Michael Archer

I wanted to major in Physics. I really did, and still do. OP presented one of the arguments for physics, and then there was this other one I saw: -A03gbr6oY0 I was set to major in Physics. But then a friend told me that the Bachelor of Engineering (in Canada anyway), is a professional degree. My dad also said that with a degree in physics: I'm scared, though. Canadian engineers get this cool ring, but engineering in Canada is somewhat of a cult.

I've got some self-taken pictures I'll put up here soon--I think you guys will like them. In the meantime: Well, this is...disturbing: I can't tell what's more disturbing...that picture of Twilight, or the fact that I can't tell the difference for any name!

What's wrong with this bill? The Constitution allows the government to hold American citizens indefinitely without cause. Here, I'll show you: See? It's fine! Wait a minute. Now, I must have been living under a rock for some time. Did the South declare secession again? Is Iran invading? I certainly don't hear any Islamic praying or banjo-playing where I am. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON

Hey, sorry it took so long to respond. I've been away for a while. All I hear about OWS is the rape, thievery, destruction of property, and forcible occupation of property (which is the entire point of the protest) that goes on in the park. It makes it very hard for me to be sympathetic to them. I think that one is no different from the other i.e. they're corollaries. Since human beings are corporeal, it is essential to life for a human being to own property. I believe if you deprive a man of one, you deprive him of the other. Actually, speaking of nineteenth century, it's true that that's the most capitalistic time period for the United States. Not quite lassiez-faire, but almost. I would consider the period before the civil war to be more capitalistic, since there was literally no income tax or military draft. Yes, wages were low and there was lot of property--but I wouldn't blame that on capitalism. Prosperity doesn't occur overnight and United States had a lot of building to do--they had to rebuild from the previous centuries of mass starvation. It was a growth period for a very young country. Before nineteenth century capitalism, it was purely luck if someone survived or not--I think the poverty was worse before that. Have you seen this video? 4BbkQiQyaYc Watch Europe and the United States during the "Industrial Age" (late 18th century and nineteenth century). Watch how much the population increases, compared to the precapitalist centuries. If population increase is the measure of how prosperous a society is, then it's clear that the capitalist society is more prosperous. Even during the civil war, the industrial, capitalistic, north was exponentially more wealthy and more populated than the feudal, rural, slave-holding south. Hell, watch United States during the 1920s under arguably lassiez-faire capitalist Calvin Coolidge. Compare single decade with the population growth over several decades after FDR's New Deal up until the invention of modern medicine. Capitalism never created poverty--it simply got it from the previous systems. During nineteenth-century capitalism, the poor actually had a fighting chance, as opposed to the previous millenniums and centuries. And this brings me to the main problem with OWS mentality and the intellectual dishonesty that plagues both American and Canadian politics: during the protest and the political debates, collectivism is the status quo i.e. it's assumed, without question, that one man is automatically morally and financially responsible for another.. Whenever an American politician tries to defend capitalism on a moral level, his opponents will point out a seemingly flaw in the capitalist system; if the politician can't respond immediately or defend his position, it's immediately assumed that the collectivist or socialist position one. I think this a very unfair "burden of proof" issue. What if a schoolteacher told his hardest-working and best-scoring students that it was their responsibility to come in before and after school to tutor the failing students until they were barely passing? When the straight-A students complain, the status according to OWS and American politics would mean the teacher would say "Until you come up with a better solution that does not involve you sacrificing your valuable time and effort, this is what we have to do." This means that other people's misfortune and poverty is the rich and successful people's problem; the burden is placed on the people of ability and not the people actually suffering. This means that the person who suffers the most, wins; it's no longer the capitalistic attitude of "the most successful and prosperous man wins". It's a system of mediocrity and stagnation, not progression. So, if the OWS people complain that their wages are too low, why is that the rich's people's problems? By what right do they claim the lives and effort of other people? *** I'm trying to repudiate the "we are our brother's keeper" mentality, since it unfairly makes people take burdens they may not want. ***By rich people, I mean people who made their fortune by hard work and not government favors. Bailouts are one of the few legitimate complaints, in my opinion, from OWS. But they advocate one evil (mixed-economy) to remedy another. That's like a country being afraid of Nazism, so they turn Communist after the war--like Poland did; look how well that turned out for them.

