algernonsidney

When I was in junior high and high school, I was one of the fastest in my class to take notes. I never used cursive.

One thing Microsoft did was they convinced people that "everybody uses Microsoft" even though that was not the case. It was easy to do this to the clueless end user. It was not so easy to do this to someone who actually knows computers. Microsoft has bombed in every market that is populated by people who know what they are doing. This is why they have not taken over the server market. Usually, people who know what they are doing (network and system administrators) make the purchasing decisions. Linux still dominates almost anything related to the Web and Internet. I think most business CEO's have a love for Gates anyway. They all want to be him, so they love his stuff. From what I have heard, Novell did something similar. Sad but true, Novell did a whole lot of stupid things.

MS Excel far surpassed Lotus in both power and user-friendliness in the 1980's. And they are destroying all that with Office 2007. I know lots of people who hate it.

Yes. And on a Dvorac keyboard too. Ba'al Chatzaf Sorry. Qwerty will be around until civilization falls. Even the Communists could not get rid of the ridiculous Cyrillic and Chinese writing systems, although they tried. Maybe, maybe not. A guy was in our office last week with a French laptop. Lots of the keys and characters were moved around. It drove me insane.

Hopefully, cursive is dead. I learned it in the second grade. That was 1978-9. I immediately saw no purpose in learning it and was quite reluctant in using it. Even when I go to a funeral and "sign" the guest book, I print my name. The only time I use cursive is when I need to sign an "official" signature. My signature changes all the time anyway. It's never consistent. If I was a baseball player, I imagine I would autograph a baseball differently every time. Then again, I might print my name even then. The other thing that I have totally banished from my writing is the Roman numeral system. Like cursive, it serves no purpose. I will even write names like "Bill Gates 3" or "Super Bowl 40."

Let's keep in mind that around 1998 or so, Microsoft did not have any lobbyists anywhere. It was the anti-trust baloney that got Gates into the lobbying business. That being said, I won't say that he hasn't benefited from some corporate welfare. That is mainly in the form of laws regarding intellectual property which make just about anybody a software "pirate." This is also in the form of laws which make fighting any accusation of piracy quite expensive. Plus, there was his constant breaking of agreements during their growth. Gates has done so much to destroy the credibility of intellectual property that more and more people are advocating scrapping IP altogether. What product of Microsoft has been revolutionary, by the way? Lotus gave us spreadsheets. Adobe created PDF's. WordStar and WordPerfect revolutionized word processing.

You can not get more 1970's than this:

I have a copy of it from around 1991. At the time, "Filthy Pierre" was the publisher and distributor. I don't know if it exists anymore today. The Internet and boards like this would make it obsolete. His real name is Erwin Strauss. He is alive and well and even has a Wikipedia article.

Phil, I have known you since 1995. In all that time, I have found you to be an articulate fellow who has a wide range of knowledge on many diverse subjects. You are a guy that I can talk to on a lot of different subjects, and I believe that I will benefit from that discussion. And you have been around the movement probably as long as I have been alive. What's going on, Phil? It sounds like you have a few disagreements with someone. Because of that, you want to believe that this person is "bad" or "evil." Are you just fishing for more evidence, Phil? You've been around a long time--you should know better. I also know that you are a better man--the kind of post that initiated this topic is beneath you. You know that proving that this other person is "bad" does not make your argument any more valid. With all the plea bargains and backroom deals that go on, it's highly unlikely that he can discuss any of this, especially on a forum that ANYBODY can read. And how will it benefit him to do so?

Welcome to Objectivism, James Hughes.

This was a very complicated period, and the Russian Civil War was only one battle of many. The Germans had one goal--end the war on their eastern border. They didn't care how it happened. Had Kerensky and his government made any attempt to negotiate peace, the Germans might not have supported the Bolsheviks. The Russian people knew that they had been beaten. Unfortunately, their politicians didn't want to acknowledge this reality (sound familiar?). Even the Commies were reluctant to accept all the concessions of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, because it basically gave up everything that is not part of Russia today. The Germans also aided independence movements in Poland and Finland. Finland had its own little civll war, which basically had the same kind of opponents (Commies vs. non-Commies). Finns look upon their civil war as a tragic time. Poland wanted to go back to its borders of the 1500's and even fought wars with the Ukranians and Lithuanians.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=186154 This man was punished for singing in front of a "mixed" (male and female) audience.

Now, can we get back to the topic? Buy gold or buy platinum?

This was a very interesting article. It certainly seems like something like is worth a try. http://www.thenutritionreporter.com/Nutrition_and_Crime.html

They appeared that way from the beginning. Did you cut and paste from another forum, or use Internet Explorer, or accidentally toggle the HTML settings when you posted? I have definitely been using Firefox. I did not copy and paste. I may have toggled the HTML settings.

What the hell happened to my paragraphs in the original post?

