mmmcannibalism

TLD, I think you want to rephrase that as it is rational to pay taxes that support things you would voluntarily fund anyway. That position you may be able to defend, but your initial statement is false.

Isn't driving with a broken speedometer something you could also get a ticket for?

Two simple guesses A. random occurence, evolution occurs by natural selection; which means strange things(relative to current settings) can result from genetic adaptation over thousands of generations B. the gene that makes you crave something that makes you happy(presumably related to addictive behavior) has an evolutionary advantage. This is plausible as craving something(such as food) leads to gathering more of it which improves survival chances.

Just from some quick skimming; it looks like Glenn Beck is a speaker. I wouldn't get my hopes up too high.

I suppose you could argue that we will now know which line any potential terrorists will be in. edit--did she actually make a decision to not try them when asked; or did she just not go jump into the machine?

Thank you very much

Just curious, is there a database with all the quotes that appear on the top of the page, or perhaps a place to suggest new ones?

I'm not experienced enough to know the actual mathematics, but the estimation was that based on the accident rate a human incapable of death by aging would have an average life of 800 years. This means an expected variation of a few hundred years, and the difficulty of predicting how behavior might change.

Is it plausible to make a lifeform capable of surviving the death of a star?

At who's expense? Only the unborn(and in this case those who are hypothetically 2 generations away) who have no right to make me limit my lifespan.

Your just renaming the universe as god; to be blunt, if I decide to rename my pet fish god that doesn't mean "god"(the concept) exists in any metaphysical sense. If you take away every power of the alleged god except for existing, you are saying there is a god, but he has no characteristics; not having any characteristics contradicts existing

Thanks for the desktop background

Do you actually have a source for that superman quote; I've seen it thrown around a lot as an attack on Rand but I've never seen it backed up.

It would seem the ideal solution would be to require that choice be made; hence, you have to actually make the choice yes or no to get the license.

If you mean literally the fact that electors are chosen I would agree it is improper.

You would think the nut jobs would have learned to pick their(insane) battles.

Only once, then again that was only a few months ago.

An interesting side point, I believe in some places becoming an organ donor will place you higher on the donor list if you ever need something; hence, it could be in your self interest do be an organ donor.

As above, the fact that his choices were hold door shut so someone(someones if that is a proper word) he valued could live or run and be shot in the back while saving noone makes the action heroic.

That was a very cool scene. Just a vague thought, any possibility that could be a reference to another Rand character?