Brentb

Elon Musk, chief executive of Tesla Motors Inc., said Thursday that he was opening up the electric car company’s patents to all comers. “Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined competitor,” Musk said, “but rather by the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world’s most talented engineers.” The dramatic move — automakers and other businesses usually guard patents jealously — is intended to help speed the adoption of electric cars. Many of the patents relate to electric powertrains and how to integrate them into vehicles, Musk said. The patents should provide modest help to other automakers without hurting Tesla, he said. http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-elon-musk-opens-tesla-patents-20140612-story.html#page=1 It looks like they realized that they couldn't build the electric car infrastructure by themselves.

1) hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority 2) Increased status and authority in a free market environment are primarily a consequence of the value that one provides to others. 3) Therefore, people who oppose hierarchy must also fundamentally oppose providing value. 4) Telling the truth is providing value. 5) People who oppose hierarchy oppose telling the truth

Why do they ask how to get rid of government when it is about to collapse under it's own weight? The current system is growing more unstable by the day. Will there be police departments after the dollar collapses? I don't see why anyone should rush into a burning building to plant bombs. I also don't see how normalizing killing could possibly lead to anything but mass deaths and broken and dysfunctional people. If you kill someone, then you and everyone around you will have to live with a killer for the rest of your lives.

If this is a new behavioral pattern for her then I think the question is: What has changed in her relationship with her father or with you? Or maybe what has changed that has made her feel less safe? If it was a one time thing, and not a pattern, then it's nothing to be concerned about.

You don't need to force anything. If a vaccine truly will make people healthier or less likely to get sick, then health insurance companies will charge lower premiums for those who get that vaccine, and higher premiums for those that refuse.

How do I enforce my opinions of voluntarism on people? Reason and evidence isn't a dogma that needs to be proselytized. Virtuous people seek truth. He'll come around if he's virtuous. I would say to just live your values and be curious about what he thinks and why. Questions make people think and also realize where they are lacking in knowledge.

I wasn't there, and I don't know you, but this reads like a bunch of self-attack. You may be placing too much significance on your lack of contribution. I can't tell you how many social situations I've thought about afterward and thought "God, I'm such an asshole, idiot" or whatever, and found out later that people liked me just fine. Now I just ask questions, say what I think, and got rid of the idea that I should be any other way than I am in a given moment. You didn't ruin anything unless there were other emotionally toxic people there feeding off of you. I think what's bothering you is that you think that you missed an opportunity to connect with people. There will be more opportunities, and you'll either connect or fail to connect. I don't think that it makes any sense to isolate yourself with a therapist. See a therapist if you like, but don't hold that as a prerequisite for being with people - you'd just be setting up more obstructions between you and others.

Anyone and everyone who finds out about it. Without government discrimination laws, businesses will be able to refuse sale to anyone for any reason. If some guy seems to be a crazy dick, then they will refuse sale. A company selling uranium or other harmful materials has a strong incentive to do their due diligence on their clients because: 1) they don't want to die a fiery death, and 2) They don't want to be linked to a mass murder and all the negative PR that would result from that.

If you were an active participant in the forums supporting the beliefs in these paranormal things, then you may want to make a prominent post (pinned or starred or however your site gets people attention) letting everyone know that you no longer believe in the paranormal and why that is the case.

(The reasons for actions that people tell themselves and others) != (The reasons for peoples' actions)

I don't agree. "Work" is a morally neutral term. If you drop a bomb on a city and it blows up, it's considered to have worked. If you drop a bomb and it doesn't blow up, then it would be said that it didn't work. I think you're assuming benevolent intentions on the part of the aggressors.

Looks like somebody pooped in the punch bowl. Wilton said that spanking works. Which raises the question: "To what end does spanking work?" Parents can avoid reason, thinking, and communicating by spanking their kids. That is a big positive for stupid people. Sure, the costs far outweigh the benefits in the long run, but most people don't think about the long term and stupid people definitely don't. If spanking were all cost and no benefit, then it wouldn't occur.

