Slashdot Mirror

for a clue, follow this link:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ob jectivism_essentials

I can't still understand, what politics think or know about such macro corporation, which has more power than some countries together.

MS doesn't stop to abuse dominance in software. It always makes new invesment in type of wild capitalism - closed patents, lets consumers to addict to it's products at the beginning for free(not trial, but tricky control...)

MS started invasion into space and medicine, oth.

IT doesn't deal with common standarts or negotiate for better deal for all. Just for them, because they control..

On that software is built eGovernments, super data centers, cars eletronics, warships and even nuclear submarines.. Closed source code(or mean of unreproducable compilation), standarts again. Nobody can really say how much MS can control all that MS software controlled systems. And seems users doesn't think much about that or investigation somewhere goes blind.

It is bad sign for all humanity, when there still is abuyss in ethics, objectivity and life philosofphy in general. Monopoly/dominance and silent dictate is as bad as totalitarism.

Abolish the FCC

Life is tough. Boo hoo. Now move on.

Here's the American POV, without any liberal sugar coating: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle &id=10688&news_iv_ctrl=1021

What would Ayn Rand have against Linux? Linux isn't communism.

Open source is either a hobby or a different business model -- and that includes the GPL. Programmers contribute to open source or free software for a number of reasons. Sometimes it's to acquire status (i.e. make business connections); sometimes it is to develop a product and establish themselves as experts in that product, which will then make it easy to position themselves as consultants; and sometimes it is merely for the joy of working on something cutting edge with a group of other intelligent, motivated people.

What in the above is anti-capitalistic?

The phenomenon that is open source or free software merely illustrates that there are a lot of talented, motivated, and ambitious individuals in programming. Additionally, it arises from the fact that software is difficult to design. A small shop or lone consultant could not design meaningful, robust software (barring very few exceptions). Open source is a way for small entrepreneurs to strike out on their own.

Sure, there are "hippies" in open source -- but so what? A capitalistic society makes room for free software as it does "free love."

Who is Ayn Rand?
Who is John Galt?

Since when is $100-$200 for an OS a 'low price'?

Since a video game costs $55. And how much is Mac OS X 10.3 Panther again? I seriously can't think of a fairer price for Windows. Not that it matters... Microsoft is screwed regardless of what they charge for it.

Under antitrust laws, a company can be charged with "predatory pricing" if it sets prices below those of its competitors, because the competitors might as a result go bankrupt. It can be charged with "monopoly pricing" if it sets prices that are deemed too high, because then it is supposedly bilking consumers of their hard-earned income. But if it therefore decides to set prices at the level of those of its competitors--it can be charged with "collusion" or "conspiracy," because now it is said to be no longer "competing." - Reference

Capitalism entails free competition, which means the freedom to better your rivals--even to the point of putting them out of business. Barring physical force or fraud, there is no such thing as "unfair" competition; there is only competition that your rivals may not be good enough to match. There is no such thing as "predatory pricing"; there are only prices that your competitors may not be efficient enough to meet.

I'm not an atheist, but the idea that atheism implies liberalism is ridiculous. Objectivism, a more extreme form of capitalism which inspired libertarianism, was defined by an atheist. For the record, I don't believe in libertarianism because I think it makes capitalism a kooky religion like communism (which even denies its own religious nature).

Also, not all atheists, whether they're liberal, conservative, or otherwise too difficult to label, are paranoid and hateful of christians like you are. And not all social programs for the poor are government programs. Many are private, and most of those are christian---yeah, those same christians you say don't believe in social programs. They didn't wait to get tax money to do what they felt was necessary to feed the poor, or give them shelter, or help them find jobs. Why are you if it concerns you so much?

Outsource or Stagnate
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle &id=9889&news_iv_ctrl=1021

I'm not being paid money to write this. My payment is a freer, richer, more just society, built under the only system that can provide those ends: capitalism.

Two years ago, I bought a shirt from Microsoft (the "Freedom to Innovate" shirt), which I wear proudly on occasion.

I'm not a Microsoft employee, nor have I ever been one. The limit of my association with them is that I buy and use their software. Articles such as these attempt to minimize actual grassroots people like me. But I exist!

And what right do they have to attack people for this funding friendly groups, anyway? Other corporations are not attacked when they give money to the Sierra Club, SaveOurEnvironment.org, and "Rock The Vote", or to thousands of other politically-tainted groups. It's only "astroturfing" when the author of the article disagrees with the viewpoint being promoted.

Microsoft should fund the Ayn Rand Institute. They have the philosophy that could properly defend them, but I think Microsoft is afraid of appearing too radical or offensive to some people. And that, I think, is going to hurt them in the long run.

I am not sure why it is important to make the rest of the world "like us". This is some sort of dysfunctional, Oprah type philosophy, where it is important to be sensitive, and seek others approval for our actions. I would rather we acted on principals, in our own interests, than cheese up to whatever idiots are running other countries or the UN. It is a self defeating, and inherently sick philosophy that is based on the objective of pleasing others, and making them "like us." You might want to read a little Ayn Rand

There was nothing wrong with Microsoft's use of those agreements. They involved neither force nor fraud.

For that to happen, Microsoft would have had to lie to the PC makers or threaten them in some physical, non-economic way.

And by the way, the lawsuit you're talking about was made by Caldera (now known as SCO)! They bought the rights to a defunct OS just so they could sue Microsoft on bogus anti-trust charges. Oddly, there was no giant public outcry about this (like there is with the extremely similar SCO/Linux case right now). Hipocracy and short-sightedness, that.

(See this article at the Ayn Rand Institute for more information.)

Some people might argue that communism isn't even a good idea on paper. :)

Here.

I'm not a pure libertarian, I do accept the neccesary evil of government.

Actually any modern libertarian (as opposed to "pure anarchist") would completely agree with what you said here. The "necessary evil" with a mandate to use force against people, thus better limited to using the force (i.e., military, police and courts) and NOT distracted by doing "nice" things (like, everything else liberals would want it to do).

Paul B.

"Evolution" is not a good basis for morality.

If evolution were the basis of someone's morality, then being able to rape a girl, get her pregnant, and have her raise your kid without supporting her would make you more 'successful' from an evolutionary standpoint.