I like Pinkie's response. It's mature and thought out. Well, there's no physical and empirical evidence for a God so I don't think there's a God. If you do, that's fine and that your right. If you can prove there's a God, then I'll sign up with my local church or synagogue immediately.

I'm leaning towards the Anti-SOPA crowd. However, I still don't know enough about it. All my knowledge from the bill comes from Reddit: a very Anti-SOPA crowd. I have not seen one argument that defends the bill--only arguments against it. Maybe because there are no good arguments for it it? Or maybe the majority is just very vocal? I don't know. But from what I've heard, it's bad. Can the government really force ISPs to filter websites based on a hunch? Are websites really guilty until proven innocent? Is this bill really as subjective and not followable as the antitrust laws? If yes, then down with SOPA! Am I missing something? Off-topic: MegaUpload should be shut down during this investigation. I'm sure if they're found not guilty, it will be back up.

No, everyone, stop! Get out while you can! I got this for Christmas. At first, I thought, "Meh. I'll play it every now and then when I'm not playing Halo or TF2" but when I booted it up...I CAN'T STOP. HELP ME. It's not so much that I like the game, as it is that I'm married to it. There was a burning fire early in our relationship, but as time went on, I started realizing more of her flaws that I didn't before. But then we make up and everything is fine. Only time will tell... I'm a level 49 Imperial who specializes in stealth, thievery and archery. At this point, the game is too easy--even on Master difficulty. Once I get all the achievements, I'm going to start a new character, maybe a Breton, and try to be a mage character next time. Of course, I'll still specialize in sneak; it's by far the best specialty in the game. With the Silent Assassin perk, I killed the Staff of Magnus wizard guy in about three swipes. Giants die in about two swipes. So, I want to be a Mage. Any tips?

Sorry I've been gone; ponies have been sucking my life force and the little energy I had left was for breathing and eating. Today's episode was great and I'm sure everyone knows why. When she spoke, my jaw hit the floor. The episode before that? Terrible. Oh, Pinkie is cute and all, but think about the implications: the writers made genetics, and therefore sexual reproduction, canon. OH GOD WHY

I leave for a few weeks and a new Civil Protection episode comes out? Is it my birthday? That was great! The "Christmas Brick" idea was amazing--I have to try that some time. Thanks, Ross! I hope your Christmas was better than mine! Mine wasn't that great because I got complacent and at the end of the year, I realized that I had only drank eight litres of egg nog. Only eight litres! That's, like, only two litres a week! I missed out this year! *sigh* Too bad no more Source Civil Protection. I always thought that the Source engine was beautiful, even eight years later. Oh well, I'm sure what you use to replace it will be just as good. I'm looking forward to it!

922

Got Skyrim for Christmas! Haven't played it yet.

Another climate scare... Look, environmentalists: we like our standard of living too much. We're not about to go back into the dark ages for your scaremongering and doomsday predictions. Human beings are the most adaptable creatures on the planet; if there's a problem, I'm sure we can find a solution that will make us not have to cut our standard of living. Tell us when you've got one. In the meantime, let's take a closer at the article: "the world's foremost authority on energy economics..."--by who's standards? "If the world is to stay below 2C of warming, which scientists regard as the limit of safety"--which scientists? I want names and citations! "Meanwhile, an "unacceptably high" number of people – about 1.3bn – still lack access to electricity. If people are to be lifted out of poverty, this must be solved – but providing people with renewable forms of energy generation is still expensive."--hmm...nineteen percent of the earth's population to live with borderline acceptable living conditions or a "problem" to which we haven't seen any negative effects? I'm siding with the people. "Another factor likely to increase emissions is the decision by some governments to abandon nuclear energy"--I agree. Nuclear energy is amazing! It's efficient and it's safe...but the environmentalists hate it the most. ""The US can't move (owing to Republican opposition)"--alright, now I'm pissed. Another, "it's all the Republican's fault!" article. STOP SCAPEGOATING; YOU'RE NOT BEING CLEVER So, what have I learned? Well, the environmentalists hate humanity. Don't believe me? Then why do they hate nuclear energy? If they were honest and they really cared about the earth, they'd love it the most. I agree. Wow ProHypster, I can't believe I just agreed with you...perhaps we can be friends! LOLWUT Seriously, though, I hate this damn double-standard. If I were to say, "it's the damn Jews! First they take all of our money and now they're ruining the environment! Let's tax 'em!", you'd call me crazy! I'd also probably be banned for hate speech after being called a Nazi! But... If I were to say, "Those damn businessmen! First they take all our money and now they're ruining our environment! Let's tax 'em" I might even get some nods of agreement! This is what sickens me: businessmen have become the politically correct scapegoats of our generation. Stop scapegoating and stop persecuting. Why can't we all just be friends?!

