rkbabang

For one you need bullets to handload your own ammunition. I don't think for a minute that loaded ammunition would be $5000 per round and gun powder, brass, and bullets would be cheap. But even if that is the case, I'm a firm believer in the division of labor. My time is worth too much to spend my spare time in my basement reloading ammo. Someone with a factory can do it much more efficiently and I am perfectly willing to pay the market price for those factory loaded rounds. It goes back to the morality of using force to stop people from selling something at a price they want to a buyer who is willing to pay.

All this talk about morals and health is just B.S. How is it moral to use force to stop two consenting adults from exchanging money for a mutually agreed upon product or service? "But I don't like people doing that" isn't a justification for using force against another human being. Not if you think human beings are "more valuable than animals".

One problem with the $5000/bullet idea. If I pay $5000 per bullet I will be much less likely to practice, in fact I wouldn't practice at all. So when the time comes and I have to fire my gun in an attempt to save my life, having only fired a gun once or twice in my life (at $5000/bullet how could I justify more practice than that?) will I be more or less likely to hit the person I am aiming at? And more importantly will I be more or less likely to hit someone else? If you wan't to save innocent lives ammunition should be cheaper so that people can practice more.

I agree completely. Not only that, there would be a couple of new industries to invest in. What do you think of that new chain of brothels with the drive-through bays setup like Jiffy Lube?

What do you think will replace it? If I Zorrofan knows that, then he'd be busy creating it. Or at the very least investing in it. And I doubt he'd share it with us yet.

I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that the vast majority of millionaires are both straight and married, which means that there would be almost as many women millionaires as men millionaires.

Smart kid. Your profession is a little easier to explain than mine. I design integrated circuits. When my son was little I was trying to explain this to him and told him that "I make chips" he asked "Like Doritos?".

None of these are specifically about investing, but I think they all apply. I love RAH. "Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events." --Robert A. Heinlein "I never learned from a man who agreed with me." --Robert A. Heinlein "One of the sanest, surest, and most generous joys of life comes from being happy over the good fortune of others." --Robert A. Heinlein "Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done." --Robert A. Heinlein "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." --Robert A. Heinlein

I read this book a long time ago, so I don't remember all of the details or the story, but I have never forgotten the message. IIRC: 1) Spend less than you make. 2) Regardless of what ever happens in your life or what stupid decisions you make or have made in the past whenever money comes in always, always, always pay yourself first, at least 10%. There may have been other nuggets of wisdom that I have forgotten, but those are the two that have always stuck with me. If you follow those two pieces of advise alone from a young age you can't help acquiring wealth.

Does the Nano offer speed granularity between 1 and 2x or are those the only two choices? I guess if that's all you have, it's motivation to learn to get used to it. I haven't tried the nano for podcasts, but the iOS podcast apps I've seen - including the official Apple one - allow you to pick anything you want between 0.9x and over 2x, so that's another thing that might make your experience better. The Nano offers 0.5X, 1X, and 2X (there might be faster, but I've never tried faster than 2x). So yes, if 2X doesn't work I need to go back to 1X. It would be nice to have more granularity.

Liberty, thanks for the tips. I use an iPod Nano right now, so I can't try the ios app, but maybe I'll switch to a iPod touch eventually and I'll try it. I always try 2X first and if I can follow it I keep it there, if not I'll switch it back to 1X. I'd say I keep it on 2X 90% of the time, there is very rarely anything I can't follow at that speed. I've lived in New England my whole life and we talk kind of fast compared to the rest of the country so maybe this is the reason. I don't know.

Thanks I'll check it out. I have a half hour commute each way and I listen to either audiobooks or podcasts every day at 2x speed (2 hours/day of content). So I'm always looking for something else to listen to.