If you do see evolution as the basis of your morality, then humans SHOULD see their own individual needs as the most important things on earth, and to hell with things like 'truth' or 'beauty.' Deviations from this selfishness would just be so that people could get along better and organize themselves more effectively. In short, unselfish acts would be done for selfish reasons.

If we base our morality on our evolved desires (I don't), then if robots can't serve our selfish interests, we have no obligation to create them.

On the other side of Telecom Island, Team MCI/Worldcom also worked under this odious rule. Programmers were told to fix a 20-year-old codebase, but they were forbidden to change anything.

For instance, new functionality had to be implemented without new functions! Adding a new function was too much of a change. So we had 5000-line functions with all kinds of junk in them.

Data abstraction was also frowned upon, so those 5000-line functions took a pointer to the global data structure as their argument. If two functions needed to do the same thing to the global data, the code was duplicated in the two functions: adding a third function which only did that specific action to that specific member of the global data, which would be called by the two extant functions, was an impossibility.

Source code control was performed by a(n alleged) human who distributed and collected paper reservation tickets. He wasn't totally useless, however: he drank lots of coffee. Other than that, he was a waste of a cubicle.

Add to that aged numbskulls just getting around to learning C++, and freshly minted CS grads who as usual don't know anything (what the hell are schools doing these days?!), and criminal managers ---

[If there aren't at least a thousand of those people in jail after the DoJ is finished with MCI, the DoJ will have failed. Just getting the top two or three people will be enough to fool investors and other imbeciles, but the rot is much more pervasive.] ---

and you have an industrial-scale Charlie Foxtrot situation.

And if there are any fundamentalist ARI types out there, be thankful for antitrust regulation which kept MCI/Worldcom from buying Sprint. Antitrust is the only reason MCI/Worldcom's criminal activity was brought to a screeching halt. As a Mahayana Objectivist, I think antitrust should be applied to other criminals like the music and software cartels. Under capitalism, having control of a market is a sure sign of criminal activity.

The story is probably true, and Apple is doing damage control because they know the peril to their business if they raise song prices. Perhaps they are eating the extra cost themselves, and giving up most of their already-small cut of the revenue. But what is known is that the music industry is pushing for more expensive downloads. The labels are saying it themselves.

Is this really the case any longer with Firefox? After a few months with Firebird and now Firefox, I've only found one site that doesn't render properly. I see this given as a reason for Firefox's slower adoption fairly frequently, but I haven't really encountered it at all as a user. Am I just fortunate in my browsing, or is this lack of mis-renderings the rule rather than the exception?

Would this be a vioaltion of their anti-trust agreement? Seems like this could really put the hurt on Norton, etc.

Antitrust law does not forbid you to hurt your competitors.[*] All competition does that. In fact, that is what competition is. Given a fixed number of customers, any enterprise that tries to attract as many customers as possible necessarily hurts its competitors, who will either lose customers or not gain as many new ones as they would have otherwise. Thus, the competitors will be financially worse off than they would have been had if they had been able to lay their grubby little hands on those customers. Or at least they should be. Competition is supposed to punish inefficiencies and reward efficiency, thereby allocating scarce resources the best/most efficient way possible.

What antitrust law primarily seeks to protect is competition, not competitors. Now, it might admittedly be just a little bit hard to have the one (former) without the other (latter) and much of tension within antitrust law and the debate surrounding it centres on that particular problem: should antitrust regulate structure or behaviour?

In Alcoa[**] Justice Learned Hand stated that it was not the objective of antitrust law to punish efficient companies: in case a party has had a monopoly 'thrust upon it', its position was not unlawful. However, he went on to say:

'Nothing compelled [Alcoa] to keep doubling and redoubling its capacity before others entered the field. It insists that it never excluded competitors; but we can think of no more effective exclusion than progressively to embrace each new opportunity as it opened, and to face every newcomer with new capacity already geared into a great organization, having the advantage of experience, trade connections and the elite of personnel.'

This so-called Alcoa doctrine placed monopolies under a strict per se-rule: i.e., monopolies were prohibited as such. The issue became one of structure: does an enterprise occupy a position of monopoly (within a relevant market) or not. If yes, unless it can be proved that the company is a mere passive recipient of its monopoly position, it is unlawful.

The Alcoa doctrine was severly critized, notably by Robert Bork in his The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy At War With Itself. Justice Hand seemed to find Alcoa guilty of being nothing more than a better competitor; better at doing business; in fact, Alcoa was being punished for being more efficient. And as the criticism took hold, courts reverted back to an ante-Alcoa, U.S. Steel[#] rule of reason approach centring on the behaviour of monopolizing: simply put, intent + harm. This would appear to be the (established) law today.

Bork and the Chicago schoolers sometimes seem to go futher than that however: one sometimes gets the impression that to them, the existence of a monopoly shows nothing more and nothing less than superiority in the market place. In other words, a position of monopoly is evidence of superior efficiency; efficiency is a valid exculpatory defence as it contibutes to increased consumer welfare[##]. A lot of the defence of Microsoft's monopoly case seems to rest upon this premise. See, for instance, here and here; for a more sober view, see Posner's article Antitrust in the New Economy , in particular, perhaps, pages 8-9.

Neo-classical economic theory and its antitrust exponents (to which Bork and the Chicago-schoolers obviously belong) are not without critics however. See, for instance, this piece by Metzenbaum and Foer in which they write:

'Antitrust remedies, [Greenspan] says, tend not to be efficient. His attitude is, if we wait long enough, dominant companies (po

You can report scientific facts and still ignore other scientific facts that don't lead to the same conclusion and opinions as your own.

Garmong is right - man's accomplishments in space will be best reached when such endeavors are released from the government tether.

Garmong is right - man's accomplishments in space will be best reached when such endeavors are released from the government tether.