I don't have text conversations. Sure, people send me an address or tell me that they'll be 5 minutes late via text, or I may do the same. However, if someone texts me "How are you doing?" or "How did it go last night?", or some other conversation starter, then I'll just call them when I get a chance. I'm just not willing to spend 2-3 hours tapping on my phone to have what would otherwise be a 20 minute phone conversation. This has actually cost me a number of superficial relationships in the past.

In the case of companies or groups of people, there is clear ownership that directly ties back to people. The "company" or "group" doesn't own anything as an independent entity - all of it's assets are ultimately owned by the people who have pooled resources and have shares in the company. There is no such tie of ownership back to people in the case of government.

Apollo owns all the water in the world. You have been rapaciously consuming his water since you've been in the womb. You owe Apollo all that you own, but he has generously decided that you only pay him 30% of everything that you have or ever will have. I am an agent of Apollo, so you can give Apollo what you owe him through me. Concepts don't have property rights.

This begs the question. Does the mind exist in reality?

What are the incentives in this transaction? Presumably, each person valued the other person's cheese as higher than his own cheese. In which case they each gained something of a higher value by trading. Suppose that a starving man has a delicious piece of cheese that has 0 calories, and an obese man has an okay-tasting piece of cheese that has 1000 calories. They happily trade. Is the starving man bilking the obese man when they trade since he has acquired 1000 calories of capital? Value is not objective. Profit is the consequence of differing subjective values.

Or just lock the doors, and change the locks, if necessary. We have developed a lot of simple means to avoid conflicts. I don't know how "universally logical" would be different from logical. Shooting someone for being on your property would not be commensurate in relation to his violation of your property. So shooting someone outright would not be moral. However, if you're pointing a gun at someone, then you can put the decision on them saying "you can leave or get shot, it's your choice". If they don't leave, then it was their choice to get shot. This is what governments do to force people - they rarely ever have to resort to shooting, but the gun is always there. Governments, however, initiate force and are therefore immoral. In your example, you're not initiating force. This person is initiating force, and you're reacting to his violation.

I've been using an android app called "Player FM" that will stream podcasts.

The dimensions of a universe have to apply to the entire universe. Time and space exist throughout the entire universe. Information presupposes consciousness, and therefore cannot exist throughout the vast majority of the universe. Are you intending to make a case for a universal consciousness? Can you directly measure or observe a concept?

1) It is universally preferable to protect property rights 2) It is universally preferable to inform or warn the perpetrator, if possible, prior to using force 3) If is universally preferable to use no more force than necessary to protect your property. I just posited those three statements, but they seem about right. As far as #3 goes. Shooting and killing someone would probably be using more force than necessary, since you could hire a security company to remove the person and keep them away.

It was an exercise in thinking of what her needs and desires would be. Most of your post was talking about you wanted, so I was just curious about what you know about what she wants. I do find out about the desires and values of a woman when I'm considering her as a possible partner.

Probably option 1. What does Sally want and deserve in a partner? If there were a job posting called "Sally's boyfriend", would you meet all of the hard requirements listed there? At the same time, be honest. Tell her that you have a crush on her. That's sounds closer to the truth than "I want us to date". You know how you feel, but you don't know how it would be to date her.

Out of the pan and into the fire.

Don't talk to people who aren't listening. It's a complete waste of time. As Rainbow suggested, you can listen to them and ask them questions, but that is usually an extensive and time-consuming process to go through in an online format - it can occur over days or weeks, and the person will forget the reasoning of previous days, rehash old garbage, go off on tangents, and of course others will jump in for further obfuscation. It's a great suggestion for in-person conversations, but online I personally have failed more often than I've succeeded in getting people to question their own thinking in a significant way. Maybe you'll be great at it, but I can't herd those kittens. The only time that communication occurs is when questions are being answered. Otherwise you're just making noise. If you're making statements that are not an answer to a question in the other person's mind, then you're not communicating. Similarly, if you're asking questions that you don't genuinely have in order to direct the conversation, then you're not communicating.