Graham Glover

Members
  • Posts

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Graham Glover

  • Birthday 09/21/1957

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Mathematics, computers, Dungeons and Dragons, Mensa
  • Location
    Oakton, VA USA

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Graham K. Glover
  • Description
    Professionally I work in air traffic control research and development. In my personal life I write short stories for the Mensa Science Fiction and Fantasy Special Interest Group. I consider myself to be Objectivist oriented.

Graham Glover's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. I remember Oceana. There's also the Free State Project: http://www.freestateproject.org/ http://freestateproject.org/about/mission.php While not oriented to the oceans or space, the idea of a body of liberty oriented individuals organizing as a political unit is interesting. They're currently active.
  2. I don't see a settlement on either the Moon or Mars, at least for the foreseeable future (say 400 years). We *could* do it, but why? What are you going to get up there that you don't have here? What are you going to do there? The Moon has nothing for us, save the potential for automated astronomical observatories. The far side would be great for radio astronomy, away from Earth radio interference. Mars has nothing for us either, and is only marginally less hostile than the Moon. Actually it is hostile in different ways. If you had the capability of interstellar travel and were searching for planets or moons to visit or inhabit, you certainly wouldn't consider the Moon and you'd only quickly glance at Mars. They'd both be unacceptable. I've heard people claim the Moon and Mars are potentially springboards to the stars. I disagree. Going to the Moon or Mars is a matter of technology we do not have (re: we cannot do it today) but could develop with will and money. Going to the stars requires science we do not have and may never have. It's something we can and should pursue but at the moment the stars are beyond our reach.
  3. I've not read the book, nor have I read arguments as to why the above is true. Regardless, that's a pretty hefty claim, one I consder to be amusing. Don't get me wrong, both would be neat. Still, consider the following. I'm not sure what "on the oceans" means. If he means a floating nation, that's an interesting concept, albeit an expensive one. A floating Objectivist nation would, by definition, be a producing nation. While it could be a focal point for information producers, not all Objectivists are capable of doing that. There would need to be some hard production of some kind, whether manufacturing, agriculture, livestock, or whatever. Living space will not be cheap. If he means an underwater nation, add the complication of bringing a living environment below the surface. That includes air and potable water. At nearly 1/2 lb pressure per square inch for each foot of depth, highly durable structures would be required even in relatively shallow water. Space is supremely expensive to reach. Once outside Earth's atmosphere, you are exposed to considerable hard radiation from the Sun, deadly radiation that is almost completely filtered by our atmosphere. Assuming an Objectivist nation would prefer to live on a body (planet or moon) versus in orbit, where would it be? Only two worlds in our Solar System could even be considered - the Moon and Mars. The Moon has no atmosphere, no life, no apparent means of easily producing energy. While Mars has a very thin atmosphere (~1/100 of ours in density), it remains hostile to Earth life. It too has no life and no apparent means of easily producing energy. Humans haven't been to the Moon in over 30 years, and we've never walked on Mars. Perchance I'm being harsh on the point about an Objectivist nation on the oceans and in space. Still, this rather extraordinary claim doesn't seem to hold to even a moment's consideration. Thoughts?
  4. Here are my 10 favorites in order: 1. HEAT 2. LEON: The Professional 3. Sin City [Frank Miller] 4. Beauty and the Beast [Disney animation] 5. Cube 6. The Matrix 7. The Wizard of Oz 8. Star Trek: Generations 9. Star Trek: Nemesis 10. Atlantis [Disney animation] HEAT is my all-time number one super duper favorite movie. I don't know how many times I've watched it, and it is a loooooonnnnnnng movie. LEON is a close second, and I've watched that one many times too. Understand these are both very violent movies, and not exactly promoting ideals. Still, the stories are told very well, and in the end, well, without spoiling things, I'll simply say my choices stand. Sin City is an even more violent movie, but it's a very good story and well told. It's