"I do not want my attitude to be misunderstood. I shall be glad to state it for the record. . . . I work for nothing but my own profit--which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage--and I am proud of every penny I have earned in this manner. I am rich and I am proud of every penny I own. I have made my money by my own effort, in free exchange and through the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with--the voluntary consent of those who employed me when I started, the voluntary consent of those who work for me now, the voluntary consent of those who buy my product. I shall answer all the questions you are afraid to ask me openly. Do I wish to pay my workers more than their services are worth to me? I do not. Do I wish to sell my product for less than my customers are willing to pay me? I do not. Do I wish to sell it at a loss or give it away? I do not. If this is evil, do whatever you please about me, according to whatever standards you hold. These are mine. I am earning my own living, as every honest man must. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence and the fact that I must work in order to support it. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it and to do it well. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it better than most people--the fact that my work is of greater value than the work of my neighbors and that more men are willing to pay me. I refuse to apologize for my ability--I refuse to apologize for my success--I refuse to apologize for my money. If this is evil, make the most of it. If this is what the public finds harmful to its interests let the public destroy me. This is my code--and I will accept no other. I could say to you that I have done more good for my fellow man than you can ever hope to accomplish--but I will not say it, because I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I recognize the good of others as a justification for their seizure of my property or their destruction of my life. I will not say that the good of others was the purpose of my work--my own good was my purpose, and I despise the man who surrenders his. I could say to you that you do not serve the public good--that nobody's good can be achieved at the price of human sacrifices--that when you violate the rights of one man, you have violated the rights of all, and a public of rightless creatures is doomed to destruction. I could say to you that you will and can achieve nothing but universal destruction--as any looter must, when he runs out of victims. I could say it, but I won't. It is not your particular policy that I challenge, but your moral premise. If it were true that men could achieve their good by means of turning some men into sacrificial animals, and I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own--I would refuse, I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being's right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!"

"I do not want my attitude to be misunderstood. I shall be glad to state it for the record. . . . I work for nothing but my own profit--which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage--and I am proud of every penny I have earned in this manner. I am rich and I am proud of every penny I own. I have made my money by my own effort, in free exchange and through the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with--the voluntary consent of those who employed me when I started, the voluntary consent of those who work for me now, the voluntary consent of those who buy my product. I shall answer all the questions you are afraid to ask me openly. Do I wish to pay my workers more than their services are worth to me? I do not. Do I wish to sell my product for less than my customers are willing to pay me? I do not. Do I wish to sell it at a loss or give it away? I do not. If this is evil, do whatever you please about me, according to whatever standards you hold. These are mine. I am earning my own living, as every honest man must. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence and the fact that I must work in order to support it. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it and to do it well. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it better than most people--the fact that my work is of greater value than the work of my neighbors and that more men are willing to pay me. I refuse to apologize for my ability--I refuse to apologize for my success--I refuse to apologize for my money. If this is evil, make the most of it. If this is what the public finds harmful to its interests let the public destroy me. This is my code--and I will accept no other. I could say to you that I have done more good for my fellow man than you can ever hope to accomplish--but I will not say it, because I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I recognize the good of others as a justification for their seizure of my property or their destruction of my life. I will not say that the good of others was the purpose of my work--my own good was my purpose, and I despise the man who surrenders his. I could say to you that you do not serve the public good--that nobody's good can be achieved at the price of human sacrifices--that when you violate the rights of one man, you have violated the rights of all, and a public of rightless creatures is doomed to destruction. I could say to you that you will and can achieve nothing but universal destruction--as any looter must, when he runs out of victims. I could say it, but I won't. It is not your particular policy that I challenge, but your moral premise. If it were true that men could achieve their good by means of turning some men into sacrificial animals, and I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own--I would refuse, I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being's right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!"

Do you buy from Dell or Wal-Mart?

No way, I'm sure you buy from their higher priced competition.

Give me a break, you hypocrite. If you read the companies' history, you'll find they got there by the direction of their CEOs' brains.

Anybody who's got a better idea will find a way to compete. That is what capitalism is all about.

Look at Pepsi versus Coke. Pepsi wasn't always there. They had to compete with the likes of a mature and fully funded Coca-Cola in a David-Goliath type of battle. Once Coca-Cola figured out that they had competition, it was too late. Pepsi was there to stay. This scared Coke so much that they changed their recipe.

Maybe you couldn't compete in the real-world. But that's why you don't run a business. So why do you think you know enough to regulate others' businesses?

You need to read Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand.

>>so STFU about not liking HDTV.
You can always count on the 12-year olds for the insightful comments. *sigh*

No where in my post did I say that I don't like TV. And, contrary to your suggestion, I have seen HDTV, it is impressive, and I am looking forward(in a strange sort of way) to the day that my 61" screen kicks it so that I can upgrade.

What I do not like is the fact that upgrading to HDTV is being made mandatory. Why incur the added expense for something as non-essential as a television? Why not allow market forces to dictate the adoption of HDTV? Why must it be legistlated? Again, where is the benefit to the consumer by discontinuing the use of the analog frequencies and requiring people to upgrade their televisions?

The manufacturers gain by the added revenue relized from forcing people to replace all of their TVs. The broadcasters gain by raising their advertising rates disproportionately to cover the added cost, as well as adding DVD-style restrictions on use. The government gains by reselling the analog frequencies at a much higher cost. The consumer gains, how? By being able to watch "The Bachelor" in a higher quality?

It might be beyond your comprehension to understand the term "corporate welfare" but you would probably cut down on your trolling dramatically if you did a little reading. At risk of being accused of invoking the Ayn Rand version of Godwin's Law ( as well as giving you something to *shudder* think about), you might want to check out Atlas Shrugged.

Do yourself a favor: stop watching TV and read a book.

This is smelling like a troll, and I'm just giving the reader fair warning that I'm caught ;-)

Property is a creation of human beings, ultimately of the human mind. If you take someone's handiwork, you deprive them of the physical object; but even more fundamentally, you have appropriated from them the results of their productive efforts and hard-won skill. Intellectual property differs from physical property only in that there is no physical limitation -- there is no object to steal. The skill and effort that goes into the act of creation exists still, however; moreover, in most cases a substantial financial investment is made by the creator.

This is what property rights seeks to protect. The right of the creator of that property to receive full benefit from it. When you "help yourself" to the invention of another, at his expense (his skill, effort, and time), it is stealing.

