Mike Hansen

Thanks for the link Merlin. I only saw the first half of Ohio State-Kentucky, and what a half! Teams like Wisconsin are pure discipline. Teams like Butler are pure hard work. Ohio State and Kentucky have some discipline and they do work hard, but that game was absolutely loaded with talent. Both teams had pretty equal outside shooters and post players. Fantastic basketball. But I really think this should have been Ohio State against Florida. Why Florida got a two seed and Kentucky got a four I'll never know... I bet Obama's grades were worse than Al Gore and Jon Kerry's. Well, maybe not. Hehe that's a pretty big bet. As long as I'm making bets... I'll put my money on Kansas to win everything. And for Butler to beat Florida and give Kansas a run for its money. I'll put Kentucky or Arizona in the final with KU. Mike

Was there ever a final four with four #1 seeds? Or elite eight? Arizona burned through three of them in 1997 to win it all. Ironically, AZ almost lost its first game against an almost nobody and hadn't done all that well in the regular season, but boy, did that team start clicking with three A-1 guards, Bibby, Simon and Terry. --Brant It (final four of #1 seeds) happened a few years ago, and a long time before that. But I'm pretty sure it's only happened twice.

He picked like a total wimp. Only a wimp (and idiot) would pick all of the No. 1 seeds. Especially this year. And only a total dick would waste a whole day making a video with ESPN the way he did. This Ohio State-Kentucky game is great so far!!

Hah! "manhandles" is correct. Good for Brant. My national chump is gone... but now we get to see Arizona vs. Connecticut. Clearly the two hottest teams right now. And I picked Butler right again! This has been a wild tournament. Mike

Well you're not going to get anywhere without a definition! Even if the definition isn't perfect the act of refining it is enlightening in itself. Mike

Right on, Ted. So, if we're going to create something, we need to know three things: (1) the elements we are rearranging, (2) the method of rearrangement, and (3) the criteria of usefulness (the purpose and value of the creation). These are all contextual. In the context of creating a new technology (what I think the original post was getting at), the three pieces of necessary knowledge above require applied math, physical science, and computers (the necessary tools). That would certainly be a neat thread. Something like "What were the greatest inventors thinking?" (also a matter of who the "greatest inventors" were... oh boy) Mike

First off, what does it mean to create something? Also: applied mathematics, numerical analysis, and computer programming are three awesome tools for any creative endeavor. Mike

Wow. Crazy weekend. I'm still smiling about the fact that I picked Butler over Pittsburgh. And how did a 10, 11, and 12 seed in the same region all get to the sweet sixteen?! Arizona looked inconsistent against Texas. Dominated the first half and nearly blew it in the second. I'm confident Duke will beat them, but then again, Duke nearly lost to Michigan today... My bracket isn't busted quite yet. Mike

Well that was a bummer. BYU wins and then St. John's gets crushed. Before I went 0 for 4 on the last games I was doing pretty well, picking 10 of 12. I'm in 5-millionth place on ESPN.com . This is a fun tournament so far. Three of the first four games were won on buzzer-beaters, and there's a 12-13 second-round game! Let's just hope that BYU gets blown out in the next round. My happiness and success in my family's bracket pool depend upon it. Mike

My team, Arizona, gave away it's game last night against the Washington Huskies, after leading by four points with 26 seconds to go. This will drop it from a likely #4 seed to a 6 or 7. I know the father-in-law of the Memphis coach, Josh Pastner, and he thinks Memphis will get a 10 seed. Because of Arizona getting bitch-slapped combined with its inexperience--one senior starter--and pretty good talent, it may turn out to be the team you'd rather not play. In 1997, when Arizona won it all, it plowed through three number-one teams to get there. Only time that's happened. It won't happen this time because of some weakness at the guard positions. --Brant Duke? I watched the Arizona-Washington game. Amazing shooting at the end. Washington is a dangerous team. So is Arizona. Both of them could certainly pull off a second round upset (over UNC and Duke, respectively).

St. John's could very well be there! I have the Red Storm in my elite eight. If not for a key injury, I probably would have had them in the championship game. Long Island, however...

I have officially turned in my bracket for several pools. My final final four consists of Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, and Butler (changed from Old Dominion). I've never picked an 8 seed to be in the final four before, but who else in the southeast bracket is final-four-worthy? As much as it kills me, I have picked Duke to win everything, with Kansas as the runner-up. Mike

Any other March Madness fanatics here on OL? If so, let's hear your current idea (I've had about ten already) for the final four. Right now I'm going with Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, and Old Dominion (you heard me!). This year's bracket seems particularly difficult to fill out. Mike

Ungulates need not apply.

Awesome. Accounting's a good one. I got a huge grin when I read "Its disappointing that accounting barely even touches linear algebra." I'm known here at the U for wanting more rigorous math in our engineering courses (in a second-year engineering class we were still being taught basic frickin' algebra and systems of linear equations... seriously!). Applying math to solve (or not even solve, just gain information about) problems enriches everything. You have to strictly define abstract quantities and their relationships... it makes you think! How the hell can you avoid math in accounting or engineering?! Let me know if you figure out some neat mathematical method of solving an accounting problem, or if you'd like to discuss an idea of such a method. And if I were you I'd do some reading about numerical analysis (unless you already have). It'll blow your mind when you figure out the stuff you can solve with some fairly simple methods. I'm in Chemical Engineering. Although my interests/hobbies are computational fluid dynamics and chemical reaction simulation, so I'm kind of a half-chemical-half-mechanical guy. Yeah, that argument has a lot of implications. Here's my suggestion for dealing with it (I do this a lot): create a word/notepad document for ranting. Type up your rant, and don't leave anything in your head (it's the build-up that kills the mind). Then go do some accounting/linear algebra or something you enjoy (fluid dynamics and basketball are my favorites here ). If you want to continue associating with the minister, or at least talking philosophy with him (I have plenty of good friends that are mormons, we just stick away from philosophy and get along great), then I would ask him if he is happy. And then ask him to define happiness. Definitions will kill so many arguments of people like this. These guys can be effective in argument only if the fundamentals of the argument are loosely defined or just plain undefined. And in my experience, christians/mormons are notorious for not defining happiness (and love), despite using them extensively. Mike

Shayne gets 1 contradiction point.

