emanon

It's times like these that it pays to have Dagny's words memorised:

^^ haha

I wouldn't worry about this until you're old enough that it's an issue, at which point it probably wont be. Few people are going to find someone 30 or 40 years older than them attractive. I think as you get older, however, the appeal of young probably loses some of it's attractiveness because it is coupled with either immaturity, or simply an overly vast difference in life experience. And as we age, what we value in a partner will almost certainly change. I'd guess it's probably a result of the mind-body connection. Obviously, I can't speak from experience, but I don't see a lot of Granddad's hitting the clubs trying to pick-up...

I don't know if I'd necessarily agree here. If you really wanted to pursue a particular creative field, to me it would make more sense to have at least some serious study and education already done so that you can then build upon it. If you need more money, then you get a job, but this way you still have the advantage of a foundation to build upon. That said, given that Altan has already completed some of his degree in Engineering, and he does enjoy it, then it probably would make much more sense to complete this degree first, and then build upon that.

"Do your best". That work well enough I think. I'm not sure why I couldn't think of it myself though. Thanks

Can anyone think of some good, objective alternatives to superstitious phrases like: Good Luck Best Wishes Fingers Crossed etc ? I always hesitate writing these, because I don't like them. I'm not sure if this is just me, but I always feel a little like I'm cheating someone when I wish them good luck. The intention is to imply that it would make me happy if the person went well in ____ (whatever the thing was), but I often feel that by saying it, I'm disqualifying their prior work and effort in favor of some imaginary force. However, I can't think of any decent alternative phrase which offer the same sort of gesture without invoking 'luck' etc. or sounding... overly serious and a bit weird, I guess? So any suggestions?

Well it's a tough decision and obviously no one can make it for you. I notice you have kind of adopted the common view that science-based subjects aren't creative. I personally think the opposite. Scientific innovation can be the pinnacle of a mind's creativity. My point being that there would be a lot of room for creativity in electrical engineering. What was it that made you choose electrical engineering in the first place? Also, which one is it that interests you in particular, directing the films or writing them? From what you said, it sounds like you are perhaps more towards the script-writing side than the directing side? The director doesn't generally get to invent the story/dialogue/etc, but they do have to bring it to life. Very different jobs imo. Well you have to work out what your motivations are for each of your options, and then look at them and work out which ones you actually value the most highly. It is not necessarily a matter of one or the other. You can value you both, and if so, your attention to each should probably be proportional to how much you value them. That's where the hobby thing comes into being. Lastly, you don't have to do one single occupation for your entire life. If you do get bored or fed up with one, you can change careers. Maybe you don't want to be studying again when you're in your 30s but realistically, your age doesn't matter a whole lot. If you are passionate about it, you'll be good. If you are good, you will find work. I probably haven't helped much but good luck! p.s. This isn't just prompted by seeing Inception is it? That made me want to make a film as amazing myself. Excellence inspires excellence.

oh... joy... Who the heck hired this guy? If he doesn't intend on honoring what Rand wrote, then he has no right directing a film based on her work.

Okay, I skimmed the posts and no one has mentioned this I don't think, but... How often do you look at pornography/masturbate? (Note: This is rhetorical, I don't actually want to know lol) I noticed that your original post references passed girlfriends, so this may not at all apply to you, but just in case: The reason I ask is that what you have described is not hugely uncommon and is often a consequence of prolonged exposure to pornography. I was reading about this in a book on Neuroplasticity, but I can't presently recall the name of it. Anyway, pornography is quite able to become an addiction because it creates a kind of feedback loop. You watch porn, you get excited, the excitement results in self-gratification, and that gratification acts as neurological reinforcement for the activity. As with all addictions, they tend to escalate, that is to say, that what was once sufficiently exciting becomes boring and you require some more 'risqué' to achieve the same excitement. After a while, you get to a point where real-world woman aren't enough to excite you sexually. Like I said, I can't pretend to know if this is in anyway relevant to your situation personally, but if it is, try abstaining completely from porn and masturbation and see if that has any effect. --- There are two other possibilities. I remember I was quite attracted to a friend of mine at one point, at first I wasn't really aware of it, but I remember distinctly that I noticed a physical trait they had which I found kinda repulsive. Within a couple of weeks, I had become really very fond of it. lol Perhaps this will happen to you as well if you give it time. The second is that whatever it is that is making you cringe might be something buried pretty deep in your subconscious and not subject to conscious will. For example, to flip the coin, some women would find hairy guys repulsive, others would love it. In some cases, you grow used to and fond of the 'repulsive' trait, in other cases you just can't for whatever reason. Can I inquire what it is that initially prompted you to pursue a relationship?