Try George Reisman for your economics, and Ayn Rand for the philosophical underpinnings.

Regards!

I'm sure the grandparent has heard all this before, and prefers to believe that it is a problem with others, because his own behavior is inherently and unquestioningly spotless.

After all, he has rationality and logic on his side.

Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of a Scientology-like religion known as "Objectivism". If you don't believe me, then go read this.

Actually, America was founded on deist principles.

The First bloody Amendment gives freedom of religion and removes religion from government. I'd say that they had a Rationalist approach to principles, non?

What does this mean in light of this article?

IMNSHO, when considering priorities in Unicode, there is one reason much more relevant than how many people speak a language:
How many people want to use it in their computers?
No matter how many people speak a certain language, if they don't care about writing it in a computer there is no "natural right" to inclusion.

Some thoughts on multiculturalism "rights"

Start here.

Screw the rest of the Arab world.

7 (1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or

(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt

because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or that group or class of persons.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication or to a communication intended to be private.

The pamphlets were eventually released. But the issue is not whether a few pro-Israel writers are allowed, for the moment, to publish our ideas in Canada. The issue is that the Ayn Rand Institute had to seek the permission of Canadian customs to do so. Speech is not free if it is allowed only by permission of the state.

I'm the bastard son of Ayn Rand and most of the Libertarian Party

Although, I think the LPs should tone down the "we just want to fire everyone that works in government" rhetoric. There are some good people doing good things in government we should do our best to make certain that their work continues outside of goverment. Any major change in society will hurt people unless it is done gradually over time.

With that said, I think I've been up too late figuring out my "basis"... If line 3 is greater than line 45 then multiply line 23 by .20 otherwise... skip the next section and go kick your local congressman's ass.

"Supporters of the war keep changing the topic. Sometimes it's about what a bad person Saddam Hussein is, sometimes it's about terrorism, sometimes it's about WMDs, and now it's about what he might (probably will?) do to the Kurds if the no-fly zone was scrapped?"

Have you considered that it's all of the above?

The US is also invading a UN member nation without the explicit authorization of the Security Council. Do you realize that?

And your point is? Abdicating its right to defend itself from threat from abroad to the UN, however, would be a crime. The UN is a joke. See here for a good editorial on the subject.

If the government controls basic infrastructure, they will tax it, because it costs lots of money to run, and they need taxes to cover the expense. So what you're really saying is that it's OK for someone to profit off of basic human needs, as long as it's the government and not a corporation?

By the way, basic macroeconomics theory says that the government gets the most revenue from taxing a good for which there is highly inelastic demand (all of the basic human needs: food, clothing, shelter, air). I'm not a die-hard corporate Libertarian, I think you meant to insult Objectivists.

Well, for starters, I don't mind Great Big Blowing Void Day that much. Because I don't want kids, I don't need a girlfriend, and that makes GBBVD much cheaper. Not having kids saves me thousands a year in expenses, plus tens of thousands of year in college savings requirements. If I had a wife and kids, I wouldn't be able to retire by 40.

My Mom's dead, you insensitive clod! All because my uncle fucked up when repairing her Whirlpool. It's Maytag all the way for me. Thankfully, I got the uncle back a few weeks ago - hey, Uncle, bet you don't know why Aunt Peg was walkin' funny through the whole famn damily reunion!

Avoid spin brushes,
They don't get pubes out at all,
Aunt Peg told me so

Anyways, I don't need or want a girlfriend for GBBVD, but if I had one, I'd be sure to make sure she's the kind of gal who meets the criteria of my values system and who liked it rough. Hey, it's all about Love and Selfishness.

And what is it with women, anyways? I emailed that essay to my last girlfriend and she never spoke to me again. Then, after dissing me about Rand, she went out with some goddamn architecture student who banged her like he was on the Gong show. Shows you what she knew. Last I heard, she dumped him for a vampire fetishist who enjoyed the Sleeping Beauty series.

God, high school sucked.

This is version 0.6 of a troll HOWTO, sort of a companion piece to jsm's excellent troll FAQ. As a draft, comments and criticism are always welcome, if not appreciated :)

Section 1 - Trolling techniques

There are techniques used by successful trolls to elicit the maximum amount of responses from unthinking /.ers. This section is dedicated to explaining how to use these in the course of your trolls. Remember though, a great troll can break any or all of these and still be successful...

• Timing
  
  

  Because you're posting as an AC, your troll will generally be ignored in favour of posters using their accounts, and so getting in early is essential. A good guideline is to get into the first 20 posts, so that people reading the article will see the troll before it is swamped out. One way of increasing the speed with which you get your troll into play is to prepare them beforehand, and then quickly customise them for the current article. This is easier than it sounds since /. typically repeats stories with small variations and runs lots of similar stories.

  
  
  

  Note that this is why Jon Katz stories are pretty worthless as trolling material - by the time you've found the article and prepared a troll there's already 50+ posts on it, most of them flaming Jon Katz anyway :)

  
  
  
• Exposure
  
  

  Once you've got your troll in, you need people to actually read it. You also want replies - /.ers are more likely to read your troll if it starts a large thread. You also want to remember that some people have set their comment thresholds to values higher than 0 - to get the attention of these you either want to get your post moderated up (see Style, below) or get a reply which gets moderated up to 4 or 5, in which case your troll becomes visible to all.

  
  
  
• Accounts
  
  

  An alternative to the time-honoured tradition of AC trolling is that of creating a "troll" account. This gives you the advantage of posting at 1 rather than 0, and slashbots are more likely to take you seriously, especially if you at least sound reasonable. If you do this, try to avoid posting stuff where it is obvious you're a troll under the account - post it anoymously instead - some slightly more canny readers actually check your user info before they reply. Not many though :)

  
  
  

  The ultimate goal of the troll account is to secure the +1 bonus, which is currently received once you hit 26 points of Karma. To get there, employ the techniques of karma whoring that we see every day on /. and watch the karma roll in. And of course once you get the +1 bonus, the world is your oyster in terms of /. Posts made at a default of 2 hit even those people with the threshold of 2, are more likely to get moderated up even further if they are at all coherent, and people tend to lose their critical thinking abilities in the face of the +1 bonus. Milk it for all it's worth.

