McGroarty

Once it's codified an in RFC, it's internet law. RFC1392 says: With that out of the way, a computer and the services offered by a computer are personal property. Deliberately bypassing authentication or accessing a system for services other than those freely given is theft of service. A hacker can be good. A cracker is a thief.

I live in Chicago. The architecture and the variety of businesses downtown is amazing, however I like my area of the city much better. I live in one of Chicago's hispanic districts. I'm surrounded by first generation Americans and illegal aliens who have no choice but to work, and work hard. Mom and pop startup businesses abound here, and there are a couple day labor agencies that are always overflowing with workers and vans to pick them up. When you strike up a conversation on the street, you're more likely to hear about "my business," "my goals" and "my family" than you are to hear about what was on TV last night.

Off the topic, but a Google search for "comprachico" offers "Sexy Comprachico Singles" in the sponsored links. Most disturbing.

I'm a game programmer. My last project was NBA Ballers for PS2 and Xbox. The press was all over our game, attacking it because you earn money for playing basketball well, and because you can use that game money to buy things that are a part of the baller lifestyle -- houses, jewelry, cars, etc. The press went so far as to interview several NBA players, asking whether they thought this game sent the wrong message, and to the last man the answer was yes. Not one player seemed able to admit that money was even a part of his reason for playing. I wonder whether anyone would have even noticed if we hadn't put the dollar sign in front of the score.

"The need of the many outweighs the need of the few" -- Spock No worries on that one!

You know you're on the wrong track when Pravda runs with your story idea.

I'm offering Yaron Brook's: In Defense of Financial Markets (7 tapes; 8h30m) Money-Lending: Its History and Philosophy (1 tape; 60m) Investing: An Objective Approach (6 tapes; 6h) All are in new condition in Ayn Rand Bookstore binders with original pamphlets. Retail is $179.85 Buy: $105 + $8 for priority shipping, insurance and tracking. Rent: $23 + shipping. Buy as above with PayPal and return within 3 weeks to refund the difference. You pay return shipping.

You have been offered several rational reasons why using drugs can be bad. One of them was that it impairs your ability to act rationally, which is of primary importance to an Objectivist. Looking back through the threads you've participated in, you will find that people started to go off on you when you glossed over explanations and then made the claim that no explanation had been given, such as you've done above. Please consider rereading the thread. If you find explanations you do not understand, feel free to ask questions. If you find explanations you disagree with, challenge people on them rationally, not with an appeal to emotions. I promise you will benefit significantly by doing this.

Two modest proposals. Limiting new member posting to the introduction and basic question areas for their first few posting days would localize the chaos. Most problem users would be spotted early on. Alternately, a forum could be added wherein users answer a few basic questions in order to gain access. Other users would ask the applicant questions about his answers if any don't indicate a basic understanding of the rules and board culture. In either case, posting access would be limited, not read access.

I have already paid taxes on the money I have previously earned. Of the plans I've seen for transition to a national sales tax, none take this into account. Unless there were a transfer to a new currency at an exchange rate calculated to return taxes on existing money and investments, and to charge tax on existing debts, a national sales tax would be horrible.

Worth it for the free soda and the funny hat. I could never abide the tiny cars though.

I don't believe you're a troll, and I believe that you mean well. You might find people are warmest to you if you stay to the Introductions area initially, however. In most areas here, discussion is about coming to understand or to further Objectivism. Distracting others from that end could be considered hostile, and indeed -- many visitors do this deliberately. In the Introductions area, the thread can be about you and all that you wish to share. There, it is very appropriate to discuss personal beliefs.