Sorry it took me so long to respond! Merry Christmas, everyone! I think this extremely short essay is very relevant. Stay home with your family and loved ones to celebrate your prosperity, your life, and your happiness in this truly American holiday! I'll be surprised if the protesters can make it through this holiday, because it and the people who celebrate it stand for everything which they disagree with. It's not immoral to not give the bean. I think the mentality that one man is automatically responsible for the welfare of another man--even ignoring the possibility that the sick person became ill from his own negligence--is really incomplete. I think it's really unfair for you to automatically assign responsibility to the productive magical bean farmer, without concern for his thoughts and feelings. In short, is it moral to "let"* someone die? Yes. A man has the right to deal with whomever he wants on whatever terms he sees fit and no one has the right to initiate force on him to make him go against his best interest. *I put quotation marks around the world "let", because the word "let" implies that the responsibility for the dying man's life rests on the bean holder--which I don't believe it does. I don't see it any other way. If you permit the government to abridge one right, there's no rational reason why it would be out of the question to abridge another. Strictly speaking, if the owner permits people to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, they should be allowed to do it. I don't think any property owner would allow that, anyway. You have the freedom of speech, but you don't have the freedom to abridge another man's right to property; when you yell "fire" in a crowded theater where it's not allowed, you're depriving the theater owner of his right to use his property in the way he sees fit. I don't agree that the freedom of speech conflicts with the right to property, since fraud is not a right. You're using the word "need" as an excuse to take away something rightfully produced by another man. People like Fredrick Douglas didn't care how much the mid-nineteenth century Southern-American farmer needed slaves on his farm in order to feed his family; this does not give him the right to hold another human being in bondage. The farmer's need does not give him a claim an another man's life. A society based on the concept of "need" and "duty" turns into a society where man is either a parasite or a slave. Either a man is either forced to work for a cause he doesn't believe in, or he relies on the effort of other more productive men. I think this is what OWS hopes to achieve. I'd also like to point out that any time you eat, especially if you live in a prosperous continent like North America, there is always someone in Africa who "needs" that food more than you do--they would die without that food. I was wondering: do you consider it moral to eat when other people are hungrier than you? If yes, why? I was using Wikipedia: "Altruism is a motivation to provide something of value to a party who must be anyone but the self"--I find this a massive double-standard. Why do altruists consider it good to provide something to a party that's not yourself but not good to provide something to yourself? Also, I was using in in this sense like Wikipedia said: "The term altruism may also refer to an ethical doctrine that claims that individuals are morally obliged to benefit others. Used in this sense, it is the opposite of egoism." Actually, your Merriam-Webster second definition for "altruism" is what I find immoral. Simply giving something to someone else is not altruism; doing something for other people when it actually affects your own well-being is altruism. If by "sacrifice" you mean "loss" as in "giving up a higher value for the sake of a lower one (i.e. Merriam-Webster's fourth definition for "sacrifice")", yes that would be altruism and I think that would be evil. I would not use the word "sacrifice" to describe exchanging a lower value for a higher one e.g. giving up your bean to save the woman you love; you value the woman you love more than you do a single bean. I would consider that a "selfish gain" since you're preserving one of your highest values. So, in summary, giving the bean to someone you love would be moral and "selfish"--while letting her die for your bean which you do not value as much would be a "sacrifice" and evil. Also from Wikipedia: "The word "altruism" (French, altruisme, from autrui: "other people", derived from Latin alter: "other") was coined by Auguste Comte, the French founder of positivism, in order to describe the ethical doctrine he supported. He believed that individuals had a moral obligation to renounce self-interest and live for others. Comte says, in his Catéchisme Positiviste,[1] that: [The] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely." The guy that invented the theory of altruism says that altruism is incompatible with the notion of rights. He correctly points out that the concept of "rights" is a corollary of individualism. So, if we discard individualism we are forced to discard the notion of man's rights. There's no such thing as a "group mind;" in a group, there is only a bunch of individual minds. Therefore, minds are corollaries of individuals and therefore individualism, and individualism is a corollary of rights. Therefore, man's rights are corollaries of a man's mind. Mind and force are opposites i.e. a man's survival tool is his mind and he cannot use it effectively if there's a gun pointed to his head. So, in order for a society to exist peacefully, the concept of "rights" is enforced by the government to make sure that people don't use force so that every man may use his only survival tool to the best of his ability. Is it really surprising that when you use force, you violate a man's rights and his mind? Because a man can only survive by using his mind, I believe that no society which uses force as a standard for morality can exist with prosperity. I think what you're describing is socialism or egalitarianism: societies where there's a facade of the upholding of individual rights, but the government can take it away any time they feel like it i.e. if the government can take it any time they feel like it, the absolute inalienable right to property is being violated. Morally speaking, because socialism and egalitarianism has the same moral principle--that man has no right to what he produced--socialism and egalitarianism are on the same moral level as communism. Does a mob have the right to raid an individual's home and take his belongings? If no, then the government doesn't have the right to do that since the government is simply a representative of the people. I disagree. On a desert island, what is food or anything that sustains your life, if not wealth? Examples? Right...this is why I believe that lassiez-faire capitalism results in the most prosperous society. Individuals act in their own self-interest invest in their society in order to selfishly make more money. Impractical? I'd say that Apple, Amazon.com, Google, and eBay are incredibly efficient profit-making machines.