  
  
  
• Layout
  
  

  To get people reading it a troll needs to be easily readable. Make sure you break it down into easily digestible paragraphs, use HTML tags where appropriate (but always make sure you close them properly) and use whitespace appropriately.

  
  
  
• Size
  
  

  Generally a troll shouldn't be too short, otherwise it'll get lost in the crowd. A workable minimum is a couple of medium paragraphs. Conversely, it shouldn't be too long, or no-one will bother to read it. Keep it to a happy medium.

  
  
  
• Spelling
  
  

  Whilst spelling is important if you want the troll to be taken "seriously", key spelling mistakes can draw out the spelling zealots, especially if you mis-spell the name of a venerated /. hero, like Linus Torveldes or Richard Strawlman (thanks dmg). Related to this is the use of the wrong word, explaining an acronym as being something it isn't or making a word into an acronym even when it isn't.

  
  
  
• Subject
  
  

  The subject line needs to draw attention to your post without making it obvious that it is a troll. A simple statement of the main point of your argument can work here.

  
  
  
• Style
  
  

  Once you realise that most moderators don't bother to read past the first paragraph or two, you can use this fact to craft trolls that can be moderated up as "Insightful" (note that I mean this in the /. sense rather than the real-world sense). Start off fairly reasonable, making statements that are /. friendly and not being too controversial. As the troll goes on, make it more and more controversial, building it up for the coup de grace in the final paragraph.

  
  
  
• Linking
  
  

  As we all know, a post with links is considered "informative" by the /. crowd. Moderators love it, and they rarely check the links, so be sure to include as many as possible. And make them wrong - a link to the Perl website should instead point to the Python website instead, and vice versa. The other alternative to incorrect links is "useful" links to places like www.linux.org and www.microsoft.com i.e. places /.ers could never have found on their own :)

  
  
  
• Feeding
  
  

  The ideal troll requires no feeding - it runs on its own, generating flamewars between clueless /.ers for your amusement. But often a troll requires some help and so you should consider feeding it. Feeding is best reserved for people making either completely clueless responses, people making responses with holes in, or those wonderful people who write a 2000-word point-by-point rebuttal of your troll.

  
  
  
• Know your audience
  
  

  Always keep in mind the kind of things advocated on /. so that you can play on and against them. This is why anti-Linux, creationist, gun-loving, pro-corporation trolls work well - the vast majority of /.ers hold the opposite viewpoints. And if a few people agree with you, so much the better - it merely validates your viewpoint in the eyes of readers.

  
  
  
• Arrogance
  
  

  Be arrogant. You, as a troll, know that you're right. No other explanation could exist. The wronger the "fact", the more assertively you should state it. Make it clear that you are better than everyone else - you know the truth and they are just too stupid to realise it. Use plenty of sarcasm, and use "quotes" to show it to people too dumb to realise.

  
  
  
• Offensiveness
  
  

  Being offensive in your initial troll can be counter-productive - it causes moderators to mark you down as flamebait in general. But if you're feeding, then you can get away with calling /.ers all kinds of things. Make broad generalisations
  about /. readers - call them "long-haired Linux zealots", "socialist open-source bigots" or whatever. Stereotyping is encouraged - people always want to think that they're an individual, and will point this out to you given half a chance.

  
  
  
• Indifference
  
  

  Great for articles with a political or social bent, this kind of troll expresses complete indifference to the topic at hand, wondering who on Earth cares about it. An alternative method is to say that the topic only concerns a certain group of people - criminals, idiots, hackers (always use this instead of crackers) or whatever group you want to offend.

  
  
  
• Sympathy
  
  

  Appear to take the same stance as the people you're trying to troll - claim you're as much a fan of Linux as the next man, but... This way you can make all kinds of claims in the sure knowledge that you actually know what you're talking about. A great phrase to use here is "In my experience". Remember to act like all the things you're pointing out are unfortunate but true.

  
  
  
• The common touch
  
  

  Always accuse /.ers of being elitist. This is an easy thing to do seeing as a lot of them are. Claim that is their grandmother couldn't use it, then they are just into it to feel better than Joe Sixpack rather than "doing it for the average user". This is always great for working into anti-Linux trolls - attack command-line tools and poorly designed desktops.

  
  
  
• The 31337 touch
  
  

  The opposite of the above. Claim that technology or whatever is only for the elite of society and that any attempt to open it up for everyone is wrong, an attack on intellectualism and possibly even dangerous. If people were meant to
  understand these things then they would, and it's their fault if they're too stupid to learn.

  
  
  
• Contradiction
  
  

  Never be afraid to contradict yourself, even in the space of a single sentence. The phrases "I am a top programmer who codes in VB" or "I am a supporter of open source who uses NT at work and 95 at home" will be sure to get a response from some weenie smugly pointing out the contradiction. Confuse the issue more by engaging in contradiction when you are feeding - this will confuse /.ers who will then make even more stupid replies, leaving them even more wide open for response.

  
  
  

  Clues
  
  

  If you're feeling brave, give the reader clues that this is an obvious troll. The classic example here is dmg's stock phrase "I am often accused of trolling (whatever that is)", but also feel free to use phrases like "I have not read the article, and I don't know much about XYZ but I feel I must comment". If anyone responds to a troll with these kinds of clues in it, feel free to bask in the glow of knee-jerk /. responses.

  
  
  
• Denial
  
  

  If you're unlucky someone will accuse you of being a troll (surely not!) and try and ruin it for you. If you don't want it all to end there, then be sure to counter it by accusing them of being small-minded and petty, saying that it's easier for them to say it's a troll than to accept that people have different opinions. Be sure to say this in the subject line, especially if their subject was the infamous "YHBT. YHL. HAND."

  
  
  
• Claiming credit
  
  

  Given that /. has its community of regular trolls (hi guys!), it's only polite to publish your troll on one of the so-called "hidden" forums for all to see and admire. This way, you get to bask in the praise of other trolls, they get to contribute to your's if they want to, and you get an easy way to find the troll later on when you want to check on its progress :)

  
  
  

  As for when to post it, that's a matter of opinion really. You can either post it straight away or leave it will after people start biting. Remember that the troll forum is also frequented by non-trolls, and sometimes you may get a self-declared "troll-buster" try and expose you. But remember, /.ers always post before thinking, and often it doesn't matter at all.

