HeroicLife

I am hosting the file here. You can download the flash movie from my site.

In both cases the wikipedia articles themselves provide convincing arguments against the possibility of these technologies. Given our current knowledge of physics and the limitations of human physiology, I think the inevitable conclusion is that it is simply impossible for human beings in their current form to travel to other stars - or even the outer reaches of our solar system. The more interesting possibility to me is that human beings will transform not only our environment, but our physiology, and shape ourselves into beings capable of thriving in deep space. I find that possibility not only more likely, but more appealing than the prospect of short, fragile lives trying to cope with an alien, timeless environment.

The B2 bomber has a tolerance of approximately 1/4 inches over a 172 foot wingspan. It was one of the first aircraft to benefit from computer-networked automated machines. By contrast, the old Mig jets had gaps you could stick your finger in.

Exactly.

This forum actually runs on MySQL, PHP, Apache, and Linux (the former two, at least, being undeniably and quintessentially open-source), and it does so fairly well, so I think you have to admit that there are some benefits to its development/licensing methodology.

I'm very sorry to hear the news. Stephen and I had our differences, but I deeply respected his knowledge, insight, and experience. He's a great loss to those who loved him, but also to the Objectivist community.

A number of people have used my forum to express dissatisfaction with THE FORUM because, as they told me, critical posts about THE FORUM tend to get deleted. I don't see anything inherently wrong with discussing the policies of other sites on my forum (just as the policies of my site are being questioned here) but I have deleted unfair attacks on THE FORUM at Stephen's request every time he's asked before.

Just for the record, when Diana confronted me with that statement, I clarified and rescinded it on that same thread a few pages later and explained that I have the greatest respect for Dr. Peikoff. By the day of the election, further research and a conversation with Craig Briddle had changed my views enough that I was rooting for the Democrats - at least in my state.

As Ray pointed out, object oriented programming is a method, not a just language implementation. In fact, it is possible to use object oriented programming methods in ANY high-level language (including C and Pascal) – but some languages support it to a better extend than others. Likewise, it is possible to use entirely procedural programming in a object-based language, though it annoys me to no end when my coworkers do so. Also, it’s important to distinguish between the properties (nouns) and methods (verbs) of objects. The key difference is that methods change the state of an object, while properties do not. There have been a number of good and bad ideas on naming mentioned in this thread. I would like to recommend a great book on proper naming and structure (and much): Code Complete by Steve McConnell. Anyone who wants to be a great programmer HAS to read this book, as well as one on design patterns in your preferred language.

Speaking of wireless and cool toys from bosses, my Verizon wireless card allows me to go online anywhere I can get a cell signal. It works virtually anywhere, so I was able to go online during my trip to NYC and even in traffic driving around Texas.

I read this book a long time ago during my “Asimov phase” so my impression may be a bit colored, but this is one of my favorite science fiction novels because it is exactly what an adult science fiction novel should be – an examination of the implications of a new technological or environmental element on individuals and their society. The numerous discussions between the characters were both serious and authentic and exactly what I like most about Asimov. I also appreciated the lack of distraction common with other scifi writers who introduce all sorts of new terminology and technology to make the settings more “authentic,” but end up distracting the reader.

I somewhat liked that book too, but I think TMIAHM has a sophisticated humor to it that I really enjoyed. I didn’t read it as a political treatise, and I think that taking the political ideas in the book seriously is missing the point. Like his later novels, this book is essentially about the central characters and the society they shape, and I think that it excels in that regard.

Don't mean to get sidetracked here, but I think within the context of their wild-west society, and the nature of their colonial government, such courts may be entirely appropriate. As their society matures, more formal courts could be organized, just as they were in the American West.

Classic Heinlein. I picked up a dated 1959 first edition of this book after someone recommended Heinlein to me. I guess the best compliment I can give it is that after reading the book, I dedicated myself to reading everything Heinlein ever wrote, which is fortunately enough to keep one busy for many years, since Heinlein wrote dozens and dozens of books. I am currently reading Heinlein's very first book, “For us, the Living” which is probably the model for this book, and introduces some of the ideas mentioned therein. Not everything makes sense here, and not all the characters are well developed, but essential Heinlein is here: a guiltless pursuit of happiness and productive activity, and the three essential Heinlein character types: “markers, fakes, and takers.”

What do you think of Austrian economics? In particular, do have any disagreements with it? Which ones? I followed Miss Rand’s recommendation of Mises and so far, I have been a total convert, Mises’ philosophical errors notwithstanding. Do you recommend reading any other economists for a solid foundation in economics? I am fairly knowledgeable in the field, so I would like something more in-depth than the introductory texts.

Another revealing article on Fannie May: http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/r...c5.html#Englund

Not so. Economic calculation is possible by direct comparison of one value to another. For example, I value two bananas over one apple. Economics is not limited to material goods either – whenever you choose to pursue among competing values and competing means of achieving those values, you engage in economic calculation. The basic need for economics – the scarcity of resources is not limited to any particular form of value or any particular means of choosing among those values.

It’s pretty crazy to say that economics is not concerned with non-social action. Robison Crusoe must deal with things such as marginal productivity, savings, interest rates, investments, depreciation, exchange rates, and entrepreneurship. The fact the he does not engage in trade or use a medium of exchange does not cancel out all the other economic decisions he must make. Once again, the definition of economics is “the science which studies the principles of human value allocation and exchange.” It’s mine, but I have not seen a better one.

I just did. The context is clear indeed – he is arguing against the Federal Reserve and the fiat system it supports. I don’t think that the interpretation I provided contradicts anything he states. In particular, he uses the term “demand liability” with a specific meaning – a guarantee for immediate access to one’s funds. Fractional banks, by their very nature, are incapable of making such a promise.

Another great vacuum mogul is David Oreck. I saw a brief bio on Fox news and he came across as an all-American hero who really knows how to make the most of out life. http://www.oreck.com/about/david-oreck.cfm

When I have critiqued Rothbard for this apparent inconsistency with free banking, the usual response offered by Austrian economists is that Rothbard’s statements must be understood in the proper context. Rothbard was attacking the traditional policy of accepting funds with the promise of unconditional withdrawal to it, and then lending out 9/10ths of those funds. Such a policy is fraudulent because the bank cannot guarantee payment since they are perpetually insolvent. Historically, this policy not only made bank runs common, but created business cycles and led to growing interventionism as banks begged the government to stop bank runs. The economists I talked to said that Rothbard thought that the policy of granting ownership to non-existent property constituted fraud. However, as long as banks explicitly identify the nature of their operation, fractional banking is legit, even if it would not be competitive with 100% reserve banks and is more gambling than investing – or so the Rothbardians argue.

Rothbard thought that fractional reserve banking is immoral because it gives multiple people a claim on the same piece of gold, and tends to encourage business cycles. He didn’t think it should be banned, but rather argued against government bailouts of fractional systems.

What capitalists actually advocate is not gold per se, but free banking – as opposed to a coercive government monopoly of the currency. The best work on the topic I am aware of is Murray Rothbard’s What Has Government Done to Our Money?, available free here.

Fannie May and Freddie Mac are superficially private entities, but they operative with an implicit government guarantee because they are “too big to fail.” This encourages mortages that would be too risky in a free market, creating an artificial housing boom that in turn leads to government regulations attempting to control their risks. There is a great story on this in the Economist: http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaySto...tory_id=3686475

Yes, exactly.