as long as it is not embedded on this site without clear citation.
It's not circular reasoning; it's the law. Works in the public domain can be utilized freely. There is no need to cite it, because you cannot be legally prosecuted for not doing so.
In the case of Wikipedia, or this very message board, you're dealing with an issue of individual policies implemented for (legitimate) reasons of protection. But the issue at hand was that you told him to get permission from the copyright holders for their pictures before distributing their works. He told you that the images are in the public domain. That's that! Asking him to cite the sources of those images does not change the truth or fiction behind that statement. He does not need to prove that the images are in the public domain before he can start distributing his work. He either is telling the truth, or he isn't and therefore risks suffering the legal consequences.
-
You don't link or cite the originals, so there's no way to verify.
Seriously?
It's in the public domain - it doesn't need to be cited.
-
This same logic would result in the conclusion that a smoker should not treat his lung cancer, because "he earned it." The fact is, we all take actions with risks every day, and when those risks actually obtain, we should be perfectly free to deal with the consequences in whatever way we see fit.
While your post is thoughtful, and even though I agree with it almost 100%, I would be careful when analogizing sex with smoking. The former is a necessity for a happy, rational life. The latter is a "vice," which, when overdone, can lead to serious health problems, and is completely nonessential in any other capacity.
On the topic of avoiding metaphysical realities, the OP must realize that contraception is a metaphysical reality just as much as unprotected sex leading to the possibility of pregnancy is. The possibilities of our metaphysical reality, provided to us by the ingenious and inventive human minds that work in the field of contraception, have allowed us to pursue a necessity for a happy life without the risk of pregnancy. If only they could figure out how to do this same thing in the case of smoking!
The only way one can avoid a metaphysical reality when engaging in intercourse is if they do so expecting no possibility of pregnancy without utilizing some method of contraception. The OP is likely confusing metaphysical reality with "basic" or "uncivilized" mankind, which leads me to suspect that he/she is not versed in the Objectivist response towards those who insist upon a mind-body dichotomy.
-
I was highly skeptical, to say the least, and I'm sure many of you were, but the trailer is looking extremely promising.
Color me excited.
Sorry, but not even the studio trickery involved in making your run-of-the-mill theatrical trailer could cover up the horrific acting exhibited by every single actor and actress shown in this preview.
This is going to be a D-rate portrayal of an A-rate novel. What was Peikoff thinking when he gave up the AS rights to the people involved with this??
-
I recently came across this one on Coolest-Gadgets:
You know those crop circles that you hear about? One theory is that aliens are really trying to write on our landscapes in their own language. Now why would aliens do that, when this man, Nick Newcomen, just scrawled out a message on planet Earth in a human language. You can read it in the photo.
Newcomen drove for 30 days, through 30 states, for a grand total of 12,238 miles. He had a Qstarz BT-Q1000X as the medium for his message, and it can only seen with Google Earth with the recorded GPS device data.
This is probably the biggest sign in the world. It makes the Hollywood letters look like very fine legal print. Only the Great Wall of China could underline these three words.
Just to let you know, the driver didn’t write these words in order. He had to write the word “Rand”, then went north to write “Read”, and managed to do “Ayn”. Clearly the works of Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged are worth reading with this devotion. Let’s be glad that his favorite author wasn’t Fyodor Dostoevsky or something even longer. I wonder if he had to go off-road in order to make some of these giant letters.
Seriously, are the roads in the United States shaped like letters so well? Leave a comment if you know if anyone else has done something like this.
-
Check out the Schiff campaign's latest email!
Hello Everybody,The Norwich Bulletin has endorsed Rob Simmons because he has spent his entire life in service to his country. On the other hand, Linda McMahon and I have spent our entire lives in pursuit of personal wealth and self-interest. With that one observation the editorial board reveals their Marxist tendencies and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the free enterprise system upon which our nation is based.
According to the Bulletin the pursuit of personal wealth does not serve the national interest -- that the goods and services provided or the jobs created in the process mean nothing. According to the Bulletin guys like Thomas Edison, Henry Forbes, Bills Gates, Steve Jobs, etc. have done nothing to serve the national interest. I suppose the invention of the electric light bulb did nothing to improve the lives of Americans. That candlelight is just as good. That all the jobs provided by Edison Electric did nothing to improve the lives of their employees. They must have a similar view of affordable automobiles, personal computers, windows operating systems, or iphones.
If you believe in the free market and agree that innovation drives the economy, then I ask you to consider investing in my campaign. Please follow this link and make a contribution of $25, $50, $100, $250 or more today.
How many people does Microsoft employee? A lot more then Rob Simmons, who has never employed anyone. What did Rob Simmons ever invent ... nothing? How many millions has the Gates foundation given away in charitable contributions? Compare that to what Simmons is able to donate with his government paychecks.
Now, I have nothing against Rob Simmons. I also respect his years of military service. But that services pales in comparison to that of Bill Gates. Bill Gates' wealth was derived solely based on the pursuit of personal wealth and self-interest, the precise motivation that the Bulletin so readily dismisses. Yet Gates did far more to improve the lives of ordinary Americans then Simmons.
Rob Simmons has spent his entire life collecting government paychecks. He has never run a business; he has never produced a product, provided a service, or created a job. Yet according to the Bulletin that makes his uniquely qualified to be a United States Senator.
According to the Bulletin my ideas are so radical and out of touch that they have no chance of success. Well I suppose to a bunch of socialist journalist, free market ideas are radical.
Before they endorsed Simmons, the Bulletin interviewed all the candidates. Those interviews were video recorded and can be seen here.