a movie of a graphic novel [thick comic book], and has some memorable characters. Beauty and the Beast. I could be Belle. She's a great character. Beauty and the Beast is a great story. Cube is violent, graphic, and compelling. Think of it as a game of life and death with characters scattered about the philosophical and political spectrum. The Matrix was brilliant. The 2nd and 3rd parts, as well as The Animatrix, were all fine too, but the first movie was the best. The Wizard of Oz is where I wrap myself in fantasy. I've also enjoyed many of L. Frank Baum's books on Oz. From Star Trek, my two favorite movies were Generations and Nemesis. Generations is simply good storytelling. While some of the latest Star Trek movies were awful, the last one Nemesis was brilliant. While Atlantis has a slow period in it (and therefore could have benefitted from a stronger editor/director relationship), I thoroughly enjoyed it.
  5. Greetings! Guess it's time to dive into things... I'm a mathematician. I work in air traffic control research and development as an engineer. I understand equations, and I play with physics for - yes - fun. Suffice it to say that one of my simpler forays into physics was teaching myself the basics of orbital motion. Rocket science. It really isn't all that difficult. I program computers for fun and profit, and know how to make machines do my bidding. My business card actually says "Mathemagician". I'm not a philosopher. I never have been and never will be. I've read philosophical writings in the past, including most everything written by Ayn Rand. I've read things ranging from Plato and Aristotle, Locke, Marx, and others. By the above definition I'd qualify as an Objectivist. By my understanding of "orthodox" criteria, I'm not. I consider myself to be Objectivist oriented. Rand's work gave me a foundation for thinking that I found nowhere else. Even when I disagree with her (Ralph Waldo Emerson *is* good), she's a shining light for me and has been since I first discovered her around 15 years ago. I know I won't get the words quite right, so if you gentle reader won't worry too much about perfect wording I won't worry if you can't properly compile an operating system kernel from source. (I won't worry too much if that last sentence made no sense to you either.) Philosophy and philosophers should provide a guiding light for people. I don't want to be "spoon fed" ideas to be accepted without critical thought. I'll admit however I don't have the time, ability, and background to quickly and properly analyze a situation and develop a well reasoned response. Still, even the ideas from Rand receive the same consideration as words from Marx. It's easier for the non-philosopher to judge an existing idea than to develop new ideas without a good basis for doing so. To me, Objectivist philosophers today should be providing that guiding light. Mostly I don't see it happening, at least in the general public. Take any issue in the news today. What does it mean? Is it good? Is it bad? What are its component "blacks and whites" of the issue? What are the short and long term implications of various actions and inactions? Tell me what you think and I'll consider your ideas. What happens is that I figure it out myself in an otherwise empty environment, based mostly on those elements of Objectivism above. Then I act on my conclusions, sometimes erroneously. I'm not a philosopher, and I do much better writing code and algorithms than I do working out philosophical solutions. Maybe I hope to find some answers here...
  6. I have guarded excitement about the movie. I saw the announcement earlier this summer, and thought Angelina Jolie would do well in the role of Dagny. I'll reserve comment on translation from book to movie, except to say I think it will take creative genius to do it well.
  7. Thank you Michael! Re: the summer music camps in Reston, I really don't know. I probably *should* know, given how close Reston is to me. Later!
  8. Greetings! I'm Graham, new to the forum but not new to Objectivism. I began reading Ayn Rand's books when I was around 34 (nearly 15 years ago). My two favorite books are Anthem and Atlas Shrugged. I consider myself to be Objectivist oriented. I work in air traffic control R&D, finding ways to make traffic move faster and safer. I use mathematics and do a considerable amount of computer programming. I've been married for almost 22 years. My wife and I have one daughter, nearly 8 years old. We also have a pet guinea pig. I'm a misfit in society for many reasons, not the least of which is for being rational. I came here looking for stimulating conversation. Guess that's it for an intro. Looking forward to meeting folks in the forum! Best regards!