An appeal to what you feel is common sense is a problem, however. I'm going to assume you agree with these points. Please tell me if you don't: 1. There is only one reality. Existence doesn't change from person to person. 2. The purpose of Objectivism is to derive an accurate understanding of existence. 3. When objectively deriving information, 1 and 2 don't allow the possibility of different results between us. Since we share the same existence, there can be only one correct representation. Now, the non-Kelley Objectivism is fully derived from only a few uncontestable facts about consciousness and existence. There isn't a single element of a subjective hunch or an appeal to popular common sense. Any appeal to common sense or pragmatism in a modification of Objectivism would represent the first element of that kind. Why is this so important? This is important because Objectivism, when objectively derived as it stands, leaves no room for conflict among facts. It is an accurate reflection of existence as it is. This is its entire value. When you introduce a personal valuation as fact without having methodically derived it from other facts, you allow for conflict. If you go on your gut, your evalutation of what you believe is potentially different from mine, is it not? There is no guarantee at all that every person will share your common sense belief. Therefore, to use this valuation to modify Objectivism is to destroy Objectivism's ability to produce a single outcome. This necessarily means that Objectivism itself has been destroyed, if we agreed to its purpose as providing a single true analysis of reality. If you understand and agree to all of the above, then we can't agree to modify Objectivism without taking the time to objectively derive facts. I understand that it is tedious, but this is why Objectivists enjoy an advantage over lazy minds, isn't it? Most of your points are subjective. There is one that stands out as thoughtful but problematic, however. When you talk about the different kinds of communists debating who is correct, and whether they are all still communists in the end, they do share one factor: They all have errors in their thinking. Do you agree? This means conflict isn't important, because there are an infinite number of potential falsehoods for every truth. It's possible to debate back and forth with two viewpoints and assign them equal merit and put them under the same classification if they are both incorrect. I might argue that granite rocks are the best magnet, and you might argue that granite pebbles are the better attractor. We are both wrong, though others might still call us both Busted Granite Magnetists because of all the assumptions we share. Here, we are defined by common error. On the other hand, when we debate back and forth with two viewpoints, can we assign them equal merit if one viewpoint is true and the other is different? If you argue that square pegs best fit square holes, can I be correct if I contradict you by holding the circle peg square hole position? We might agree that pegs go in holes, that the peg doesn't go in sideways, that pegs can't be carved from balloons, and a million other things. Only one position can be correct when we're dealing with a complete set of truths however. This is true no matter how much I'd like my round peg square hole philosophy to be included in Peggingist beliefs. Common sense says if you hit it hard enough... Similarly if Objectivism is a means for deriving reality, there can't be two Objectivisms that differ on true reality, can there be? Only one can be Objectivism. On the other hand, if Errorism was a philosophy designed to produce errors, we could have an infinite number of different systems all producing different outputs, all called Errorism. I've tried to be very basic, honest, and civil. Please let me know if you see a problem in anything I have so far said. If you would like me to point you at a couple books that would be useful in learning to derive your own fully objective position on Kelley, I can point to where to begin. You might find you learn something, or you might find a way to prove us all wrong.

Sins?

"Committed abstractionists are finding themselves irresistibly drawn to the figure" claims Deidre Stein Greben in an article at Art News Online. The abstract can be fun. I've enjoyed some of the Designer's Republic logo art because of the chaotic and violent motion I see in it. And some geometric pastels have been fun, where you can take a while and study why something that's so rigidly mechanical can balance a page or a canvas and make it feel warm none the less. You learn a bit about perception this way. But it's the novelty more than the substance that draws me to so much modern art, and it wears out fast. It's like sitting about and playing with the language instead of forming thoughts with it. I'm currently enjoying Sandra Shaw's Art History lectures, wherein she demonstrates the integration of each cultures' art and philosophy. If there's truly a trend away from the ad hoc and toward representation in modern art, I'd love to believe there was a broader parallel here.

This has been niggling at the back of my mind since it was mentioned. I'd hoped to understand from context. What is there to study about convex polygons? My only exposure has been in computer graphics. Here, convex polygons are grand because they're easy to render. Modern graphics hardware draws triangles quickly, and for any convex polygon you can create a representative fan of triangles by picking any vertex and grabbing all other adjacent series of points to specify triangles without omission or overlap. Concave polygons get ugly and want constructive geometry operations to derive a representative set of triangles. Similarly, convex surfaces were great with on older rendering hardware that didn't support efficient per-pixel depth sorting. We could draw the polys in a convex closed hull in any order if we culled backward-facing polygons, as no two camera-facing polygons will overlap with a convex hull, and no backward-facing surfaces will be seen with a closed hull. As a bonus we could even sort cc hulls atomically - without sorting one hull's individual polygons against another's individual polygons - so long as the hulls didn't interpenetrate. This is why you used to see a lot of early 3D video games where characters were made up of a bunch of discrete boxes, tubes, eggs and the like with tiny gaps between. What's the special interest of convex polygons in other disciplines?