+1, I'll 2nd these recommendations. I read these a long time ago and loved them. If you like this period, have a listen to the "Death Throes of the Republic" part of the Hardcore History audiobook length podcasts from Dan Carlin. They are episodes 34-39 here http://dancarlin.com/dccart/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=1&sort=0&page=2 it looks like he charges for his old episodes. I've been listening to him for years, so I originally got them for free as all his latest episodes are available for free here: http://www.dancarlin.com//disp.php/hharchive. If you use itunes search for Hardcore History I'm not sure how far back in the archive you can get there for free. Highly recommended. His earlier episodes on the Punic Wars are excellent as well. All his stuff is excellent.

Which "real problem"? I agree compared to things like the US's foreign policy feeding the military industrial complex the welfare system is a very tiny problem. But my original comment was in response to someone who mentioned single parent households. There are two major causes of single parent households, which are the primary reasons that there are a lot of them now and were not many of them say 80 years ago. 1) is the welfare system (you get more of what you subsidize) and 2) is the war on drugs. So when you are talking about single parent households as "the problem" then yes, the welfare system is a major cause of it. Can you cite data for this? For the drug war it is easy: from(http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet African Americans now constitute nearly 1 million of the total 2.3 million incarcerated population African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites Together, African American and Hispanics comprised 58% of all prisoners in 2008, even though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately one quarter of the US population According to Unlocking America, if African American and Hispanics were incarcerated at the same rates of whites, today's prison and jail populations would decline by approximately 50% One in six black men had been incarcerated as of 2001. If current trends continue, one in three black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime About 14 million Whites and 2.6 million African Americans report using an illicit drug 5 times as many Whites are using drugs as African Americans, yet African Americans are sent to prison for drug offenses at 10 times the rate of Whites African Americans represent 12% of the total population of drug users, but 38% of those arrested for drug offenses, and 59% of those in state prison for a drug offense. African Americans serve virtually as much time in prison for a drug offense (58.7 months) as whites do for a violent offense (61.7 months). (Sentencing Project) If you are in jail, you are not being a father to your children. If you have served time in jail you are less likely to be able to support your children and welfare is often a better option for the mother(s). Since the drug war targets young black and Hispanic men almost exclusively these communities are devastated by fatherlessness. It is very easy for rich white folk to put their fingers in their ears and say "la, la, la, I can't hear you" and pretend that this isn't happening, but, sorry, it is. As far as welfare goes I'm not going to look up the statistic now, if I get a chance I will. But from memory, the black community in the US had no fatherlessness problem (compared with today) in the 1950s and black poverty was decreasing at a rate of about 1%/year right up until Johnson's so called "war on poverty", when the statistics for black fatherlessness and poverty immediately took a turn in the other direction and has never recovered. Nixon's war on drugs starting in the early 70's only exacerbated both problems and continues to this day.

Which "real problem"? I agree compared to things like the US's foreign policy feeding the military industrial complex the welfare system is a very tiny problem. But my original comment was in response to someone who mentioned single parent households. There are two major causes of single parent households, which are the primary reasons that there are a lot of them now and were not many of them say 80 years ago. 1) is the welfare system (you get more of what you subsidize) and 2) is the war on drugs. So when you are talking about single parent households as "the problem" then yes, the welfare system is a major cause of it.

Heh. So, just an anecdotal story for you. My daily commute used to be the 4 train in Manhattan up thru harlem and the bronx. And it's rush hour one summer evening, and everyone is standing. The proximity to other warm bodies oppressive, everyone is exhausted and wants to get home, and there are these two spanish women, overweight, from the south bronx (based on where they got off to "go home"), and they are loudly having a conversation. The topic of which is LITERALLY how to (1) trick men into impregnating them so they can collect both welfare and child support (2) exactly how many children to have which is the optimal amount to collect the most from city/state/federal welfare programs and (3) how to use various monies given to them for the sake of their kids to buy, well, stuff (cable tv, cell phones etc). One girl was telling the other how she actually accomplished this. I mean, it was detailed and everything: the specific programs, filing processes, how long it takes to process, where to go buy things afterwards, etc. At some point I knew it wasn't just hot air. And I could not believe what I was hearing! I almost burst out laughing because it seemed so ridiculous once I knew they was completely serious. And the looks of the other passengers was equally incredulous. So maybe it's not everyone, maybe it's not a majority, maybe those were the only two people in the entire country who consciously made that choice. But to say something like "But to imply that poor people - particularly those born into poor circumstances - remain there because of conscious decisions is, in my humble opinion, either ignorant or self-serving." is in some cases factually wrong and (in my mind) frankly is a very middle/upper class thing to say! The reality is that you, and I, simply do not know the thought processes of some of these people, so we can opine all we want about why we think they are in their situation, but we really have absolutely no clue. Just my 2 cents. I personally know women like this. I'm glad people on this forum have lives free of such scumbags, but you should move to Massachusetts, where I lived most of my life (the Fall River or Worcester areas would be best) and you will certainly run into such women. I can only imagine what it is like in some parts of NYC or LA. Anyway I've said enough on this topic, I'll let the rest of you get back to your own world where you watch unicorns jump over rainbows.

