I have a general question for SOLO.  What are the ethical principles involved with revealing and fixing bugs in hardware and software sold to third parties?  This issue came up recently while I was writing about the Intel Pentium flaw that forced a recall of the chip in 1994.  Below is my analysis so far. 

I'm considering applying to the Objectivist Academic Center.  I was wondering if those of you who have gone through the program or are currently in the program could answer a few questions about it. 

Okay, I'm back again venting about TAS/TOC.  Am I the only one that wonders about the inconsistency with these definitions? 

In the first paragraph on the page about Objectivism:
In her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and in nonfiction works such as Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand forged a systematic philosophy of reason and freedom.

Does anyone know where I can find a copy of David Kelley's article "A Question of Sanction"?  The only electronic link to that article that I could find pointed to Wetheliving.com, which no longer exists.  So obviously, this link is broken:  http://wetheliving.com/boston/sanction.html

Many months ago, while reading Viable Values, I had scribbled on the bottom of p. 36 "Game theory = contractarianism."  As I was re-reading that chapter recently, I couldn't remember what exactly about that section triggered the game theory connection.  Today, however, I found that it was dead on the mark.  Morals by Agreement, written by Gauthier and quoted by Smith as a prominent Contractarian philosopher, has a chapter on Bargaining and Justice where he base's his arguments for justice on game theory.  There it is, in black and white, the connection between the two.  Part of me is just tickled that I was able to pick up on that connection without having it explicitly spelled out for me.  The other part wants to give major props to Dr. Smith for her wonderful analysis and dead-on description that allowed me to reach that conclusion.

As a former TOC supporter and occasional participant in their summer seminar, I was originally very startled by Diana Hsieh's leaving their fold.  Although I was not very active with TOC, I still had a positive impression.  Diana's departure opened my eyes to the possibilities that something was fundamentally wrong with them.  I was determined to finish my PhD (still another couple years away) before re-visiting the philosophic issues stemming from David Kelley's departure from ARI.  But today I read TOC's mission statement and found that not only was it difficult to determine what exactly they meant, but that they are fundamentally changing what Objectivism is, beyond what even Kelley said was possible in his statement on open vs. closed systems.
In the first sentence of their mission statement they say "...the core Objectivist values of reason, individualism, freedom, and achievement."  Since when has individualism, freedom, and achievement become core values of Objectivism?  Even if you grant Kelley's argument that Objectivism is open, that list of values is certainly not anything core unless you fundamentally change what Objectivism is.  "Achievement"?  What the heck does it mean to say "achievement" is a core value.  This morning, I sat on the crapper and achieved a satisfying crap.  Is that a core value?  WTF.

“The Center promotes these values by articulating their meaning and implications..”  how does articulating a value promote it?  Don’t you actually have to – promote them?  Later in the paragraph they say: “We seek to influence the course of debate and the climate of public opinion in these arenas…”  Sounds to me they aren’t interested in winning the debate, only influencing it.  I suppose influencing toward the core values mentioned above, but it’s certainly not clear.

I've heard from several people that Mises Institute is anti-Rand.  From what little I've seen of the Institute, they take no "official" position for or against Rand, so I was a little confused by those statements.  Is it that its scholars still agree with Mises' subjective values and support anarchist scholars?  Is this what is meant by anti-Rand, or is there something else?  Are there any specific examples that I could reference?