syrakusos

"Although most people opposed violence, a significant minority (ranging from 5-14 percent) agreed with each violent option, and 10-18 percent expressed indifference about violence in politics. This implies that millions of ordinary Americans endorse the general idea of violence in politics. "Interestingly, these violent attitudes did not depend on standard political and demographic characteristics. For example, Republicans and Democrats were indistinguishable in their support for political violence, and liberals and conservatives were too. "By far the strongest factor is an aggressive personality. People who behave more aggressively in everyday life are significantly more likely to support political violence." Article from the Washington Post here: ttps://http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mo... Text of research paper here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf... "The results from Table 8 suggest that Democrats might be more responsive to violent rhetoric." "The results in Table 10 show substantively- and statistically-strong treatment effects among low-knowledge subjects, consistent with the patterns observed above. In contrast, highknowledge subjects show virtually no responsiveness to the violent rhetoric."

Welcome to OL, Alexander. It is a dynamic of the West, widely accepted around the world, that young people challenge the norms of their parents. It is true in the Arab/Islamic lands. Nothing guarantees that "brainwashing" will work. If you goto the Ayn Rand Institute and find their annual Essay Contests, you will see that historically many winners and honorably mentioneds come from Catholic schools. In some years, you can find clusters from the same school. No one excels at brainwashing like the Catholic church. And yet... People make choices. Crimes are committed by individuals who make bad choices. As for rationality and technology and all that, I have posted here before some statistical evidence that engineers are prominent among actual terrorists.

I have it on VHS and DVD, so I have seen it a few times. Recently, I re-read a large section to settle a challenge on Galt's Gulch. (I was wrong.) When I read the book, I see the actors from the movie. They were all chosen well. You can read all you want about the filming. Wright wanted the same complete control that Rand had, so that was not going to work out. The scene where Roark tells Dominique that he always loved her has a quality that is deeper than acting. They had to shoot the courtroom scene twice because Cooper did not understand his lines.

Brett Hoffstadt posts on Galt's Gulch as "BrettRocketSci." On his own blog, he presents hefty arithmetic questioning the basic theory. http://www.engineeryourinnovation.com/a-simple-analysis-to-quickly-settle-the-agw-climate-change-debate/ For me, this goes back to about 1962. We were warned about a greenhouse runaway just like on Venus. But in the 70s, it was the coming ice age...

Congratulations! Keep us apprised.

Thanks for replying, Wolf and Michael. I know Snagit from my work as a technical writer. I also know how to use repository upload sites like Google. The problem is inconsistent.

As long as this is up for discussion.... Movie production for YouTube is cool. I would like to know how, also. In fact, I would like to have the confidence that I could learn it. That said, Mash-ups are problematic. The Cosmo-Slotnik Building was a mash-up. In fact, all of Peter Keating's work was. Then, that raises the issue of musical covers. Can Beethoven only be the person to perform Beethoven? And if not, how many versions do we need by Horowitz and Rubenstein, von Karajan and Bernstein? ... to say nothing of Dolly Parton singing "Ballad of the Green Berets." So, then, every play would be performed just once? Having made the Broadway musical, the film production is out of the question? Or for that matter, translating a book to cinema, or stage. (James Michener's Tales of the South Pacific is an example: book, play, movie.) Of course that is easily a reductio. Plays and concerts are meant to be performed. But we have recording. We no longer depend on troupes of actors and musicians to bring the latest from the city out here to the Styx. Mort Liddy's swing version of a Halley concerto is too easy to find even today. Do you remember the disco versions of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik and Beethoven's Pathetique. The other morning, driving in to work, I listened to the entirety of Von Suppe's "Poet and Peasant Overture" and have been stuck with images of Popeye's Nephews building a house... What's not to like about The Right Stuff? Great movie... but the film score won an Oscar and it is just a mash-up. While the Hallelujah Chorus might be forgiven, Holst's Mars and Jupiter were just short-cuts for a composer who chose not to write. And if you listen, you can hear a bit of Tschaikowsky's "Violin Concerto" in the scene following "I'm sick and tired of being forthright and magnanimous to those pesky Russians!" The film score was a mash-up. And that brings us to the actual and real state of modern popular music where disk jockeys bring their turn tables and blend and mix and match all night long to the acclaim of audiences and critics. It generates copyright suits. Arguable though those may be, they underscore the reality of the problem: urban club music is symptomatic of an age whose creative flare has sputtered. The 80s were the last great decade in new music, both for urban and suburban youth cultures. (As for Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire, it is now a cliche to point out that she did everything he did, except backwards and in high heels.)

