BluNereid

I found this interesting video while looking through digg.com today, of a woman in a town meeting in Washington State who is objecting to the governments healthcare plan and challenges them to come and take her money from her now as she waves a $20 bill in the air. I have to say I admire her courage for going up there in front of all these people and speaking her mind. Anyway, here's the link: http://redistributingknowledge.blogspot.co...09/im-back.html

Your question is arbitrary. Might as well beleive that unicorns are real and wishes always come true. There is no such thing as free energy. Anything taken from nature, or generated from nature (following the laws of reality) requires effort. You need equipment to generate or harvest the energy and that equipment needs to be maintained. There can be cheaper energy, but never free of effort. Cheaper energy is definitely profitable, especially if you can produce it cheaper than your competitors.

Isn't the point of the trailer to give your potential future audience an idea what the film is about? If the film is about something other than the main character uttering random words, then why was that your trailer? You decided that the trailer was the best way to represent your film. Its just like any other advertising. Imagine if Pepsi advertised their product by showing a kid puking and getting sick from a bad batch of soda then said "Please buy Pepsi". Would you buy it then? No! Then why do you choose to advertise your film based on a part that seems to have no redeeming quality? If you aren't going to try to defend your film based on the content of it instead of with insults and sarcasm then you can go somewhere else please! Thank you.

I looked at the trailer. It didn't seem very interesting. It's just a guy in what looks like a bomb shelter muttering random words. The trailer shows no promising of heroics. Does the character go outside and try to reclaim the world? Or is the whole movie filmed in someone's basement?

Welcome to the forums Alex! You'll find a lot of good information here, but some not explained as extensively as you will find in Ayn Rand's non-fiction. I would recommend you start with the rest of Ayn Rand's fiction (Atlas, Fountainhead, etc.) They are all very enjoyable books and will probablly help clarify some things for you. I recommend after that you start on Ayn Rand's non-fiction and/or OPAR by Leonard Peikoff. You do seem quite mature by your post and it sounds like you are already clear on some of your ideas. But, you are still young, so I would recommend that you continue reading and possibly re-read as your get older (mid 20's). I say this because of expereinces I have had myself. I was also introducted to Objectivism at a young age (18-19 years old) and I found that I have a better understanding of the concepts now that I am older. Most people that I have know have gone through a second adolescence at around 21-25 years of age. This is usually a period where you've already lived on your own a bit, or spent time in college and have furthered your life expereinces. Around this age you will re-define your self that you have already established and you will be able to better relate some of the concepts you will learn about studying Objectivism. So keep on reading and enjoying life!

I think you've done all you are morally obligated to do. You have identified the issue, and reported it to your supervisor. It is now their responsibility to make sure the food is prepared in sanitary conditions, not yours. You don't need to do any more to be honest. If a customer asks you if their pizza has been made in sanitary conditions you should just refer them to your supervisor, as he is the only one who could be certain of that. Something such as "If you have any questions about the preparation of your pizza, you should refer those questions to my supervisor." If they really wish to inquire, just give them his phone number and let them call. I think your main problem is that you are not taking in the context of the situation to determine the appropriate action. Truly, this is a minor issue. The chances that one of your co-workers has something that can make the customer sick, and then actually is able to successfully transmit it onto the article of food is quite slim. Based on this negligible chance of making your customers sick I think you've done all you need to do. It's not worth losing your job over. Now if it was something more serious, like... someone dripped some blood on a pizza, or some rat poison got sprinkled on the pizza instead of Parmesan, then I would say yes, immediate action needs to be taken or you need to leave the company. Being honest does not mean being honest for other people. It also does not mean martyring yourself for something you're not responsible for. All you can be responsible for is your part of the process. If you continue to clean your hands before preparing food then you've done what you need to do to ensure that you are preparing food up to your own standards. You are not responsible for the entire food making process, your company (and their leaders) are.

You said "more often" which assumes it's happened before. How can you have something happen more often that hasn't happened before? I believe that's the part Jake_Ellison is objecting to. You added that extra part in parenthesis for one of two reasons. Either bad grammar, or you're a conspiracy theorist and you believe that the US government is arresting people without good cause. If it is the former, then you should correct the bad grammar and make your statement clearer. If its the latter than you need to present evidence that the US government is arresting people without just cause. Either way, this thread is turning into a flame war.

I think that they were assuming that all great ideas are conceived by one mind. Another man can't do the thinking for another, one can't share a brain. All teams, collaborations, committees, etc. (if successful) are essentially the work of one mind. I'm not saying that people can't contribute or add to a product once conceived, but the credit for the original idea always goes to one man. This subject is discussed in The Fountainhead.

What I think you are trying to talk about is context. A is A in a certain context. If something influences A and causes it to change, the context has just changed, so its no longer the Same A is was before, it's B. Then B is B. If nothing influences A (either itself, or some outside influence) it is still A. The point of the statement "A is A" is to show an example of the law of identity. That something is what it is. It can't be itself and something else at the same time. An object can't be all red, and all blue at the same time. Context is an important part of the law of identity because we don't live in a static environment. Reality changes, based on its nature. When you say "The sky is blue" you are saying it is blue in a certain CONTEXT. The sky is black at night, or red/orange/yellow at sunset/sunrise. The context has changed during these different times of the day, thus changing one of the properties of the sky (appearance). Try not to drop context, it is a terrible error and can cause most misconceptions/errors in any concepts. Edit... Reading your post again I noticed that you seem to be misunderstanding how to properly form a concept and I'd like to address it. You speak of these minuscule changes in the form of your A as the atoms inside it move. Lets say your A is a table. Do these small changes in the atoms of this table, no longer make it a table? Do they make it something else? When forming any concept, you need to identify the fundamental properties of an object that make it that concept. A table has legs to hold it up, and has a flat surface. Does the small movement of these atoms make the legs disappear or the surface change? No, they don't, and not until sufficient change has been made to the table to change one of its FUNDAMENTAL properties does it no longer become a table, or even your table. If you burn your table and it is consumed in flames it becomes nothing but ashes and is no longer a table. That again leads to me previous paragraph. The context has changed (i.e. burning) and your A is no longer an A anymore. Again, the statement A is A still remains true, in the original context (unburned table).

The act of sex celebrates the best in life. It celebrates your personal joy in life and value of that person you are having sex with it. Because of that, the person you have sex with needs to be the best person you can be with. They are your highest valued person. When someone cheats on you, they are saying that you are no longer their highest value. This other person has become their highest value. If they did not tell you this before they cheated on you, they are being dishonest. Every moment they are with you, they are living a lie. The only rational way to "cheat" on someone (and it isnt really cheating at this point) is to be honest with your partner. They should tell you "I no longer see you as my highest value, and wish to be with someone else." At this point the relationship should be over and you should both go your seperate ways. You of course, should try to convince them why they are wrong, and you are the better man to be with (assuming you are). If you are right, and they still dont want to be with you then you should break off the relationship immediately. Anything else would be a waste of your time and theirs.