So you saying this was done on purpose by Malaysia Airlines? Are they trying to getting rid of some of their planes this year for the insurance money or something?

so, are you saying people getting hit by lightning aren't actually cursed? No they are not cursed, that's absurd. People get struck by lightning because they angered Zeus.

Sort of like asking who is better Hitler or Stalin? Hitler is the better, obviously. If you like Stalin you have to like vodka and we can't have drunks walking around the streets. We should all be Nazis because Hitler was a teetotaler. What's to stop you from being a drunk if you are not a member of the NSDAP? Hitler is my pick as well for three reason. 1) I'm not a huge fan of Vodka. 2) Stalin killed more people. and 3) I'm not Jewish so I'd be safer under Hitler, Stalin killed just anyone.

Sort of like asking who is better Hitler or Stalin?

Yes I have read Dawkins. I think he's be apopletic if he knew how you were using his work. I think you have your argument basically backwards. We have evolved to occasionally connive, cheat, steal, etc. to propagate our genes. Men often lie to women and women to men for this reason. (See Robert Wright.) But, through culture, we overcome that various ways. Shame being a big one. While you might argue "why bother trying to overcome it?" -- again, because it doesn't work. It creates net misery. We don't need to lie and manipulate to propagate our genes. There are also good evolutionary reasons for cooperation, honesty, altruism...you know, basic good morality. As "lschmidt" said, there is good work out there on this subject. And "rkbabang" makes an excellent point which I can predict you will try to refute by saying "Yeah, but I mean only cheating when you can get away with it" -- to which I respond as I did above. You're setting up a false ideal and destroying it. The world doesn't work that way. Cheating has all kinds of ill effects, even if you temporarily have more wealth. And those who practice it eventually tend to get what they deserve, often creating major problems for the rest of us in the time being. And to add what you said. Yes, some people will lie, cheat, and steal, and get away with it, and benefit from doing so. But they are taking a huge risk by doing so. This is true in primitive societies as well as our own. Human beings can't live (very well) by themselves alone in the wilderness. They need others. Doing something that has the possibility of loosing the trust and support of your fellow man is a very real danger. In primitive societies it could mean expulsion to almost certain death. In our society it can mean a "criminal record" which will make many aspects of survival in life more difficult for you. Humans make these calculations all of the time. Yes it is tempting to take something that is just sitting there when no one is looking, but at what cost? Most of the time the possible harm far outweighs the potential gain. The people who ignore this calculation and always do what seems beneficial in the short term are likely not going to be very successful in life and will be among the poorest in society. Even those who are very good at theft (Bernie Madoff comes to mind) are living under a constant threat of being found out and having their lives destroyed. The stress alone is reason enough not to engage in such activities.