What do I have to do to include a graphic in my post? I used to be able to do it. Now, I get an error message. You are not allowed to use that image extension on this community.

My money is on Vladimir Putin. I mean, if I were in the White House, he would not stand a chance, but given the actual state of affairs... Whatever happens in Syria will be to the best advantage of Russia.

The above reads negatively, even to me. I only meant to add some dimension, not to diss on Thanksgiving. Happy Turkey Day to all. (BTW, in Turkey, the bird most like the one we call "turkey" is called a "farsi" because it looks like one that come from Persia (Iran). No telling what the Iranians call them...) You gotta take your hat off: here's the Great Depression and here's a million people thankful for abundance. We lose our perspective all too easily...

Do you have an example of that to offer? Computering is the most vibrant sector that I know of and IBM still survives. Moreover, the demise of DEC, Commodore, Digital Research and very manyt others had nothing to do with their growing too large but their being crushed by the conformism of huge corporations. "You cannot get fired for recommending IBM" was the by-word of computer-illiterate managers. The failures of the far superior Commodore Amiga, Atari ST, and the Macintosh to capture market share was purely a market phenomenon. It had nothing to do with the government. The market is completely amoral. If everyone chooses idiocy, then idiocy is produced better, faster, and cheaper. Take Microsoft... please, take it...

If the United States ever sought to build a pro-Western, democratic government in the Arab/Islamic matrix, Syria could have been a good place to start. The Assad governments have always been secularist. That was why Syria had no problem accepting military aid from the USSR. The Muslim Brotherhood was opposed to Hafez al-Assad, the father of the current president, Bashar al-Assad, because he liberalized trade and commerce, opening up economic opportunities. (Wikipedia here). Dr. Bashar al-Assad was practicing pediatric ophthalmology in London when his brother was killed in a car crash. (Wikipedia, here.) So, he returned home to take over the family business, running Syria. Instead of supporting his government, the United States made an enemy out of a man who had been dedicated to bringing eyesight to children by means of science. Apparently, the “strategy” from the U.S. State Department these past ten years has been to foster uprisings of democratic elements within Arab/Islamic nations to topple dictatorships, and bring those peoples into the global community of free trade and open borders. For a while, the news media called it “Arab Spring.” The failures are evident everywhere in the Middle East and southwest Asia: Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan … And no change has come to our good, close, personal, and very royal friends in Saudi Arabia where the few protests were brutally crushed (BBC here and BBC here). Just as the failure in Viet Nam was one consequence of a wider and deeper problem, today’s news from Syria demonstrates the results of bad philosophy. Fifty years ago, the United States attempted to fight a “Cold War” without a specific ideology, and to do so against an enemy that had one. Independent of President Reagan’s rhetoric, the ultimate failure of communism was an internal problem. Soviet socialism was unworkable. So, too, today, is the United States attempting to defeat a reactionary mysticism in the Arab/Islamic complex, while not identifying explicitly our own ethical virtues – or their metaphysical foundation. That was why, in opposing communism, the Reagan Administration hosted the Taliban in the White House. In hindsight (always 20/20), it would have been better to partner with the USSR to modernize Afghanistan. As with Viet Nam, the first level of failure was the lack of a democratic tradition within the culture. People are people; and every village and every empire has its checks and balances rooted in popular approval. That is not the same thing as cultural individualism. Since then, the immediate “strategy” of arming so-called moderate rebels in Syria also has failed. The American-sponsored Harakat Hazm surrendered itself and its American weapons to al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra (TelegraphUK here and USA Today here). Of course, no such vision existed. We cannot even say the word “capitalism” aloud, though now we can say “homosexual” in most places. We have yet to explicitly identify and endorse the cultural trajectory of the Enlightenment that gave birth to our Republic: reality, reason, self-interest, tolerance, initiative, and wealth-production. Some of those have tendrils within Islamic culture, but nourishing them would take time, perhaps five generations, even after they were identified. (See “Finding Common Interests with Russia in Syria” by Cmdr. Daniel Dolan, USN (Retired) on the US Naval Institute site here.)

