Durandal

Actually, I just created my CafePress account this morning. I was surprised at how easy it was. They have a very good system set up. You can choose the markup on the goods sold through your store, such that the price of any item is Y (base price) + X (your markup). On each item sold, CafePress keeps Y, and you receive a monthly check for the sum of all X. Mind you, I think I'm making about $0.80 on each t-shirt, because I only did it for fun-- I don't intend to use it as a source of income. However, if demand is actually present, I may increase the price slightly but don't hold your breath. thanks, by the way

First of all, if this post violates forum rules, I apologize I'm not trying to merchandise. Moderators, do your worst I really think CafePress is pretty cool. Unfortunately, there aren't a whole lot of *nice looking* pro-objectivism designs available. I'm a graphic designer so I thought I would take a crack at it. My particular "store" is called Dollar-Chasers, and you can find it here. It's not a premium store or anything so I'm not sure if you can search for it, hence the hyperlink. Again, I'm not trying to sell anything here! Just wanted to let people know, 'cuz I tend to think it looks kinda cool. Let me know what you think! Thanks

Nobody has yet mentioned the best scene in movie history! To avoid spoiling it, I will only say: The ending of "The Usual Suspects"

I am a Mac user because I like the product, I like the company, and I like their design philosophy. Macintosh computers are reliable, fast, and easy-to-use machines. Now at version 10.4, Mac OSX "Tiger" absolutely leaves Windows in the dust (hell, come fall of 2006 Microsoft will just be catching up to Mac's innovations from 2001). The company has pioneered and brought to market almost every new computer technology since 1984. GUI, the Mouse, iPod, FireWire, PDAs, USB, WiFi, good-looking cases, Bluetooth, the Click Wheel, online music stores, 64-bit computing, etc etc etc. Their stuff may be more expensive, but they evidently put a LOT of their cash into R&D. I have to laugh at the Windows juggernaut because despite the overwhelming size of the PC side, they often follow Apple's lead. And of course, where everything comes together: the design. I don't need to clarify this as their reputation for gorgeous and functional design precedes them. Steve Jobs may be an ex-hippie, but he is the coolest guy on the planet. He is a great idea man, a fantastic visionary, and he has tons of pride and dignity in his product and company. I like Linux as well, and I appreciate the advances that it has made possible in computing. I'm simply not enough of a computer geek to use it regularly

Good point on that David. You're correct that the jurors themselves aren't necessarily or entirely to blame in such a situation.

I used to work for Merck, and as such I find this all very upsetting. If you guys didn't see this in the news yet, a Texas jury found Merck liable in a Vioxx lawsuit and ordered the company to pay Carol Ernst over $253 million dollars in damages. Carol is the widow of late Robert Ernst, who died of arrhythmia four years ago. Vioxx has been found to increase incidence of heart attacks. According to the AP news yesterday, the jury members apparently decided "not to dwell on technicalities" differentiating arrythmia from heart attacks. How can these people not dwell on technicalities?! It's COURT for chrissake! Unsurprisingly, this morning I could no longer find this reference among the news stories discussing the case-- all you see in the media is fire and brimstone, Merck is guilty of murder, yadda yadda. Talk about your concrete-bound illiterates flinging their accusations of greed. The lawyer representing the plaintiff instructed the jury, "If you write down $10m, Merck laughs. It's a rounding error. It's got to be over $100m or they won't even pay attention." Is this about reparations to a widow, or just sticking it to The Man? Bastards. (Changed title to make the contents of the thread more obviou. - sNerd)

*Spoilers Follow* I just saw it. I must say that I was heartbroken that the movie didn't fully pursue the idea of cold, hardcore, absolute justice as presented by Liam Neeson in the first part of the film. I was nearly cheering in the theater for Liam when he spoke to Bruce of Compassion for criminals will only weaken justice and harm the good. The movie exhibited excellent, deep philosophical roots when Bruce Wayne was in his training by the League of Shadows...I was disappointed that the ideas' originator -- and strongest advocate thereof -- was twisted into the villain. Still, by far the best Batman movie yet. And Michael Caine as Alfred just kicks so much ass

Yup, I'm a trombone player but in my band, we always said, "Low brass kicks ass", but then again we weren't a classy bunch. I'll also play bass bone, under pain of death I love my Bach 42A, but there's nothing on this earth that makes me happier than screamin' something jazzy on the King 2B.

No, that was an honest-to-god foul-up. In Episode VI, Luke asks Leia, "Leia, do you remember your mother? Your real mother?" This indicates that Leia was fully aware that she was adopted.

I thought the movie was worth seeing, if for no other reason than Ewan Mcgregor's acting. Even though so much of the other acting in the movie was flat and wooden, McGregor was great. As one movie critic put it: he seems to have mischief written in his DNA. I loved his line, "Chancellor, Sith Lords are our specialty."

He's not a trombone player, is he?

I really dislike billboards. I find most to be in bad taste. Exceptions would be city billboards-- brightly lit and high tech, the kind of stuff you find in Times Square. However, I've spent much of my life in the country, and I defy somebody to find a redeeming characteristic in those dull, ugly highway billboards that have become so prolific. I'm not against advertising. Hell, I worked at a commercial graphic design firm for three years. But billboards are just a crappy medium-- more often than not, they lack any modicum of grace, good design, or aesthetic value. Ugh

Hello and welcome, from a fellow Drexel student I'm part of the Objectivist club, you can check out the site at: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~abh25/DrexelO...s/mainpage4.htm

The whole point is that it is very true in economics. The Friend vs. Foe format is just that-- it's only a format. Game theory exists, whether people like it or not. And yes, it is often the way things work. Like it or not. However, it needn't be presented in such a negative light...it isn't intrinsically good or bad, it just is. Like a stone or a desk or a lampshade. Just because a game show is formatted a certain way doesn't mean that it should be taken as an incisive philosophical, economic, social, or political commentary. Just a game show, after all.

I personally don't see the conflict between Nash Equilibrium and Objectivism. I am an economics major, and so far I've found game theory to be quite relevant. In fact, I can give you a rather undesirable consequence of the Nash Equilibrium being disobeyed: OPEC. The prisoner's dillemma is one of the things that protects competition and discourages collusion. If this theory were invalid, groups of companies would simply join forces and fix prices at an artificially high level. However, the threat that any of those companies might "cheat" on the agreement, lower their prices and take the market share is what keeps everyone acting in their own self-interest. As I see it, the prisoner's dillemma is in fact, very Objective