I don't know, but I'm curious about this myself. Did the hackers know before hacking in? If so, how? If they were able to prove fraud on the part of ClimateGate prior to hacking in, why did they need to hack in anyway?

I may well be incorrect in what I am about to say, I have never studied logic - not in any formal/tangible sense at least, so feel free to correct me. However: My point was that if we use *only* (or even primarily) the pass/fail results of a test to determine legal-adulthood, it creates a binary. It is impossible to both pass a test and fail it. Yes? If it is a binary then wouldn't it have to be: If pass = adulthood then not-pass = not-adulthood...? Again, this is if you base it purely on the test results. Sure, you can say, well they failed their adulthood-exam, but they are 25years old, have a job, are able to understand basic social requirements etc. But all these things have been introduced from outside the results of the test. My problem is that if you then want to start taking all these extraneous non-test things into consideration, then you are effectively declaring the test void/pointless. If you take the Shepard Dog example, I think, in this situation, you would have to write it as: "This characteristic would define the animal as a dog but the animal doesn't possess this characteristic... thus this animal is not a dog" My reasoning is that I don't think your example was a binary? Anyway... Like I said, I have never so much as read a wiki article on logic so it is quite possible you are right. Either way, the only way the test-based appraisal could work I think, and David mentioned it above, would be by retaining the automatic classification of a person as a legal adult at a certain age regardless of their 'test results'

Just for the record, this last remark was actually meant as joke/flippancy.

If I wanted to use text from Galt's speech in a piece of art, who would I need to contact to receive/negotiate permission? Thanks

You're right. Most people, however, don't seem to realise that! I figured that by stating both it would avoid confusion.

Most online-ads are not paid for on a visual basis. Unless it is a popular site like Cnet where people would contend for that advertising area, ads are almost always paid for on a per-click basis. That is to say that if I post ads on my website, I wont get paid anything unless people click on them. This would alter your premise regarding the ad-blockers. Also, in my opinion, that is simply the risk you take. It is the same with any endeavor. If I start a railway company, there is no guarantee people will use my trains. If I offer them trains to places they wish to go and it is cheaper and more convenient than the alternative, then people will most likely use my services. If people choose to ignore the existence of my trains altogether, regardless of if it's in their own benefit, then that is their right. Same goes for advertising in my opinion.

There is one huge flaw in your test-based approach to determining legal adulthood. All I would have to do is intentionally fail the test and I would thus be legal considered a dependant and not fully responsible for my actions, regardless of age. As such, I could be a 25 years old serial theft offender and all I would have to do is claim that I was not cognizant my actions were immoral/illegal and use my failed adulthood test/s as proof.

There are two fundamental questions aren't there? 1. Will this action further or lessen my pursuit of happiness? 2. Will I, in following this course of action, be impairing anyone else's right to act freely of their own judgment, for their own goals, by their own voluntary, uncoerced choice? Those two questions should cover most/all questions regarding morality (among adults) shouldn't they?

I would say yes, because by using that road, you are agreeing to the conditions. This is fine, because you have the freedom to not use that road if you wish, so ultimately it is your choice, and your responsibility. The only problem with this is that the Government would no doubt try and impose some sort of "Duty of Care" upon the Road owner.