The Difference Engine by Bruce Sterling and William Gibson is set an alternative England c. 1830. Lord Byron has been Prime Minister and leads the "radical lords" who have transformed England. ("Mad" Shelley is locked up.) The plot involves the theft of a programme of punched cards for one of the huge difference engines. The chase takes the detective to the French surite whose "Napoleon Engine" requires cards of greased mica. (Summary on Wikipedia, of course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Difference_Engine) Much as I admire and tout Admiral Grace Hopper, she did not invent the use of the word "bug" in this context. First of all, "there's bugs in the wires" goes back to telegraphy. (See When Old Technologies Were New, by Carolyn Marvin.) Also, of course, Hopper's bug was, indeed, found in the hardware of the computer. Programming was by hardwiring, still. I saw this for myself as late as 1961 or 62 in the accounting office of University Hospital in Cleveland, Ohio, though software was developed and used by then.

"This Thanksgiving, let’s celebrate our successes and the marvelous productive achievements that enrich our lives. Let’s take a moment to thank those whose achievements we enjoy, beginning with ourselves. But let us also pause to acknowledge that productive achievement takes freedom, and that the freedom to produce and trade in pursuit of one’s own happiness is heavily restricted. If we had a freer Thanksgiving, we’d have a happier one." -- Alexander Cohen at The Atlas Society (2013)

Heddy Lamar's story is somewhat surprising only because we tend too easily to let division of labor define who we are. That she was a famous actress became the label others put on her, an ascribed status, apart from the attained status of her work in front of the camera. Her other work was also an attained status. On my blog, I tout mathematicians Danika McKeller, Felicia Day, and Natale Portman, as well as Dr. Mayim Bialik. I also point out that from the cast of NUMB3RS, Judd Hirsh earned his degree in physics before turning to acting, and Dylan Bruno holds a bachelor's in environmental engineering from MIT.

Wow, what a co-inky-dink! Some would assert that magick is a science. MEM

Thanks to all. I appreciate the nod. It is always nice to see who remembered, and disappointing to find out who forgot. This Selene did better than the other one. Ah, well, friends and family... MEM

it is an interesting first-order demonstration, Adam, but it is not rigorous. It is not to scale: the amount of distortion in the fabric is not calibrated to the weights of the balls. We had one of those when i worked at the Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum in 2005-2006. Yes, you can put down some iron shots and flick glass marbles at them and talk about gravity and black holes and such, but actually getting a marble to orbit an iron shot takes from finesse. As it is, the picture you have is maybe like the Earth-Moon system, or maybe a binary star. Again, the stretch of the fabric is not really scaled to be "like" gravity. But it is a good proof-of-concept demo...

Welcome to Objectivist Living. Unfortunately, you will not find many Objectivists here. Perhaps the term "Objectivish" would be more informative: similar to but different from Objectivism. Some of the frequent contributors explicitly deny any following of Objectivism, except for an affinity for some of Ayn Rand's fiction. Others assert that they are largely in agreement with much of Ayn Rand's non-fiction, but have long since gone off on their own on many subjects and topics and no longer care whether they agree with Ayn Rand (or Leonard Peikoff or David Kelley). My view is that this discussion board is a place of Objectivist culture, but not Objectivist ideology. Allow me to suggest Objectivism Online and Rebirth of Reason as being more consonant - if not consistent - with the published body of works by Ayn Rand and others. That said, most of us do know our chapters and verses. If you have a question or want to start a discussion, feel free to jump right in. As for Finland, it could be worse... Count your blessings... Any country that lets 14-year old children race full-sized cars on ice cannot be all bad.

Thanks, Wolf. It is pretty much my own opinion. Nonetheless, private property is how you enjoy your right to be left alone. If some Mormons want to have their own lifestyle, that, too is their business. They may well be prosperous. Apparently, Mitt Romney's home colony was. The article did not intend that people just go wherever the pickings are good. That said, given the context of public lands (streets, post offices), then, yes, it would seem that people should just go wherever they want. It would erase a lot of the negative differences, and make the whole planet more prosperous. When I speak for open immigration here in Texas, my friends from the border ask if I have ever seen the other side, or what "they" are doing to "ours." My point that the enforced border actually creates that disparity fails to persuade. You can find a strong advocate for armed defense of the border on the Galt's Gulch board in the person of Alan Ashinoff. He wrote two books, Shadows Live Under Seashells, a novel set in 2084 and Failures of Vision, short stories antecedent to the novel. I enjoyed the opening story as a good example of romantic realism with people coming to conflict because of the conflicts in their values. We see a group of Mexican illegals crossing the desert at night in the custody of a "coyote" (trafficker). One of the illegals ls looking forward to Phoenix, where he has family. On the lookout for them is a group of American patriots who have armed themselves to stop the invasion and protect the border. Coming upon the scene is a US Border Patrol Agent. He calls out to the men. They turn around. Facing an array of firearms, he opens fire on them. They kill him. The gunfire scatters the Mexicans who die of exposure the next day. I gave Alan's books good reviews. (See on OL here.). He writes well. But we were not connected on the intention: he was 100% writing about the patriots, and thought that his story clearly blamed the Mexicans for invading the US and the Border Patrol for not stopping them.