I think Ayn Rand said something like, "I'm never going to die; the world will just end." That always makes me feel better. Also, being alive is a form of energy (I guess) and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Who knows? Maybe it's fun to be a plant.

Good riddance. From what I heard, the country is literally like Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Someone is going to have to explain this to me; the wikipedia article isn't sufficient. Now, you guys probably know that I'm not known for wanting to make things illegal. However, when it comes to the protection of copyrights and intellectual property, I think the government isn't being strict enough. I think they should be more forceful when defending a man's right to his mind and effort. I'm getting the impression that most people speaking out against this bill just want to continue using intellectual property without the owner's permission and that they're ludicrously using the First Amendment to somehow justify their theft. The freedom of speech doesn't mean you're allowed to forcibly use another property, so bills that protect property rights are completely constitutional, moral, and proper for a government. Of course, I probably don't fully understand what the bill entails; for all I know, it could be something out of North Korea. Can someone who actually understands the bill help me out here?

Well, the primaries are up soon. Am I the only one that suspects that Obama did this just so he can say that he won a war he didn't agree with?

Have a very Merry Christmas, colts and fillies! Now get off the internet and go spend time with your families and presents.

Twilight censures Rainbow Dash for not being modest... Twilight censures Rarity in the very next episode for being modest. Fuck you, Twilight. Just...fuck you.

What's the big deal? Intel makes processors that meets most people's expectations and AMD does not; therefore, Intel is an objectively superior company and it should do better than AMD. That's capitalism for ya. I think at this point, people are clinging to AMD simply out of nostalgia and fanboyism. There's nothing wrong with Intel processors!

