Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eyesandhands

Regulars
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Eyesandhands

  • Rank
    Novice
  • Birthday 02/18/1993

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Nevada
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Occupation
    Mechanical Engineering

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. A catalyst encouraging a nuclear reaction? No. He is talking about a compound of some sort that is causing the hydrogen and nickel to collide. This would require the catalyst iteself to be exterting a pretty extreme force on the two atoms, and would likely cause a very extreme rise in temperature and give off large amounts of radiation. Instead, we are seeing temperatures more consistent with a small chemical reaction and almost no radiation being given off. This has been done many, many times before. Note the sense of urgency to sell the product without proof of its functionality. What wil
  2. The force of gravity on the Earth and the moon are different because of the different masses of the to planteary objects. He is struggling to walk because he has very little control over his movements in an area less effected by gravity. Imagine trying to walk at the bottom of a pool in diving equipment. It's not easy. Also, his gear weighs hundreds of pounds on Earth. Even on the moon we're still talking in the range of 80lbs.
  3. Ok...where to start? As a short introduction, I am going to try to give the most simple, easy to understand argument towards why your theory is not possible. I have only read your first few posts (I could not continue without comment. Too much is already bothering me.), so if the issues I address have already been raised, I apologize. The first error you make is here: You give the postulate that gravity does not exist. Then you mention weights. Weight is a product of a force, specifically gravity in a non-accelerated frame of referance on Earth. You cannot mention "weight" if you den
  4. Then if I take an aircraft and build it out of a slightly different material and move the flap positioning, it should be considered a new creation? The stripe on the aircraft wasn't important, it was just my tool for the argument. And again, it depends on the amount of changing that is done, which only matters in a legal sense, and is a matter of judgment. If you used identical lyrics and rearranged it, you are feeding off of the success of someone else. If you take the lyrics of a song but give it a different musical composition of your own, you can take credit for the music, but you may n
  5. "an aircraft producer copying another producer's plane but adding a stripe down the side does not make it a new product" If you believe what you just said, then patents are just as invalid as you believe copyrights to be. I understand that you may disagree with me, but did you read what I had to say? It's beginning to look like you're arguing for the sake of arguing, not to have your questions answered. And to answer your "inspiration" point, this is again a matter for a judge to decide. Inspiration is not a violation of property rights, but it also does not give the original person (the on
  6. There is an interesting line between what can and cannot be considered property. I haven't fully explored this line yet, but from what I have thought through, I think I have established where I think this line should be (though I'd have to refine it for any legal situation.) One point I would like to make is that when Rand argued that all property is intellectual because we survive by using our minds, I don't believe that she implied property should be limited to things related to survival only (and if she did, I would not agree with her). What makes all property intellectual is that anything
  7. Before making my argument, I would like to note that I have not read the entirety of these fifteen pages, and am therefore somewhat misinformed on what has and has not been said. Normally I would not attempt to make a point under these circumstances, but I would like to offer my opinions to the original poster (as opposed to continuing this debate as a whole.) Much of this thread has strayed far off point, so I will attempt to stay as concise as possible. "Why should ideas be considered property?" (paraphrased, referring specifically to songs, books, etc, but also to ideas as a whole.)
  8. The man on an island hypothetical situation would work. When there is no one else to recognize a person's rights and no one to "grant" him his rights, does he suddenly lose his rights? No, his rights to life, liberty, etc are most noticeable in this situation. Also, when refuting his argument, remember that his definition of rights is one which relies on force. His argument is often founded on the idea that if others force a person to give up his/her own life, his right to life is gone. However, he still chose to give in, no matter how despicable the forces against him were, which is the ep
  9. This is the kind of answer I was looking for. Though I didn't suggest they had found a contradiction in my philosophy, I couldn't pinpoint the reason for the reversal. Thank you for giving me perspective on their behavior.
  10. This is exactly what I see most of the time.
  11. It was just a general skyline using familiar shapes of a city. There is one building that is based off of the CN tower, but the importance of the background is that it is a city: any city.
  12. Uncertainty of reality or uncertainty of how we percieve reality? Reality is certain by the law of identity, not only because Objectivism demands it. Perhaps there are things I believe to be true based on deductions I have made that aren't, but that doesn't make reality any less certain. If reality were not certain (and therefore at least in part, not real) it would not be reality, and the premise that would be incorrect would be the original perception of reality, not reality itself. So to clarify my original question a little bit: The person I reference is now a collectivist and is very h
  13. Yes, this is just a sketch and the lack of color and detail is on purpose. I've considered making it into a complete piece, but I have almost no experience in creating art (as in visual representations of things,) although that would not stop me. As it stands, this was simply a quick practice of CAD skills in the form of art to convey a message. The posture and form of the woman was by far the most time consuming part of creating this drawing. About half the time creating the drawing went into positioning rather than detail. (if you'll notice, there are a few minor mistakes in detail -at least
  14. Someone I know recently noticed I owned Atlas Shrugged and commented, saying "I read that once and was a 'Randian' myself- that is, an objectivist- but later realized it was just a childish phase." This is not the first time I have come across someone who claims to have once been objectivist but is no longer. I have strong doubts that these people ever truly understood what philosophy they claimed to follow (follow is not the correct word- I mean something closer to 'own' but cannot think of a decent word at the moment) but have never recieved a straight answer when confronting them directl
  15. This is an original drawing I recently created using Autodesk's Autocad 2011. I limited myself to 45 minutes to complete it as an excercise to improve my CAD skills. I would appreciate any input, criticism, or suggestions regarding either the visible CAD techniques or my aesthetics involved in its creation.
×
×
  • Create New...