Actually, one Ayn Rand's favorite songs. She only did not like what the Bolsheviks did with it. In Chinese In Russian ("Don't cling so hard to your possessions For you have nothing if you have no rights.")

"When small men cast long shadows, sundown is near." -- Nathaniel Lee (1649-1692)

Yes, indeed! Sometimes those interests coincide. Sometimes it is in your interest to take care of your neighbors. Sometimes this, sometimes that. Objectivism is not Absolutism, so it demands that you (I) consider context. That brings a problem: what is "context"? Rand never said, as far as I know. (Searching the Ayn Rand Lexicon for "context" returned some cogent statements within context about context, but no formal definition of how one determines context. Rand says that context is not subjective, and that context is not arbitrary. Well, OK, can you give me an example of an objective context? In any case, I am reminded of the scene in Atlas Shrugged, in the final third, I believe, where after meeting with the other steel producers, Rearden says that he regrets that he will have to save their goddam necks along with his own. Entering "judge lurie immigration" into both Google and Bing returned nothing relevant. Apparently, you are enjoying some private knowledge. You also seem to be enjoying a private relationship with a Zombie Ayn Rand. My expectation - not personal experience with her corpse - is that (1) she can surprise you, as, for example on gun control ("not important" she said). And (2) she would differentiate the fallacious attachment of "immigration" to questions of "national defense."

Ignoring Brant...

I went back and read the original link again. I agree that it is a nice place-language description, typical of a high school general science book. That said, not only did it have the problems noted above - and two more noted below - I have to question whether this is for "the layman." No one will read this who is not interested in the scientific method and that is a subset of those who are "interested" in science. A long time ago, some friends and I had a habit of watching Nova and Discovery while (ahem) "relaxing." It was all far out, man. One guy called it "mind candy." So, while he was "interested" in science, he in particular might not pursue an essay like this. However, others in that same room - I and I - would. And MSK did. Not a working scientist, MSK is nonetheless widely read, a practicing student of philosophy, the very model of a modern "layman of science." That term would also have described Charles Darwin, among others. What we now call "Darwin's theory of evolution" was implicitly identified and used for productive purpose by the son of a blacksmith, one William Smith, who died ten years before The Origin of Species was published. (The Map that Changed the World on my blog here). Just to say, the term "layman" itself is problematic on many grounds.... As for the problems in this popularization: (1) It is not true that Copernicus's assertions were based on observation. You need to understand the development of medieval astronomy (which was supported and encouraged by the Church). The problem of Easter had been computed forward for the centuries after the (first) Millennium. Two hundred fifty years later, they knew they were way off. So, they attempted this and that for theory. Copernicus only compared and contrasted all of the likely arrangements -- including another that works: Mercury and Venus orbit the Sun and the three of them orbit the Earth. He argued for a geocentric theory (with the support of his Church superiors). But it was not "observation" that drove Copernicus. Moreover, Galileo did not confirm the sun-centered structure, though, admittedly, the Moons of Jupiter - and the phases of Venus - were compelling evidence. In fact, the heliocentric model was not proved by experiment until 1838 by Friedrich Bessel Similarly - not addressed in that piece - the fact that the Earth rotates was not demonstrated until 1851 (by Leon Foucault). (2) I know nothing in Einstein's own publications that supports the claim that "The theory of relativity, for example, predicted the existence of black holes long before there was evidence to support the idea." As far as I know, it was Immanuel Kant who first posited black holes as a reductio ad absurdum. What we call "relativity" had been understood by many scientists since Newton, and was something of a leading edge "vogue" when Einstein proposed his own version of it. See Einstein's Mistakes by Hans C. Ohanian on his website here.