Watch my interview and decide for yourself how radical and out of touch my ideas are. See if you think that Rob Simmons is the only candidate with the knowledge to be a senator. By the way, notice all the commercials in the video? For a paper so opposed to private profit, they certainly sell a lot of ads!
So if you agree with my "radical" free market ideas please follow this link and make a contribution of $25, $50, $100, $250 or more to my campaign today. The primary is next week, so please do not delay!
Now in fairness to the Bulletin, they are not the only newspaper to have endorsed Simmons. He has also won the endorsement of The Current and The Day. Linda McMahon won the endorsement of the Register Citizen. Not a single newspaper has endorsed me. In fact, each one basically dismisses me as a nut.
That is why I need your help to overcome the media advantages enjoyed by my opponents. We need to bypass the press and take our case directly to the people. We need more money to increase the size of our media buy, both radio and TV. Please follow this link and give generously to my campaign today.
Peter Schiff
Republican U.S. Senate Candidate
P.S. If you believe in the free market and agree with me that innovation drives our economy, please invest in my campaign by following this link and making a contribution of $25, $50, $100, $250 or more today
-
That isn't changing copyright. Jailbreaking your smartphone is a perfectly legitimate use of your property. Copyright law doesn't (and shouldn't) limit the consumer's ability to use purchased hardware/software as long as this use is legal. The reason why jailbreaking, game console modding, and other such actions are perfectly legal and not touched by copyright is because it is the actions you commit AFTER doing these things that could potentially be violating copyright law. The ability to modify your own property is your right. If you're an Apple smart-device user, then you most likely agreed to not jailbreak your device when registering your product - but that would be an issue entirely separate from copyright law.
Now, if you happen to jailbreak your smartphone for the purposes of not having to pay for a company's SDK, or to get free applications for the device that you would otherwise have to pay for, then those resultant actions would be illegal, and copyright law already clearly stipulates this. But merely the action of jailbreaking your smartphone is not, and should not, be illegal, and the Library of Congress was right to make this decision.
-
Didn't Rangel bring up this bill up originally to make an anti-war statement? I remember reading that he opposed the Iraq war, and said that if the draft were reinstated, the American public would angrily retaliate and call for the end of our military involvement there.
From a November 2006 Washington Post article:
Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq."There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900376_pf.html
-
Are the rights more expensive than $5 million??
Yes. Today, the film rights to Atlas Shrugged - in the right hands - would be worth several million dollars. Licenses for film adaptation can occasionally be the most expensive item on a film's budget!
-
No, it's not the government's role to apply U.S. property law to other countries.
I would imagine that breaching contract would be the major offense involved in this scenario.
-
Yes, you can see child baptism in this context as a joyful ritual to welcome the child into the family.
Having been to a few baptisms myself, I would certainly be hesitant to call any single aspect of them a "joyful ritual." More like "frightening."
-
Lawmakers loyal to President Hugo Chavez authorized the nationalization of 11 oil rigs owned by U.S. driller Helmerich & Payne on Tuesday, saying the move was necessary to put the idled rigs back into operation. The predominantly pro-Chavez National Assembly declared the rigs "of public utility," clearing the way for the government to seize permanent control of the rigs used to extract heavy crude from oil fields.
The Tulsa, Oklahoma-based company shut the rigs down last year because Venezuela's state oil company, PDVSA, was behind on payments. The company said last week that PDVSA's debt was $43 million as of June 14.
The shutdown angered PDVSA officials, spurring the announcement last week that Chavez's government would nationalize the rigs because Helmerich & Payne had rejected demands to resume drilling for more than a year.
Venezuela's oil production has dropped by 300,000 barrels a day in the oil-producing states of Monagas, Anzoategui and Zulia since Helmerich & Payne shut the rigs down, according to the state-run AVN news agency.
It reported that pro-Chavez lawmaker Jesus Graterol justified the takeover, saying: "This company has refused to discuss service contacts with PDVSA."
Chavez's government has nationalized dozens of privately owned companies in recent years as the socialist leader seeks to expand the state's role in the economy.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9GL7LI00.htm
-
-
They have been given a chance, in every film or tv show prior to their casting in this movie. There is a reason why we look at the film history of some of this cast on imdb and the common reaction is either a sigh or a moan. This is a B and C cast. This is one hell of a hard book to make into a movie to begin with. The chances of it being decent without a proper hollywood cast or at least enough of a budget to supplant a cult classic type film (Blokamp's film for instance) makes the chances of this product being anything of real quality quite slim.
Indeed. The most respectable individual involved in this film, according to IMDb, is the film scorer, James Horner.
The Threat to America
in Domestic United States Politics
Posted
It is very refreshing to read an Objectivist-reasoned defense of *not* going in, guns ablaze, and wreaking havoc around the world - with unintended but very damaging consequences for American security.
Just because we have the moral justification to drone-bomb a suspected terrorist and kill innocent women and children in the crossfire, doesn't mean we should. We may recognize our own moral obligation to do these things, but I can assure you that nobody in these ravaged countries (Yemen, Pakistan, etc.) do. This is what causes terrorism, and the intoxicating mysticism of religion is used as a tool to draw pawns for the terrorist leaders' rings.
Terrorism is an idea, and it cannot be stopped with force. Violence may be prevented by force, but I would argue that the much greater concern is the growing irrationalism of both traditional (Judeo-Christian/Islamic) and modern (environmentalist) mysticisms, combined with the highly wreckless foreign policy the developed world pursues against the undeveloped world which causes anger and misery among already angry and miserable people.