  
  
  

  There is no real current forum at the moment thanks to various spammers hitting the sids, but try trolltalk, the original troll sid started by 80md and osm way back in the day. Generally all postings are done there as an AC, with your name at the end of the post. Include a link to the troll somewhere in the text, which ideally will be directly to the post and its replies - click on the #XX link in the thread to get there.

  
  
  
• Ending the troll
  
  

  Sometimes you just get bored with a troll, or people start posting genuinely thoughtful stuff in reply (it does happen). When this happens it might be time to own up to the troll with a helpful "YHBT. YHL. HAND." post. Sometimes people will carry on a discussion of the issue, and if you're really lucky (and it was a great troll) they will completely fail to believe you and carry on arguing. If that happens, pat yourself on the back for writing a great troll :)

  
  
  
• The cheap $3 crack
  
  

  Finally, when all else fails and your troll gets moderated down to (-1, Troll) within ten seconds of you posting it, the only honourable thing to do is to accuse the moderators of smoking the cheap $3 crack (again) and give up :(

  
  
  

Section 2 - Types of troll

1. The Maniac
   
   

   Probably the most popular kind of troll, the Maniac holds an opinion on something, and won't budge from that opinion no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented. If challenged, the Maniac will simply get more and more agitated and abusive, deriding his opponents as "idiots", "wrong-thinking", "dangerous" and "subversive". Generally the Maniac takes a position that opposes the prevalent /. beliefs, but a similar effect can be achieved by taking a typical /. viewpoint and pushing it to ridiculous
   extremes.

   
   
   

   Maniacs can be crafted for practically every article /. posts, although some are more obvious targets than others. Civil liberty articles, especially on things like censorship, DMCA, UCITA that really get /.ers riled up, are usually extremely fruitful grounds for a well-crafted maniac. The other obvious type of article is anything which could possibly involve religion, especially evolution :)

   
   
   

   Here are some fruitful avenues to explore:

   
   
   
   • The right-wing
     
     

     Always popular, the right-wing maniac (RWM) is a God-fearing, gun-toting, flag-waving American, and proud of it. They don't care about the rest of the world, unless it's to "prove" that America is better than everything else, and they cannot stand liberal whining over civil rights. They hate the moral decay of America and want it to revert into a nation of heterosexual, Christian whites like it was meant to be. Woe betide anyone that dares to suggest otherwise.

     
     
     
   • Religion
     
     

     There are two ways to approach this kind of maniac. The harder to pull off is the militant atheist, but this is quite common amongst /. posters and you would have to be very offensive to get this to work. Of course with religion trolls, the argument can go on for ever once it's started... The more common approach is the Christian fundamentalist. They are ignorant, intolerant and bigoted in the extreme. For them the Bible is the inerrant word of God revealed to man - it contains no flaws and no contradictions. Thus they are strict Creationists - mentions of evolution or cosmology will set them off on vitriolic rants. Flaming denunciations of anyone daring to contradict the "Word of God" are the way to go, and any kind of proof can always be ignored by appealing to "secular humanist brainwashing". And let's not forget, the USA is the greatest nation on Earth because it has the righteous power of Jesus Christ behind it.

     
     
     
   • Ideology
     
     

     Pick a philosophy, any philosophy. This troll is a troll with a cause - they have found some kind of ideological truth, and are out to expose every other philosophy as a sham. Whether it be libertarianism, objectivism, communism or capitalism, this troll will point out the obvious "flaws" in any other philosophies, whilst spouting dogma about their own. And the best thing is - you don't even need to know that much about what you're spouting - making doctrinaire mistakes will get both sides of the argument flaming you, adding to the fun.

     
     
     
   • Software
     
     

     This is an old favourite and crops up in many forms, covering the gamut from OS maniacs (Linux zealots, MS-apologists or embittered BSD fanatics), language maniacs (Pascal vs. C, C vs. C++, C++ vs. Java, Perl vs. Python, VB vs. everything),
     application maniacs(GIMP vs. Photoshop, Netscape vs. IE, vi vs. emacs) and also includes people who complain about how technology should only be for the 31337 hackers.

     
     
     
   • Guns
     
     

     Americans love their guns, and will always fight passionately for their Constitutionally guarenteed rights to bear arms and shoot people. Even the slightest hint of criticism of this will bring down the wrath of a thousand and one enraged gun-owners on you, so it's always a great point to work into a troll :)

     
     
     
   
   
   
2. The Expert
   
   

   The Expert is someone who is "savvy" in their particular field, and is perfectly willing to give their opinion on any topic even vauguely related to their field. The Expert is most likely to be from a field which /.ers as a rule despise - the classic example is dumb marketing guy, but try consultants, lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, executives, journalists (just think Jon Katz). With this kind of troll sweeping statements with little content are the norm, along wire dire portents of future catastrophe and dark hints of "insider knowledge".

   
   
   

   Some possible angles to exploit:

   
   
   
   • Industry knowledge
     
     

     The expert knows the computing industry from the inside - as a long-term pro, they can dispense knowledge knowing that they can "speak for the industry". Their smug self-satisfaction is bound to annoy, as is any suggestion that things aren't the way that /.ers would like it - saying "Linux requires the rock-solid guarantee of a trusted company like Microsoft" or "Apache cannot be trusted for mission-critical enterprise platforms" is guaranteed to get you denials explaining exactly why you're wrong, in excruciating detail.

     
     
     
   • Helpful hints
     
     

     With their tech-savvy (or law-savvy or whatever) experience, the expert is obviously the best person to point out what's wrong with things or to give out useful "factual" information. In fact this probably works best with lawyer trolls - for all that /.ers protest "IANAL", they certainly seem to think they could be, and any mistakes you make will send them rushing to prove themselves by correcting you.