Sure. I agree in generally with what you have said, but the problem I have with it, is that people do make mistakes, and assumably younger drivers will do likewise. Take speeding as an example. Every now and again, it is possible that you will not see that particularly obscure change of speed sign. And of course, police and their radars love such places for that exact reason. My point being, there are times when you will break the law for the simple fact that we are not omniscient. If we were talking about murder, or theft etc sure. It's almost always going to be black and white. Either you stole with knowledge of your action, or you didn't steal at all. --- I'll confess to my motivations as to why I started this thread, I just received the letter in the mail which declares that my licence is void due to having accumulate 4 demerit points. The two infringements that lead to this were: 1. Caught by a stationary radar speeding greater than 13km/h over the speed limit. This was 3 demerit points and a $300ish fine. Occurred about 6 months ago. I was doing seventy-something km/h in a sixty km/h zone. At the time, I thought it was a 70km/h road, and most of the traffic around me was doing the same speed. That's not supposed to be justification, I accept the fine as I went back and checked and sure enough, there was a speed sign I hadn't noticed. I'm Just explaining. 2. Broken Tail Lights. Turns out that a few weeks ago, the switch that turns on my lights had broken so that it only turned on my headlights and not my tail lights. I didn't know this at the time. Anyway, the officer gave me a ticket for a $100 fine. The next day I went and paid my fine for the tail lights and then took my car to get fixed. What I didn't realise and what no one told me until I received a letter a week later was that I also lost a demerit point for the tail lights. This obviously made 4 points = No Licence. I am not able to contest this because I have already paid the fine, which is considered a declaration that I accept the infringement.

But if you apply that same logic you can justify almost anything at the expense of anyones rights. It becomes an argument of the "greater good" rather than individual rights. I believe that, on statistics alone, "black American's" are a few percent more likely to commit crimes than white Americans. Does that mean we should restrict or alter the laws that all people with black skin must follow? The answer is obviously No. You can't punish someone for a crime they haven't committed yet, and you can't make laws that effect an entire group based on the assumption that a generalized group of the population are more likely to break a certain law. That is denial of individual rights, is it not?

You are incorrect for the reason that a Minor is a Dependant. Even were they rational, a minor is reliant on his or her parents to provide for them. This means that the minor is unable to act as a trader and give value for value. The only way to deem minors as adults is if they can be made completely independent of their parents.

In Australia, we have a ridiculously prolonged process one must go through to get their drivers licences. --- 1 year on "Learners Plates" - You must be accompanied at all times by a fully-licensed adult. Practical Driving Test. If you pass, you proceed to the following stage. 1 Year on a "Red Provisional Licence" which restricts when you can drive, who and how many passengers you can carry. A Zero blood-alcohol level at all times. Restrictions on the type of vehicle you can drive (eg. No greater than 6 cylinders, no turbo etc) Then you must do a "Road Hazard Awareness Test" which is a computer simulated hazard test. 2 Years on a "Green Provisional Licence" which continues to the restriction of a Zero Blood Alcohol and the vehicle restrictions. Then Finally you get your "open" licence. --- Perhaps the most ridiculous thing too, is that while the Provisional licences increase the restrictions, they also restrict the time frame in which you can acquire demerit points. "Open Licence" drivers receive 12 demerit points for a 3 year period. We receive 4 demerit points for a one year period. And then, interestingly, while Open Licence holders have 3 years to accumulate their demerit points, their probationary periods if their licence is disqualified are the same length as the provisional licence holder. That is to say that if you loose all 12 demerit points in the first year, your licence is disqualified for 3months. On a provisional licence, if you loose the 4 demerit points in a year, your licence is also disqualified for 3 months. ---- Does this seem like a fair system to you? To me, the restrictions seem to be a violation of rights, because they impose penalties on you simply because you are young, not because you have broken any laws. They also impose further laws for you to break, and if you are a young driver, it is likely you will probably make a few mistakes and 1-2 mistakes are all you need to lose a provisional licence! Am I incorrect in thinking this unjust?