Zach Beale

I admire your concept, the statue is magnificent, and the execution is incredible, however, I have a criticism. Being a student of architecture, I have to criticize your use of the Sydney Opera House as an example of the 'Power of Thought'. Though the opera house is visibly striking from the exterior, and its existence is absolutely a testament to the skill of the various contractors and his workmen, and an overall testament to the ingenuity of man, the project itself and it's results are somewhat questionable. First of all, during the final phase of construction, the interiors phase, the project was nationalized under the Ministry of Public Works, when a new administration took over. The original designer resigned at this point. If I am correct, he never returned to see the opera house after it was completed. During the phase after nationalization, the project skyrocketed from its then 22 million dollar cost, to around 120 million. This isn't completely atypical for an interiors construction, as a lot of the cost is blown on interior finishes and craftsmanship, the incredible jump, of 600%, is far too large. Secondly, once the project was nationalized, the original design for the auditoriums was scrapped. Originally, the architect had planned on housing less people than the new administration had wanted. The architect hired an acoustician to develop a design that housed the proper number of people. The acoustics suffered from the increased number of seats, as the architect had warned they would. It's widely understood that though the interior is incredibly beautiful, it's acoustics are terrible. A model of the original auditorium design was tested, and found to be acoustically very well done. The opera house is an incredible monument, but it's construction is a testament to the powers that be encroaching on private projects, and turning them into something abhorrent.

Thanks to all of you. I'm considering doing this as a topic for my midterm in my 112 class, if I have a good case for it. Jake, I understand where you're coming from, and I can't immediately think of a law that prevents me from photographing a bridge. You say that there isn't, but can you back that up with something? I'd like to be able to cite it. David, I wasn't hired to photograph trees . It would be nice to be able to objectively distinguish when someone is taking a photograph for a malicious use, but I believe that's fairly impossible. first of all, unless someone is obviously taking detailed shots of the bridge's construction (ie, riveting/welding, bracing members, especially scaling the bracing members to something), it would be hard to tell. Furthermore, who's to say that the photograph, taken innocently, can't be used maliciously by someone else? Frankly, if the government can't prove you're doing it, they can't make you stop. Yes, it does seem subjective, what's your suggestion on how to prove that? Eiuol, That's a very good point, I'm not violating anyone's rights, nor am I violating a contract. And it was obviously built to be seen...as there is no indication that it was built to be hidden.

I'm a little stuck. In the US, it's now common practice that since 9/11 photographing bridges is taboo, and can get Homeland Security all up on you. This has happened to me. I was hired to take some photographs of the Gilmerton Bridge here in Hampton Roads for the replacement proposal. I set up my equipment, and got in about five shots before the bridge operator flagged me down and called me into her booth. She called someone at Homeland Security (apparently) and I was told that I needed permission from the government to photograph the bridge. It seems to me that I have every right to photograph a bridge, as much as I have to look at it. First of all, I pay for it (as a taxpayer), second of all, it's within view to the public, on a public road. I can just as easily look at it as I can photograph it. Unfortunately, I can't really pin down what gives me the right to photograph the bridge. Any help here? Thanks!

"vendetta" seems to be a troll. I would assume that's the best way to do it, Zip. First come, first serve. Why is it that we see the need to do it this way, however?

The Gov't released a list of who is to be administered the new vaccine for the treatment of Swine flu. Here's an article from washingtonpost.com about the prority list: Swine Flu. According to the article, it looks like those of us that are least healthy will be treated first, is this entirely practical? I can't seem to find the entire list, but it seems as if those with chronic or terminal illnesses will be treated before those that are healthy, even though those that are terminal will have a shorter lifespan than those that are healthy. I'd like to hear what you have to say about this, and whether or not it's entirely a good idea. Also, if anyone can find that list, I'd appreciate it.

I believe polylingual poetry has been done before, technically. Look at Hemingway's "A Clean, Well Lighted Place" (which was an utterly demeaning poem, in Objectivist terms, but we won't go into that here), there was a small bit of Spanish included, however, I don't believe there has ever been a style of poetry intentionally called 'polylingual' and designed as such. You should continue with this, it sounds like a very creative endeavor. You can say the same things in many different languages, and each phrase will have a totally different connotation, as certain words (in all different kinds of languages) are better suited to the particular concept or abstraction that the poet is attempting to convey. The German word "langweilig" (lang-vei-lig) is essentially the same as the English word "boring", but their pronounced sound carries a different connotation, with the former being more spread across the tongue, and thusly a little more mellow than the latter, which is blunt and obvious in comparison.