     
     
     
   
   
   
3. Offtopic Trolls
   
   

   Not really a "troll" in the strict Jargon File sense of the word, but they certainly should be included here :) This category includes parodies, offtopic weirdness any all kinds of amusing stuff. Not really my area of expertise, this stuff is mainly done by gnarphlager and opensourceman. Thanks to gnarphlager for this section.

   
   
   

   Offtopic trolls, like any other, come in almost as many colours as an iMac, but generally not as cute. But then again, a good offtopic "troll" can affect more people than a repulsive little gumdrop on your desk, because you need to have someone SEE your desk before they can react. Simple? Moreso than even my overblown prose could indicate. Some basic examples:

   
   
   
   1. The serial troll
      
      

      Write a story. Keep expanding it. It doesn't matter what article you post it under, so long as it's high up. If you want people to recognize you, pick a couple themes or symbols, and carry them on throughout the story. Other alternatives include back linking or including the entire story, but adding more each time. Be funny if you want. Or if you don't feel like being funny, just be really weird. Someone will react.

      
      
      
   2. The random troll
      
      

      This has nothing to do with anything. Be it a stream of consciousness rant, or a description of the corner of your desk. Another favorite is a monologue, read as if spoken from any one given entity to another. The more outlandish, the better (a pair of socks talking to a mousepad, for example). If you really wanted to be artsy, work in an actual metaphor or legitimate meaning behind it, but it's not necessary.

      
      
      
   3. The vaguely related troll
      
      

      Start out with a comment about the article. Have a definite opinion of it. Then, after a little while, disintegrate into randomness. All roads eventually can eventually lead to cheese (yum), Natalie Portman, cannibalism, toasters, squirrels, futons, you name it. All it takes is a little bit of creativity. Oh, and feel free to use other trolls' motifs. Open source and all that ;-)

      
      
      
   
   
   

   General tips:

   
   
   
   • If it's funny for a fleeting moment, then it's worth posting.
     
     
   • Puns. Puns are only less vile than mimes, but it's hard to mime on /. So feel free/obligated to litter your offtopic and random bits with puns. Hurt the bastards. And if they're sick enough to laugh at them, then they'll eventually end up here ;-)
     
     
   • Obscure cultural references and injokes are always good. SOMEONE will get them eventually.
     
     
   • Several drafts of a serial or random post are common, but true elegance is being able to come up with something on the spot that still makes the top 40 posts (on a post-heavy article)
     
     
   
   
   

Section 3 - Useful trolling links

The following links contain background information useful for trolls needing quick quotes and "expert" opinions to include.

1. General purpose links
   
   
   • ddi.digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html - How to deal with USENET trolls - learn your enemy :)
     
     
   • www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html - A List Of Fallacious Arguments - Learn them and use them liberally
     
   • www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html - USENET troll HOWTO
     
   • www.baiting.org - Baiting.org
     
   • www.fieldingtravel.com/df/index.htm - Fielding's DangerFinder - A guide to what and where's dangerous
     
     
   
   
   
2. Religious links
   
   
   • www.godhatesamerica.com/ - God Hates America
     
   • www.chalcedon.edu/creed.html - The Creed of Christian Reconstruction
     
   • www.demonbuster.com - How to cast out your demons and do spiritual warfare
     
   • riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/thi ngs.htm - Things Creationists hate
     
   • www.icr.org/ - Institute for Creation Research
     
     
   • www.xenu.net - Operation Clambake - The fight against Scientology on the net
     
   • www.hom.net/~angels/ - Citizens for the Ten Commandments
     
   • www.bju.edu/rcnbc.html - The difference between Catholics and Christians
     
   • www.geocities.com/prazske00/biblequotes.html - Bible quotes by category
     
     
   
   
   
3. Political/economy links
   
   
   • www.aynrand.org - The Ayn Rand Institute
     
   • www.reason.com - Libertarian site
     
   • www.freerepublic.com - Right-wing stuff
     
   • www.jbs.org - Excellent site for all kinds of right-wingery
     
   • www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html - Web economy bullshit generator
     
     
   
   
   
4. Crackpot science links
   
   
   • www.fixedearth.com - The Earth Is Not Moving
     
   • www.jir.com/index.htm - The Journal of Irreproducible Results
     
     
   
   
   

If there was only one person on the planet, there would be no need for morality.

Very good points. However, I don't think that Man only needs morality when he lives in a society. To paraphrase good ol' Ayn Rand, a Man on a desert island would have a great need of morality. You point out that what enhances the survival of a society is Good, and that which does not is Evil. Same thing for a single human - what helps him survive is Good, and what kills him is Evil.

On a desert island, with survival as his goal, a man must decide that it will be Good for him to build shelter and eat fish (the kind without spines...), and Evil for him to become food for sharks.

Things obviously get harder with more people and more complicated issues, but as long as you have wants and needs, you need morality even by yourself. In fact, you have morality even if you don't want it because it is what tells you how to achieve your wants and needs, and which ones to ignore.

The shorter version: libertarians suffer from the same problems as Marxists. They've even got Rand to substitute for Lenin.

Libertarian != Objectivist. And even Objectivists don't meet my definition of a cult.

Since I was in a cult for ten years, though, I am perhaps a bit more careful about how I use the term than are others who haven't been touched by a cult. <wry grin>

Utopian thinking is one very common characteristic of cults, but it's also common outside of cults. There are plenty of people and groups who tend towards utopianism, but who don't use thought reform techniques or otherwise meet the usual criteria for being considered a cult.

I do consider a specific offshot of Objectivism called Neotech to be a cult. Objectivism itself contains a number of cultish elements, but I wouldn't term it a cult. It's just a group of people whose thinking is overly black and white and tends not to let the facts get in the way of a good theory.

Libertarians , on the other hand, are a bunch of independent SOBs who have trouble agreeing on enough issues to form a political party, let alone a cult. ;gt; Some libertarians annoy me, but cultists they ain't.

Canada has problems of its own. Click here for an example.

"I have written this calendar software. I hereby demand that anyone who wishes to use this software pay me $50 for the right to use it. If you do not may me $50, you may not use my software."

Fair enough. But once I pay you $50 for the software, it becomes my software, and I'm free to give it away to my friends and family if I choose to do so.