I attended Freedom Fest for the very first time this year. I doubt I will be going back. The main problem for me is that it is simply too big. Maybe it's my own fault. There were quite a few people there that I wanted to meet and did not get to meet--Peter Schiff and John Mackey were two. Plus, I've never been fond of events at overpriced hotels like this one. Skousen seems to pride himself on having events at hotels like this. That's enough reason not to go. There are cameras everywhere in the freaking place. It goes way beyond the gambling areas. I'm not too fond of this either. Bally's also had no wifi in the public areas. I can't say that I will be going back to Las Vegas anytime soon. I don't care one iota about all the other Vegas crap. I actually stayed at the Super 8 about 300 yards away. And there were too many extra-cost events. I didn't bother with any of them. I have to admit that I wasn't expecting all that much. I found about what I expected. There were some interesting investment opportunities there for those who had the cash. If my net wealth was triple what it is, I might have considered them. It was good to bump into some people--Lawrence Reed of the Foundation for Economic Education, Angela Keaton of antiwar.com, Christina Tobin, Jim Peron, Kerry O'Quinn, and Sheldon Richman. An event of about 100 or so is quite nice. An event of this size is too much.

It's too bad that there is not a separate section to discuss issues related to money, investing, and such.<br><br>I'm putting out the question for anyone who wants to answer: should I buy gold or should I buy platinum?<br><br>Gold is somewhat easier to buy. It's also the more popular thing to buy. It's used in jewelry and has been a symbol of wealth for over 5000 years.<br><br>Platinum is much rarer than gold and was only discovered less than 500 years ago. It's harder to find generally. It's also used in jewelry, and some platinum coins have been minted. Because it's less popular, I wonder if it is something that is also less likely to be seized or confiscated. At the same time, if something is too difficult to buy, people don't even try to buy it. Platinum does more industrial uses than gold, mainly in expensive catalytic converters.<br><br>Incidentally, on the Periodic Table, platinum is 78. Gold is 79.<br><br>Investor newsletters and people like Peter Schiff rarely talk about platinum. I do wonder why they don't consider it as an investment.<br><br>I'm open to hear what everyone has to say. Would you buy gold or platinum?

It will be a wonderful day when people stop buying oil. When that happens, people in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq will go back to crawling on their stomachs, eating worms and bugs to survive.

Don't take Diana seriously. I could go on for hours about her. I also have some theories that I will not reveal publicly--they are just that, theories. I will say that when I found out her knife in Sciabarra's back (figuratively), I was one of the few who wasn't surprised. Chris Matthew Sciabarra is everything that an Objectivist scholar should be. He is truly open-minded. He believes that he can learn things from anyone. He is always interested in the exchange of ideas. We are lucky to have him. I was fortunate to meet him when I passed through Brooklyn back in 2004. Unfortunately, medical issues keep him from traveling.

There has been talk of spreading the novel into three or even four movies. My speculation is that he is going to try one in order to see what happens. If it succeeds, he will have plenty of cash for the next one. Hopefully, he got the actors contractually bound to do more movies. Changing actors mid-series would be disastrous. If people are willing to read the book five or six times, there will be plenty of people who go see it that many times. If the movie is done well, I think it will sell plenty of tickets. Look at how many people are talking about it now, and it has barely started production. I'm quite disappointed by all the pessimism about this movie. It's almost as if the pessimists would rather be right than see a good movie. I have no absolutely no idea what to make of Diana's comments. It almost seems as if she thinks that Objectivists should just go into Galt's Gulch right now. Let's keep in mind that Ayn Rand went on Johnny Carson, Phil Donahue, Tom Snyder, and others. Anytime someone offered Ayn Rand a microphone, she grabbed it as long as she could speak her mind without compromise. Over the past few years, my opinions regarding Glenn Beck have swung back and forth between love and hate. If he invited me on his show, I would do it.

How do you define self-autonomy? It most certainly does. Palestinians have every right to withdraw their sanction from the Israeli government. For that matter, any Israeli who actually believes in freedom does as well. The Quakers are about the only religious group I can think of that has been sincere about religious freedom. For most religions, "freedom" simply means the freedom to persecute others. That goes all the way back to Moses and probably even earlier. That's true. Jews can't depend on Israel to protect their rights.

Beck made a couple errors on the show. He mentioned the rejections that Anthem got. Those comments were actually made with regard to We The Living. Of course, Rand never actually wrote The Voice of Reason as a book. She wrote the essays. The book was just a collection of her essays.

I'm also curious as to how barring Noam Chomsky from entering the West Bank protects Israel's security. As far as I know, Chomsky has never committed violence against anybody. http://www.ifex.org/israel/2010/05/25/chomsky_banned/

Evil empires make life difficult for lots of people. The Nazis killed as many non-Jews as they killed Jews. This probably includes over a million Roma (Gypsies). The Russian czars did the same thing with all the minorities under their flag. Of course, when King Ferdinand was expelling Jews from Spain, who wrote him a letter offering to take all the Jews in? The Turkish sultan did, and about half the Spanish Jews took the offer. Today's Israeli propagandists will never acknowledge that one. What I favor is a nation that protects the rights of all individuals. Such a nation would be safe for Jews and for every other minority group with a chip on its shoulder. That's individualism. As an individualist, I oppose all forms of collectivism. Zionism is nothing but a form of collectivism. Some years ago, I was talking with a Jewish friend of mine who is a social worker. He's a textbook busybody do-gooder type and probably votes something like a straight Blue ticket every election. He's a nice guy and is pretty smart though. I made the comment to him that Objectivists seem to have a fetish for Israel. This guy was quite puzzled and simply said to me: "They know it's socialist, don't they?"