These are incredible, I'd like to know what you used to render with. I have some experience with Softimage/Maxwell, but it's been a while. Nowadays I'm more involved with BIM architecture and modelling at the firm I work for. I found it interesting what you said about form and function. There are some good examples of the polar opposites. One one side is the fool of architecture, Frank Ghery, who completely tosses functionality out the window. He was responsible for the sweeping, metal Bilbao Guggenheim in Spain, a museum with curved walls. If you think about it, how easy is it to hang a flat painting on a curved wall properly? Not easy. Not to mention his awkward space planning leaves a lot of unusable space inside, as walls come to such strange corners. The building also leaks like mad, representing a breach in understanding between what an architect can design and what a contractor can actually build, i.e. a breach between the mind (the architect) and reality (The contractor). On the opposite side is the Bauhaus, which was an architecture school that brought functionality to the period of silly neo-classicism. Think Roark Vs. Keating. The Bauhaus popularized styles such as New Objectivity (ding ding! Wikipedia that one.) and the modern International style, those glass skyscrapers of very, very simple form. Usually rectangles, from a cynical point of view. It's interesting what you say about the Sydney Opera House, as one one hand it's an aesthetic beauty, on the other, it's a functional nightmare. The acoustics are terrible, which entirely defeats the purpose of having an opera house in the first place. Why have it if it doesn't sound right?

I'm not sure if this topic has been addressed before, however I expect it may have. What should be the maximum extent of government? Protection of its citizens? Does that extend inside the nation's borders? Does the government have a right to prosecute? If so, how does it do so, and what does it prosecute for? Can a government prosecute for murder, and should the have a right to kill their own citizens for it? If they have a right to prosecute for murder, do they have a right to regulate the speed limits on the road? Is there a correlation between the two, and where does the regulation become an undue breach of freedom? Where does the regulation end? Should these things even be regulated? Would we be safer in a nation where there were no speed limits? I have my own thoughts on these examples, namely on the death penalty issue. I am a proponent of the issue, though I don't believe it should be within the rights of the government to kill its own citizens, for whichever cause. It should be left up to a private firm (hospital, perhaps, on a pro-bono basis), perhaps chosen by an impartial judge. These questions have been a showstopper for me, and I've never been able to absolutely answer then when brought up in a debate. Does anyone have any ideas? Where does government stop, and how is the power of government absolutely stopped within a strict code of limits?

Geez, and a good portion of that goes against my value system. Kinds goes to show what our society embraces....

These are all good points, and perhaps a lawyer would be the best person to talk to about it. I do, however, abhor having to pay these pointless taxes, and would much rather keep the 'money' I work hard for. You understand. Any other suggestions? Other than don't do it?

Hello, To start off, I've been doing a lot of thinking about what is taken from my paycheck, and I find it to be atrocious that I am taxed to pay for such things as social security, and a bloated government that doesn't, in any way, represent the ideal I wish it to be. I heard recently of a way to opt-out of social security, and did a little research, only to find that such a thing does not exist. We are forced under threat of imprisonment to pay for a system that (for my age group) will most likely not be around when we need it. I see myself as being fully capable of setting up a 401k or an IRA (or a Roth IRA), to provide for myself in my future and no one else, as it should be. I did a little more research, and found another loophole, though I don't know if it's entirely plausible. I'd like some input. From what I can tell, I can set myself up as a corporation, with myself as the single employee. The corporation will work, and pay me. I, myself, will not hold a job on paper. The corporation will act as a consultant, working for my current company, essentially myself, in my same cubicle, same computer, etc, different only on paper. Corporations (from what I gather) do not pay social security, and it is my estimation that, with as little as I make, I can split my pay between myself and the corporation (two different entities on paper, though actually myself), and bring myself into a lower tax bracket, or out of the lowest one entirely. Does anyone have any suggestions from either a legal or moral standpoint? I would value some input.

I've thought heavily about getting a tattoo, my stipulations have always been, however, that it would be my own design (it seems foolish to put someone else's design permanently on my body), and that it would be a glorification of what I believe. I don't necessarily think that tattoos are bad, and though I understand the arguments that a tattoo destroys the inherent beauty of the human body, I find them to be a little...shallow, for lack of a better word. If a tattoo pays tribute to the human body, and is placed and designed with respect to the form of the human body, it can be perfectly fine. After all, a tattoo placed with respect to the aesthetic form of the body is a compliment to its natural form, as it takes the natural form into account, and is not a tarnish. I also understand the argument that it is a primitive activity, however, simply because it is primitive does not make it unreasonable. The concept of language is a primitive one, however, it is perfectly reasonable (based on its necessity for communication). The concept of faith, on the other hand, is primitive, though it is unreasonable, for obvious reasons. As an artist and photographer, I see myself as a canvas, as well as what surrounds me. Tattooing serves as an excellent method of filling that canvas. I've come up with a few concepts, though I find this (see attached) to be the most interesting, though it could stand to be a little more organic. I plan to have it on my back.

The issue I have with the vilification of BM is that it's completely one-sided. Those that invested with Madoff are as much at fault as Madoff himself. The whistle-blower in the Madoff issue found it very simple to discover that Madoff was a scammer. Why is it that some of these investors were foolish enough not to look behind the curtain as well? As an investor, it's your responsibility to do your research. These people obviously refused to do this, and after being 'screwed over' by Madoff, they expect to be babied, and the media indulges them. They make them look like helpless victims, whereas in reality they are only the victims of foolishness. I have no sympathy for his investors.