At that point, my copy of the software is MY property, NOT yours. You have NO RIGHT to tell me what I can do with MY PROPERTY. Taking away the rights of people to use their own property in the manner they choose is called Communism, and I think history has proven very well (1 billion people murdered in a 50-year period) that it doesn't work.

How can you OWN something that you've already SOLD or GIVEN AWAY to SOMEONE ELSE? If you SELL it, it isn't YOURS anymore, it belongs to WHOEVER YOU SOLD IT TO.

I'm talking morally, not legally. The law hasn't yet caught up with morality.

Learn truth; don't be idiodic.

Do you also think all physical products should be free (beer and speech)?

I believe that once you own something, you should be free to do with it whatever you want (other than bashing someone in the head with it, or something violent of that nature, of course). It's wrong to tell someone else what they can and can't do with their own property. If I buy a copy of that song, that song is my property, just like if I buy a copy of a car, that car is my property, and I should be free to give it away or sell it to whoever I want!!!

I'm getting pissed off at your Communist-In-Capitalist-Clothing game. If this were Kuro5hin, I would give you a "1" or "0". This being Slashdot, all I can do is mark you as a "Foe".

Learn more about what I believe at The Ayn Rand Institute and The Libertarian Party. Read them, educate yourself, become a better person. And don't troll Slashdot.

I know, I know, I'm feeding the trolls. I guess I'm bored enough to humor them for a while longer.

My television has scarcity. There is only one of it. The same with my car. Only one of it. The same with my computer (well, actually, four of them rather than one, but still a finite number). Also, they are mine and you can't have them unless I give them to you. If I gave you my television, I wouldn't have one.

However, if I have an infinite number of televisions, and I sell an infinite number of them to your friend, and he gives an infinite number to you, what's the problem? I still have an infinite number of televisions, your friend has an infinite number of televisions and he obtained them in a moral way (buying them from me), and you have an infinite number of telivisions and you obtained them in a moral manner (your friend, who obtained them in a moral manner, gave them to you). What's the problem?

If I give you a copy of a song I write, it becomes YOUR property (morally, if not legally), and it would be morally wrong and Communistic of me to try to FORCE you to use it or not use your own new property in a certain way.

You should expand your mind and learn to care about freedom. You should start by visiting the Libertarian Party and learning why government interference in the private lives of consenting adults is BAD. Next, you should take The World's Smallest Political Quiz, sponsored by the Libertarian Party. Chances are, you may already have many Libertarian views! The transition to Libertarianism might not be as hard as you think. I used to be just like you until I learned to care about freedom.

Next, to learn about real Capitalism, not fake enforced-by-government-mandate capitalism (also known as Socialism/Communism), you should visit The Ayn Rand Institute. She's is, in many ways, the father of modern pro-capitalist anti-government-regulation thought. You should read her books, too.

Do these things, and you'll see the world from a different perspective. A *free* perspective.

I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New
York's skyline. Particularly when one can't see the details. Just the shapes.
The shapes and the thought that made them. The sky over New York and the
will of man made visible. What other religion do we need?...Is it beauty
and genius they want to see? Do they seek a sense of the sublime? Let them
come to New York, stand on the shore of the Hudson, look and kneel. When
I see the city from my window -- no, I don't feel how small I am -- but
I feel that if a war came to threaten this, I would like to throw myself
into space, over the city, and protect these buildings with my body.

-The Fountainhead

The building stood on the shore of the East River, a structure rapt
as raised arms. The rock crystal forms mounted in such eloquent steps that
the building did not seem stationary, but moving upward in a continuous
flow - until one realized that it was only the movement of one's glance
and that one's glance was forced to move in that particular rhythm. The
walls of pale gray limestone looked silver against the sky, with the clean,
dulled luster of metal, but a metal that had become a warm, living substance,
carved by the most cutting of all instruments - a purposeful human will;
the skyscrapers, the shapes of man's achievement on earth.

-The Fountainhead

...those hatred-eaten mystics, who pose as friends of humanity and
preach that the highest virtue man can practice is to hold his own life
as of no value; parasite(s) in spirit, who plunder the ideas created by
others...There is only one state that fulfills the mystics longing for
infinity, non-causality, non-identity: death. A mystic relishes the spectacle
of suffering, of poverty, subservience, and terror; these give him a feeling
of triumph, a proof for the defeat of rational reality.

-Atlas Shrugged

For more information on Ayn Rand and Objectivism, go here.

I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New
York's skyline. Particularly when one can't see the details. Just the shapes.
The shapes and the thought that made them. The sky over New York and the
will of man made visible. What other religion do we need?...Is it beauty
and genius they want to see? Do they seek a sense of the sublime? Let them
come to New York, stand on the shore of the Hudson, look and kneel. When
I see the city from my window -- no, I don't feel how small I am -- but
I feel that if a war came to threaten this, I would like to throw myself
into space, over the city, and protect these buildings with my body.

-The Fountainhead

The building stood on the shore of the East River, a structure rapt
as raised arms. The rock crystal forms mounted in such eloquent steps that
the building did not seem stationary, but moving upward in a continuous
flow - until one realized that it was only the movement of one's glance
and that one's glance was forced to move in that particular rhythm. The
walls of pale gray limestone looked silver against the sky, with the clean,
dulled luster of metal, but a metal that had become a warm, living substance,
carved by the most cutting of all instruments - a purposeful human will;
the skyscrapers, the shapes of man's achievement on earth.

-The Fountainhead

...those hatred-eaten mystics, who pose as friends of humanity and
preach that the highest virtue man can practice is to hold his own life
as of no value; parasite(s) in spirit, who plunder the ideas created by
others...There is only one state that fulfills the mystics longing for
infinity, non-causality, non-identity: death. A mystic relishes the spectacle
of suffering, of poverty, subservience, and terror; these give him a feeling
of triumph, a proof for the defeat of rational reality.

-Atlas Shrugged

For more information on Ayn Rand and Objectivism, go here.

Actually, the FAQ page states that it is a non-profit organization. My bad. You can justify a non-profit venture because of the type of world we currently live in which gives people incentives to donate.