Mike Hansen

AnitaB, If you understand the objectivist ethics (as defined in 'the Virtue of Selfishness'), there is no hesitation to call yourself a believer in objective existence and reason/rationality (what I would say are the fundamentals of Objectivism). And, if asked about one's philosophy, what answer could avoid 'giving labels a surface to adhere to'? Mike

The only benefit of the Jets remaining in the playoffs is the chance of seeing the Steelers and the Ravens play again. Mike

Phil, Extrapolation is really tough with complex systems. Usually there are distinct points where models break down (continuity goes out the window). For example, the Ideal Gas Equation of State is great for situations where the gas is nearly ideal. But once we reach certain limits (i.e. higher pressure or temperature) a different model is needed. So we go to something more complicated like the Van der Waals Equation of State or the good ol' Soave-Redlich-Kwong Equation of State. We can see that models of economies or populations will act in the same way. So our function either has to be able account for discontinuities which could arise in the future which we're trying to extrapolate. This means that we either have to use a universal equation (which is usually tough to create) for everything (but such an equation may not be computationally feasible for a large number of points), or we have to create a piecewise function which allows for the discontinuities... but if we're going to account for the discontinuities in such a complex and ill-conditioned system, we better know damn well where they are. Also, if we're going to use a computer, we have to worry about iteration error. Which means, if we base our extrapolation of point i+1 on point i, then the extrapolation of point i+2 has the error created in i to i+1 as well as the error created in i+1 to i+2. In chaotic systems (i.e. populations, economies, climates) this propagation of error is awful. That's why weathermen are only "accurate" for a few days. Mike

Phil, As the guys before me said, there are a lot of ways to do this. There's some pretty neat numerical techniques related to the idea. Least-Squares Regression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_squares) is my 'favorite.' If you know the general form of the equation, then you can find values for your unknown constants which most effectively fit the data. The biggest issue with Least-Squares Regression is getting a good form of the equation. But that can be done by guessing, using the situation's governing physical equations (mass/momentum/energy conservation, equations of state, etc.), or dimensional analysis. Or by using the form your boss gives you. For a population or an economy, getting the right form of equation would be tricky. Especially in economics, where a small change in the inputs would likely give a large change in the outputs. You could try a polynomial, but polynomial fits (except for cubic splines) can be funky if the data points aren't aligned nicely. And a polynomial fit is often completely out of the question if extrapolation is your goal. Mike

The beauty of supporting anthropogenic global warming 'theory': no matter what happens, you're always right! Mike

Completely irrelevant standard to evaluate a President because: 1) Presidents do not spend money, Congress, specifically the House does; 2) Presidents have served from sixty (60) days to almost fifteen (15) years; and 3) the pressures of events contributed to a "need to spend," e.g., World War II. Adam Very nice, Adam. (1) is the fact to know when dealing with 'Slick Willy' Clinton supporters. Given the president's powers, national security & the military are the big issues by which we can gauge a president's "success". In this case, I'd go with Carter as the worst. LBJ and Woodrow Wilson certainly were awful, but I'd say that Carter has set the stage for some serious long-term crap in the Middle East. Mike

I decided to read the opinion section of the newspaper (Salt Lake Tribune) today, something I hadn't done in a while. I stumbled upon this beauty in the Public Forum: No wonder I'm so happy in the engineering computer labs at the U. No political discussions! After reading this I thought about how much I'd like to thank the producers of Fluent, Gambit, and MATLAB for keeping my sanity intact. Continuing on the tangent of gratefulness, this Thanksgiving was outstanding. The words "I earned this" and "thank you" mean a hell of a lot more as an openly rational, honest, proud, and entirely selfish person. Thanksgiving with conscious recognition of these traits is a very good holiday. Mike

HAH! The last "he started it" almost killed me! Right out of left field. Literally.

Yep. I'm trudging through one of Beck's books, Arguing with Idiots, which begins with a chapter on the defense of capitalism. His 'defense' is good in a few parts but just plain sucks for most of the chapter. Despite all the great points he makes about the incredible economic progress of the U.S.A., he completely FAILS when he says, "The truth is that capitalism is neither good nor evil, it just is.... But what capitalism can do is foster an environment where those with the will to succeed have a better chance of achieving their dreams." As if freedom is "neither good nor evil." And then, the mormon Beck enters the fray: "We do have an obligation to help... [to help the poor, the weakest, etc.]" Three paragraphs later: "Any economic system will inevitably fail if individuals stop caring about the welfare of others." As if caring about others would never happen if we weren't obliged to do so. Gah... he's trying to combine capitalism and mormonism/christianity... what he really needs to check his freakin' premises! Mike