I'm just going to address this horseshit since no one else is calling you on it. That is not anyone's worldview but yours. Repeating it a bunch of times is not going to make it true. There are morals independent of a belief in deity. I don't go around murdering people and kittens senselessly because that is not the sort of behavior conducive of a world I want to live in. And If I don't want to live in that world, why would I propagate it? That would be strange and illogical. It's that simple. There is no E=mc2 reasoning needed. Morally, we act in a way that we'd like to see others act. Immanuel Kant addressed this 250 years ago. Same reason I don't cheat people, lie to get ahead, or beat children. It would lead to misery for the people I care about. I think an action that creates "net misery" is an evil one. And to head off your "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it" argument about cheating on your spouse: Yes, the tree makes a noise. Anyone with any judgment realizes that cheating eventually leads to martial trouble about 99% of the time, no matter what false hypothetical you choose to set up. If you want to invoke Nassim Taleb, let's invoke what he calls the "Platonism." You're setting up this imaginary ideal world where people's actions don't have consequences, and trying to "trap" the non-believers based on it. Well, I don't live in that world and neither do you. I think morals are absolutely, 100% above all, practical. It's not useless academic blathering. Remember, Ben Franklin said "honesty is the best policy" not "honesty is the most moral policy." Honesty works. As do other obviously sound morals. Have you read any of Dawkins' books? He readily admits to my above sentence. You are genetically programmed to think "evil" exists but it doesn't. In a somewhat similar vein, you are also genetically programed to think you should have as much fat and sugar as you can. We know that isn't the best for your material well being (fitness). My argument is that, if God doesn't exist, lying and cheating, selectively, can also be a big benefit toward gaining material wealth. We just need to overcome the evolutionary instincts to do so. But by doing so you are putting your life at risk as others try to defend themselves from you and refuse to deal with you in any peaceful way. I think that you will find it wouldn't be a very good survival strategy for an individual nor a species. Try starting a business where you selectively lie to and cheat your customers. It won't be morality that puts you out of business it will be your (former) customers and your lack of new ones.

I look at that as confirming your bias. You don't want to believe or else you'd read things that would challenge your convictions. I've read both a ton of atheistic and theistic material -to find the best explanation. While I can't say that I'm 100% in the theistic camp, to me at least, it seems to make more sense out of the world. As far as miracles go, how do you define that? I'd guess that many atheists would agree that us being here is a miracle (as in an incredibly, incredibly low probability of an event). I've heard that the chances of us being here and the fine-tuning of the universe is something like 1 in something more than a trillion. In order to get around that the fine tuning we have the multiverse. The universe only "looks" fine tuned because we happen to be in the one, out of the trillions, that set up for life. Granted, there isn't next to no evidence for that either. That's really the point. We don't know the answers to these questions. It is the religious who pretend that they do. Look at this from a primitive-man historical point of view. Primitive peoples frequently made up stories to "explain" things they didn't understand, especially those things they were afraid of (like death, floods, or thunderstorms). Also religion can be a methodology for some people to control others. There are many reasons that religion would be invented by humans over the years, but still no proof of its validity. Of all the possible answers to the "big questions": "god did it" is to me the least satisfying. I much prefer "I don't know". Why do I prefer "I don't know", because I don't. And neither do you.

Not really a trick. In my example above, for instance, any being that would punish someone for not taking something on faith really is an asshole. Why would you worship such a being? The common answer is that he is all powerful, but do you really simply worship power? I don't care how powerful it is if it's an ass. rkabang, Your willingness to stand with your convictions will be what saves your soul. There is not much room in heaven, so an elaborate test has been set up to see who has true courage of conviction. You pass. Those who worship out of fear will be judged as cowards, as sycophants, and thus fail the test. It's entirely possible. Maybe, maybe not. Nobody really knows. That would be ironic. I'll certainly have a good laugh if I end up in some Heaven/Paradise/Hashamaim/Shamayim/Nirvana/Jannah/etc after spending my life telling people that god(s) probably don't exist and there is likely nothing after this life, while all the "good", "god fearing" people end up in some purgatory. Funny, but I doubt it. Until I see convincing evidence to the contrary I think dead is likely dead.

Not really a trick. In my example above, for instance, any being that would punish someone for not taking something on faith really is an asshole. Why would you worship such a being? The common answer is that he is all powerful, but do you really simply worship power? I don't care how powerful it is if it's an ass.