Ted, I also dislike Rand's ideas about human nature, particularly those concerning instincts and psychology. Fortunately, though, these ideas are just wrong, and not contradictory to her bigger ideas. Mike

Shayne, What do you mean by authoritarianism? My uncle gave me ITOE as a birthday present a few weeks ago. I'm thinking I'll start it off in a few weeks (Spring Break) when I have some free time. If I run into anything crazy I'll let you know . Mike

Nice. What are you majoring in? We're in similar situations. You've got the Bible Belt believers, I've got the mormons. The University of Utah isn't really that bad in that regard (it's not BYU, thank god!), but there's good reason as to why I knew exactly how to respond to your minister's argument! Do you ever get people talking about how "the spirit manifested itself" when something cool happens? Oh man I hate that one. Refuting losers like this would be a full-time job. You know when they start taking that older gentleman's argument that they're really grasping for straws. Remember that your goal should be the defense of your own ideas, not the "conversion" of these lunatics. I've found that the first question shouldn't be "how do I deal with this fool?" It should be "do I deal with this fool?" Most of them aren't worth your time and mental energy. Mike

Hi Chris. Good to hear you're a hiker/backpacker/outdoorsman. I've never heard of bushcrafting before, but it sounds pretty fun (the challenging, achievement-based type of fun). (thanks for the link Adam) Ever bushcrafted anywhere near the Rockies? I'm more of a standard hiker myself. You and Adam can distinguish yourselves from me in that I can always pack enough food for the whole trip! The closest I can come to bushcrafting would be some escapades off of the trails and some extemporaneous rock climbing. Objectivism was a little tricky for me to apply to my life (initially, at least). It's a major break from common moralities consisting of commandments and rules. I got much better at life once I recognized that Objectivism provides a general procedure for achieving happiness, rather than a set of rules. Mike

That would be great. Comprehensiveness is always a good thing. I'd love to contribute to such a list but I've hardly had any time to do a comprehensive, in-depth review of the philosophy (which would have to happen before any comprehensive list of issues/resolutions could be created). (And at the current time I certainly find it rational to put numerical simulation/getting my degree ahead of philosophy ) Sounds like this list couldn't just be another thread. Maybe a new forum section (like the "Objectivist Living Room" or "Ethics" sections) where each issue/resolution is a thread? Although we didn't get a list started when I first posted this, I'm glad the guys above referred me to some of Rand's nonfiction. Thanks. Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal is my favorite. The last chapter (Requiem for Man) is incredible. The Virtue of Selfishness is a close second, though. Mike

I get that one a lot. It's a screwy statement in that it allows him to switch his underlying argument. Following the statement, he'll defend two ideas interchangeably: (1) There is a moral code which is known intrinsically by all human beings. and (2) There is a correct moral code for all human beings (the idea of salvation being open to everybody). Obviously these are two very different ideas. Before you can argue against his initial statement, you need to ask him to clarify. And then you can deal with the clarified version that he gives you. Statement (1) has no merit (ask him to provide reasoning for it, rather than immediately trying to attack it). Statement (2) is correct, but it's not the christian moral code. It's that Objectivist one! Mike P.S. Where do you go to school?

In post #7 I gave a link to a tv show about Watson. During that show it was said that Watson had Wikipedia and previous Jeopardy shows in its memory. A search engine is a component of Watson, but there is more to it. Watson's answer to the Final Jeopardy clue was indeed a surprise. There is at least one city named Toronto in the U.S. -- in Ohio with a population < 6,000. In addition to Toronto, Ontario, Canada not being a U.S. city, I learned the following using a search engine. Pearson International is Toronto's largest airport. The airport was named in honor of Lester B. Pearson, the 14th Prime Minister of Canada and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. Pearson did military service during WWI, but didn't attain hero status. I'm not sure which airport is 2nd largest, but two candidates follow. John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport is in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. It is named for John C. Munro, a Hamilton Member of Parliament and cabinet minister. Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport was named after a famous WWI fighter pilot. Hence, none of the names of the three airports fit the Jeopardy clue. I understand that Watson is more than just a search engine. The NOVA about it that aired last week was fascinating. My point is that the goal of creating Watson was to get a computer to deal with the 'nuances' of language, and that it's ability in that regard hasn't been tested very much. That's what I want to see tonight. If we don't see more funky language then it will be another boring domination by Watson. Mike

Phil, That had me wondering tonight as well. A lot of the questions seemingly could have been solved by a search engine. Especially the Final Jeopardy question. Let's hope that changes for tomorrow. I want to see Watson sweat. I would think that the IBM guys, with all the other 'human' features they gave Watson, would have measured the time it takes for a typical player to ring in and factored that into Watson's answers/questions. Otherwise it's nowhere near a fair contest. I remember reading something about how there's a "time penalty" for ringing in too quickly. Given that the questions/answers were pretty easy, and that Ken and Brad have probably lost the rhythm they once had, I can see the timing being a big issue. Did anybody else see David Ferrucci's face after Watson completely blew the Final Jeopardy answer/question? But since the category was U.S. cities, I guess "Toronto" probably wouldn't elicit the happiest response from him. Mike