You're right. The quantity of wealth is determined objectively by supply and demand. What's your point? And people should and do pay (I object to the government's method of paying) for education and roads. What I give back are called "wages" and they're clearly outlined in the contract between the employer and the employee and both parties are fully aware of the conditions for signing them. You're also right. Consumption is the end result of production. You can't have one without the other. Capitalism is a system of production e.g. investments and spending. You're only helping my point, Vapymid. I object to the necessity of number one, but I mentioned the alternative earlier in this thread and it's kind of offtopic since this thread is about Occupy Wall Street. Would I die without the bean since that was my only resource on the island? If yes, I consider giving away the bean to be immoral. If no, then it would be moral to keep it and also be moral to give it away. Because it's my bean, I get to say what happens to it. If it was a loved one, I value their lives more than the bean so I would give it away but I wouldn't give away the bean, just because you told me to do so. If you had a bean then you may give your bean to whomever you please under any conditions you please, but when it comes to my bean it's my choice. Sorry, I wasn't talking about the bean scenario. I was talking about our fundamental moral codes: I only DO look at principles and binary, 100% absolutes in principles i.e. I agree with James Madison when he talks about "inalienable rights". I figure that if rights are not inalienable, then they're not really "rights" then; they're more like "privileges" that society can take away at any time i.e. society "grants" you existence and peace, but only if it feels like it. I also do look at any small infringement of rights as tyranny. Again, this is because I view rights as inalienable absolutes. The flaws in the non-absolute view of rights are shown in a joke I have between me and my friend; in an incredibly bad TF2 Medic impression, he'll say: "Jaa, jaa, you have ze right to ze freedzom of ze speech, ja. You just can't say anyzing badz about ze Führer az eet hurtz hees feelings; you cant say anyzing badz about ze Party; you can't be a Jude; you can't be a geepsey; you can't be a filsee, filsee capitaleest or communeest. But ozher zhan zhat, you haze ze freedom of ze speech!" If you had trouble reading that, my friend is basically just saying that once you violate an inalienable absolute like the freedom of speech, there's no compromise between force and rights for the same reason that there's no compromise between cyanide and food. If you have the power to abridge a right to any extent, there's no logical reason why you wouldn't be able to extend that power farther and farther. I just assumed that like all OWS protesters, she says the businesses are guilty until they are proven innocent. Likewise, until I see evidence that her parents got their money through forced child labor in third world countries, I assume that they're honest and hard working businesspeople. Also, the way she worded the poster made it seem to me like she was talking about her parent's money and not hers that she made through trust funds like you're suggesting. I guess there's nothing wrong with wanting to give her trust fund money to the government, but what I found horrible was the idea that she might be saying she wants the government to redistribute her parents money. I'm confused. You say you're a believer in self-preservation but then you go on to say that you believe that the government should use force to take away a man's tools for self-preservation (abridging a man's rights is taking away is tools for life, in essence. This can be more easily understood if you imagine a starving man about to eat his food but then he's robbed an gunpoint for it). In one sentence, you say that you're "robbed" of the bean but in the very next sentence you say that "it's unethical to not give him the bean." These are different things and concepts with different moral responses. For example, I think it would be unethical to not call 911 if you see a person having a heart attack on the street because I would expect someone to do the same for me if I was having a heart attack and the lost time is negligible in my opinion. However, I don't think there should be any laws restricting people from walking away just as I don't think there should be any laws prohibiting "hate speech". I think that not calling 911 and distributing hateful material would be unethical, but I don't think either action should be banned. It's your right to decide what you do on your time and no one has the right to tell you otherwise, but just because one person deems something as unethical doesn't mean you have the right to initiate force on someone to make them do something. I think you're making the mistake of confusing kindness with altruism. Those words are used interchangeably nowadays, but they mean very different things. Kindness is helping other people while altruism is the theory that you have no right to exist if you don't sacrifice yourself to other people. It would be kind to give one out of the two thousand beans to someone dying (which I would definitely do); it would be altruism to say that you have no right to own those beans and you must sacrifice them all to other people. I reject altruism, since I think that people have the right to decide what they do with their own property. I would give the bean, but I wouldn't do it just because you told me to. I would do it because I'm a nice guy and I want to. If someone else wouldn't, the dying person's need does not justify abridging the bean owner's rights. And may I also take this opportunity to say again that The Tunnel was excellent, and the almost two and a half year development time was incredibly justified.

Of course if there was no God, there would still be atheism. Atheism simply means the rejection of the belief in a deity. For example, let's call the belief that magic doesn't exist "antimagicalism." Since magic doesn't exist and physics explains what moves everything, couldn't physicists be called "antimagicalists"?

Wow, there's a WWI mod? I got to try this! Mostly because the SMLE is one of my favorite rifles and it's definitely my choice if I had to fight in the muddy ditches of France.

As the uninitiated said to the lovers of My Little Pony: WHY THE HELL IS EVERYONE TALKING ABOUT THIS?! Seriously! Almost ALL of my friends have recommended it to me, saying that it's the best thing since sex (how would they know? lol). They're not the only ones. 99% of the Internet threads I see nowadays are about Skyrim. I'm not a fan of RPGs; I thought that the only good parts of Fallout 3 was exploring the wasteland and everything else was crap. What's so great about Skyrim?

Trivia time, everypony! Who's the fastest pony in all of Equestria? Hint: Answer: I've been asking everypony this, and very few have answered correctly. How did you do? I'm not, though. I've conceded that