Hi Sawyer, Always good to hear of another college student Objectivist (not enough of us). Also always good to hear of another college student interested in science and computers (not enough of us). Objectivism pairs very well with engineering/science. What year are you in college? If you're after AI, then are you majoring in mechanical engineering or computer science? Mike

The singing elementary school students. Mike

Michael, While painting certainly isn't my #1 hobby, I really enjoy it and I spend quite a bit of mental effort on it. I checked out the websites below your name, and I liked the content of your 'Buildings Workshop.' Your other works were good, but buildings and landscapes have always been my favorite subjects to paint. The same applies to your painting style in these pieces (i.e. Santa Monica Palms). Anyways, it was great to see somebody else (who's actually a really good painter) interested in similar styles and subjects as I am. I agree 100% with you about the camaraderie issue. And, questioning motives is always a good practice. Mike

Click "Reply" on the right side of the bottom blue-gray bar below the person's text. Then look at the code in [ ] above and below the person's text that appears. [ ] also appears to be the way to make bold letters , italics, underlines, etc. A [ ] begins the command, and a [/] will end the command. Select some text, bold it, and you'll see. Mike

Kelly The fact that you mentioned the Underpants Gnomes is more than enough to keep me happy. Dogmatic objectivists bug the crap out of me. Taking Rand's ideas on faith is like smacking her in the face. If you're not figuring it out for yourself, then it's not objectivism that you're practicing. If you're looking for something uplifting like Atlas Shrugged, I would suggest Requiem for Man, the last chapter in Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal. It's got some dreary parts (in similar manner to AS, when the villains communicate), but several sections are very inspirational. Mike

Hi Kelly, First of all, and most importantly, please don't tell me you prefer Futurama over South Park! Why are you "no longer an objectivist"? That implies that you were an objectivist, but something pushed you over the edge. What was it? Mike

Very nice. After reading 'Extremism', or the Art of Smearing from Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal (which is a far better history lesson), I remembered what AP U.S. History was like three years ago. 'Isolationism' and 'McCarthyism' were presented exactly as the anti-concepts Rand showed them to be. There were also plenty of political details 'left out' of certain presidents' terms. FDR in particular. If I remember correctly, we were only taught the intention of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Mike

We'll put aside the fact that voting republican or democrat is, almost always, picking one set of government controls over another. If you are an Objectivist who is sticking to these two parties for hope of getting a 'lesser evil,' then it's a matter of deciding which controls will be the least controlling. Obamacare is, more or less, the intro to socialized medicine. As soon as medicine becomes a government issue, the difference between medical care (what you get from a doctor) and health care (what doctors do plus what we do) soon disappears. This allows government to regulate anything which affects your health. In other words: EVERYTHING. I've had more than five (I'm not too social) fellow engineering students decide to go Ph.D instead of medical school. These are smart men and women who would be good doctors. Obamacare is destroying the motivation of smart students to work their asses off in medical school and become great doctors who can demand a shitload of money and a high standard of living later in life. I'm shocked that you view Obamacare as a lesser evil than creationism in public schools and anti-abortion laws. How exactly do you support this position? Mike

;) Hehe, I probably had something to do with this: Herb, electrical engineering... that's good. I'm currently a Chemical Engineering major (University of Utah), but I do have an affinity for semiconductors. Mike

100% right! Thanks for the link. Mike

I’m sick of these hacks! Conservatives... now I understand a little more of Ayn Rand’s disgust. Mike Lee, if you’ve heard of him, is up for a Senate seat here in Utah. There’s been loads and loads of crap about how he’s "the mormon who’s gonna save the Constitution!" He spoke the other day about his profound appreciation of Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand, while he practically won the election by touting the degree of his supposed mormonism. He’s either a liar or a total idiot. Jesus mother$%#&ing Christ... Enough! God that felt good! Mike Btw, I like the specific section designed for rants. I’ve always had a Word document for 'em.

Thanks guys, I probably buzzed through Galt's, Francisco's, and Ragnar's Speeches too quickly. I was so excited to hear those ideas. I found The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal on Amazon.com. (fifteen dollars for both) If Galt's Speech is just an introduction, then these two should be really, really good. Mike

Tony, I understand now. I screwed up there in not realizing that you meant practicality without principle. My bad. And you are right, that is another non-rational motivation. I've read through the lexicon before, but thanks for the reminder. The stuff there on pragmatism is great. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pragmatism.html Mike

Tony, Hold on one second. Practicality is rational, and you defend it as such. It can't be included with faith as non-rational. I really like Branden's definition of integrity. That alone is a good advertisement. From what I can tell about Branden's ideas, and induction/deduction, he seems to be on the induction side. He doesn't derive morality from more general principles (deduction), preferring instead to test certain ideas for moral validity (induction). But take my words here with a grain of salt, for (1) I could be wrong about Branden, and (2) I could be wrong about induction/deduction. Mike