CptnChan

Catan is great not only for strategic reasons but "philosophy" reasons. Unlike many strategy games, your goal is not to destroy your opponent, but basically be more successful than him, through trade and good planning. There are a few random chance events, but for the most part it's very rational.

After watching part 1, I re-read part 1 of the book and was surprised that almost every line of dialogue in the movie was accurate. I think it accomplishes what Ayn Rand said the movie would do, which is bring attention to the book. At least they didn't butcher the message.

Who the hell is Luke Stone? (See "cast" in imdb link) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1985017/

This was the exact thought I had when I watched the "Kony 2012" video.

I think being proud of pregnancy is akin to being proud of having lots of money. Kind of depends on how you got to that point.

I gu Sure, but many religious individuals would likely prefer to go through their church. Honestly though, it seems to me that most churches are practically secular anyway. They seem to function mostly as a social club and charity sponsor. And don't forget Bingo.

Aren't religious institutions one of the most viable and streamlined way to promote private charity? Most likely, people who praise altruistic ideals will always be around, but at a certain point it would be nice if they didn't have the power to initiate force through tax to implement their ideals. Being involved with a church, which usually is the front runner for charity, is a very nice alternative isn't it?

I also have what some would call a "temper". Regardless of what others have have explained to me as causes for this (including diet and meditation time), I have found that if I restrict time spent with people who piss me off to a minimum, I don't get angry. Some people, literally no matter how hard I try, I realize I will just never get along with. I simply don't spend time with people who annoy me, which very honestly limits my circle of friends drastically (contrary to my goal in high school). Yet, this allows me to me to be much more relaxed and keeps me knowing that the people I'm with will understand or at least appreciate the views I solicit. Edit: I noticed you picture includes a (assuming it is yours) baby. If perhaps the victim of your "seeing red" is your significant other, I recommend on a daily basis trying to do things that will make that person happy/laugh/feel sexy. As a married person, I find that it is very selfish to concentrate one's attention to making one's mate happy, because it results it a reciprocation of such feelings 100% of the time. ..which is what I desire.

You should totally save this for your future self. I am 24 now, and looking back at written "screenshots" of what I was doing in high school is always awesome. The core mentality is still there, but some things still change.

That reporter isn't going anywhere in his career, maybe he should apply for free healthcare.

In general I can't stand Pearl Jam (Not for any philosophical reasons I just dislike the whole "grunge" sound), But this song isn't too bad. I just wonder what the chorus is referring to. I'm having trouble understanding what he's talking about.

I think it's pretty rational if you want the people you deal with on a daily basis to not think bad things about you. It seems your concern (And I might be assuming here) is when trying to look good becomes more important than actually being good. If anyone, family or not, attempts to pressure you into that sort of thinking, I think it's clear that you know the proper reaction to it.

"So as a capitalist I am a believer that the most popular product will be the one with the most value either by highest quality or by best price." I think this is not the correct view.

@grames Very cool precise response.

Currently there is a bill in the works, which the department of justice is attempting to pass. The official purpose of the bill is to "expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods." Which sounds like a good idea. The controversy with this bill is that while it would stop things like people uploading other's copyrighted material to YouTube and other sources, it would also put a halt to the already large and growing video game culture on the internet. Here is a brief summary of what happens in the gaming community: There are currently many internet personalities who make all of their content (Such as video game reviews, previews, and partial play throughs) using recordings of whatever video game they are reviewing or playing. Other personalities such as Sean "Day9" Plott, hosts a daily internet show where he analyzes and gives advice on how to play the popular strategy game "StarCraft 2". Other professional Starcraft players (Yes, professional, they have full professional tournaments with teams, casters, the whole deal) make a significant part of their income live sreaming themselves play the game competitively. So most people in the gaming community are vehemently against SOPA, since apparently it would mean all of these internet personalities would essentially lose their job, and the viewers would no longer have anything to watch. Granted, the bill states that if someone can get permission of the company which made the game, they can post online content including footage of the game, but many say this will over complicate what is currently a working situation. Oh and a final argument of the gaming community is that while casters, reviewers, and players are in fact using footage from a copyrighted game, their videos (which garner thousands of views) are essentially free advertising for the game company. So what is the proper view of SOPA? Should it be fought? Edit: wikipedia article on SOPA http://en.wikipedia....line_Piracy_Act

Aww man, I thought this post was going to be about the musical..

Those clips made me think of LOST (What with the film quality and wardrobe). And then after thinking about LOST I wondered why I was wasting my time watching this lame clip, but before I could stop it I died of boredom. The End.

After reading all of the responders who took the OP seriously, my response is this: herp derp I'm a troll.

What does this have to do with objectivism?

Yes, that's where the catch-phrase originated, But that's not what I was asking. I was inferring a possible connection between this actual catch-phrase from the 30's and the fictional catch-phrase of "Who is John Galt?" from Atlas Shrugged, written in the 50's.

Not sure if this catch-phrase has been noted on here, but I was listening to A Way With Words on NPR this weekend, and someone called in because their parents always said "who's yehudi?" and the caller was wondering where that came from. Here is the wikipedia link to that catch-phrase: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who's_Yehoodi%3F Although wikipedia only says the phrase was meant to describe a "mysteriously absent person", I believe the hosts on AWWW said that it could also be used to represent a question to which the answer was a mystery. Could this possibly be the inspiration for "Who is John Galt?"? After all it was popular in the 1930's, and just about everyone would be familiar with it. Is this really old news?

This reminds me of so many conversations I have with my friends where they just "rage quit" lol.

*But I can't explain why kittens are so hilarious.

"Humor is the denial of metaphysical importance to that which you laugh at." Just copy and pasted from the lexicon, just check it out to get the whole elaboration.

The top comment was hilarious: "So did you give up your iphone?"