Thank you. You mentioned previously that you use RSS/RDF. New Scientist doesn't offer a feed, but I found one here, if you or others would like it: http://rsise.anu.edu.au/rdf?nsc

Drugs can't be good or evil. They merely exist. Pleasure is good if your values are intact. If pleasure ever harms you, there is something wrong with your values. Using drugs is evil if you use them to sacrifice your values, good if you use them to uphold your values. Does using drugs conflict any of your values? Support them? You have to answer that before you can say whether drug use is good or bad. I doubt many can claim exemption from vices, but none can objectively defend them as good.

I would find a local architect or three to talk to, and I would put forth the very same questions. I'm sure you can find one who might be overjoyed by the idea of trading lunch for a sit down to chat. You might even find another who was inspired by The Fountainhead. People like to brag about successes or vent about their profession, and so much the more if they think they're doing you a favor or earning a lunch on the value of their opinions alone. This could also put you in a very good position if you do pursue architecture; there's little doubt as to where you could first ask about interning or working once you get your degree.

This is better addressed without so so much excitement. I don't see Kelley as an Objectivist, but I am eager to be convinced. BigDaddy, do you agree that Objectivism as presented by Miss Raynd and professor Peikoff is presented as a logically consistent whole? If so, do you agree that accepting Objectivism means accepting the framework that necessarily constructs the entire Objectivist philosophy? If the answer to either is no, then why? You can answer this in only two ways: You can show an error in Miss Rand's or professor Peikoff's logic by constructing support for Kelley's view that Objectivism is flawed from the same axioms Rand and Peikoff accepted. Alternately, you can introduce an axiom that Miss Rand or professor Peikoff overlooked or remove one you believe she erroneously included. If we can agree to accept that change, we can get busy trying to derive Kelley's objectivism.

I have spares as well. PM your address if you need one and have been around a while.

Outside of popular media, are you aware of any reputable layman's science news sources?

If he were talking about Marxism all day, but said he agreed with "everything but that bit about putting society before the individual," he would not be a Marxist no matter how closely he embraced the term.

This may be one of the latest thread continuations ever. I found the thread while searching for something else. I don't see a problem with using free GPL software. By receiving it, you don't take value away from the creator. He has offered it for free, and there isn't an incremental cost to him when you duplicate or make use of it. As a programmer, I periodically contribute to free software projects and the motivation is hardly selfless. I frequently find programs that do 95% of what I want. If I can add that last 5% in a few hours, this is more cost-effective for me than buying commercial software. When done, I give away the changes. This way, they will be added to future releases and I won't have to recreate my changes when I next install or update the software. Giving away the changes saves me work in the future; that others benefit is a side-effect. To clear up one popular misconception: The GPL free software license doesn't prohibit third parties from charging for products integrating free software. There are numerous commercial devices and software products using GPL licensed free software -- the TiVo and Mac OS X are two such examples. The TiVo runs Linux, and Philips is only required to make the source code to the kernel available for download by TiVo buyers. Mac OS X comes with a GPL shell and a GPL compiler, and likewise -- Apple's only obligation is that it must offer the source code for those programs to all Mac OS X buyers. The only business activity the GPL prohibits is reselling (or otherwise distributing) the program with changes, but without making the changes available in source form. The source changes must be available to all users eligible to receive the software under the original license.

I was disappointed to find that the program wants the CD in the drive with every use. I poked around with IDAPro and found that it can support HD-only use without any changes to the code. If you want to use the Objectivism Research CD without having it in your drive, you can do this -- 1. Install from the original CD if you haven't already done so 2. Explore "C:\Program Files\Oliver Computing\The Objectivism Research CDROM" or wherever you installed the program 3. Create a directory called "CD" in the above directory 4. Copy these three files from the CD-ROM to the CD directory you just made: reg.txt cnt.idx obj.aaa 5. Create a new shortcut to ui_mv32.exe and add a space to the end of the command, followed by "CD" ("CD" is the argument for ui_mv32.exe) You can remove the CD from the drive. Launching the shortcut you just created will now bring up the research program without the CD needed. Everything will work as it would with the CD present except for the startup tip box. You can still use the original shortcut as before, but it will require the CD to be present.