one single rights-subsuming ( privilege-subsuming ) self-protecting party-system has taken over, lad, and
the same gov't that attempted to commit Patriot II without permitting the governed to know about it you are saying.. doesn't block access to public records?
sophistry.
"of course public records aren't blocked" the logic goes... "only non-public records are blocked from the public, dummy!"
"Power is corrupt by definition, because power requires the initiation of force (power is defined by coercion, rather than voluntary association). Logically, the individuals most interested in gaining power are those with a desire to control others. Peaceful individuals -- those who respect the concept of personal liberty and personal responsibility -- tend to be the ones who don't want anything to do with political power."
Yeah.
Notice How The Word "Political" is assumed throughout, yet made explicit at the very end...
Discussion is a kind of power ( that many are excluded-from, for underlying reasons that don't have their origin in 'politics' )
Right-to-vote is a kind of power ( remember the term 'suffrage', people? racism/sexism/chauvanism isn't political, it is merely cultural-belonging prejudice, us/them with appearances triggering the group-boundaries/reactions, and 'politics' being merely a bunch of labels ladled ontop: animals have us/them unconscious determinations, and I don't see any valid point in accusing them of politics! )
Self-command is a kind of power..
Right-to-BE is a kind of power..
Health/well-being is a kind of power..
Tranquil/Immoveable Mindfulness is a kind of POWER, and I don't buy that it is inherently corrupt!!
Ah, I just realized that the ones committed to making sure that 'power' be defined/assumed political, are committed-to controlling-the-definitions so as to prevent alternative knowing...
interesting...
IF AMD released a desktop version of their hammer, the "Athlon 64", and...
... there wasn't an Athlon 64 version of MS-Windows,.. which OS do you think would push sales?
AMD's suppressing Athlon 64 is partly because the margins are better on the Opteron-class's market, and..
.. because if they put 'em out, then they'll be moving the market-share boundaries to reduce MS and grow Linux, and MS won't allow anyone, anywhere ( who's a 'partner' ), to do that ( see the latest bit where they *coded* broken style-sheets to make Opera users non-able to work well with msn, and remember how they pressured IBM so suppress OS/2 ( if what I'd read about the evidence presented in the pre-Bush prosecution of MS was correct )... )
Or, try DeskNote a929, which you can price at PriceWatch ( though I don't see any of the 1400x1050 versions there ), or on froogle.google.com, whough they don't sort-by.. anything.. apparently...
OR.. wouldn't it be prior-art to have a mathematical-formula describe a universal mathematical form?
Algorithms are discovered, not invented ( though it may feel-like invention, but if genetic-algorithms can discover better sort-algorithms, then it is discovery. Period. ).
Re-labelling an algorithm a 'method', as our current culture/religion does, to permit Law Enforced Monopoly ( a LEM just as monarchy is a monopoly, and we pretend to be opposed to monarchy... : ) is.. phony, really...
My thought is that an implementation/expression of an algorithm could be patented ( like, say, a C implementation of it ), IF the language is.. damn, how-to-say.. . . sufficiently concrete ( as-in Not Mathematics Itself ).
Therefore, someone could patent a C-version of an algorithm, but that patent wouldn't cover any other language implementation of it.
Messy? perhaps, but it would, INSTEAD-OF permitting patenting of mathematical-forms their-own-selves ( which is the same game 'Kings' and 'Emperors' and 'Authority' and 'Churches' play ), induce proliferation of language-diversity, and that is a kind of innovation, so that particular trade-off I consider good.
Our society is ruled by persons in government, not by "corporate persons" who are legal fictions and don't even have a vote.
Man, oh, man.
Marketing isn't committing voting?
(political) Careermaking isn't committing voting?
Lobbying isn't committing voting?
Rigging regulations, laws, taxes, awareness, behaviour, context, civil 'reality' to.. accommodate one's Assumption.. and not others.. isn't committing voting?
one can't possibly be that naïve...
As for the earlier comment ( about socialism being The Sedimentary Lifestyle, and capitalism being dynamic.. I believe that dynamism is a phase that civilization/society goes through ( hence them damned periodic revolutions, going 'round and 'round, that way and this ), and stratification/calcification is what happens after the dynamic phase... look at Hitler's dynamic-at-the-beginning group/society, it got rigid, just as ours is now getting, and did-it quicker than ours does, but that's because reasonably pure fascism short-circuits/annihilates community efficiently...
Socialism's 'capital' is belonging-force ( or belonging-enforcing )
Capitalism's 'capital' is Economic Position ( conjunction of money +image +social-position +title, or one's worth is how much of 'others' is worth-less-than-oneself )
'Society's 'capital' is social-awareness's seeming/saying... ( hence the fashion-scene: it doesn't matter whether society's 'seeming/saying' is valid or not, just that it is saying is sufficient )
Civilization's 'capital' is.. what, concerted ignorance-force?
I'm thinking of the conjunction of beaurocratic-rigidity, ignorance-of-all's-worth [ or (some)-one's worth, rather than enforcement/authority-'worth', nuqular family or otherwise ], the being in-love-with being-part-in-one-machine.. enforcing, yet hating/opposing community-including -and- being open and unitary, simultaneously... ( comical, that particular bit, machine-part's good because then one has no responsibility, and community-among's bad, because it requires relationship-awareness. Gutless..? ), assumed authority ( what guy-culture calls 'BS' ),.. objects instead of being+way... the whole pattern of it...
Actually, what I was getting-at was fundamentaller:
allowing anyone to control-the-definitions, or torque-the-assumptions, or 'authoritatively' arrange somewhat-false assumption into being-assumed 'normal', for any reason, in any context, in any way, means allowing them to own one's totality, or whole-potential... ( or allowing 'em to own at-least-some-of one's totality and whole-potential: it's like being slightly-having-cancer.. somewhat isn't entirely-valid a concept, in this context )
Figure it this way:
Say I'm arguing with a hospital that rigs their meals for their patients to happen all-at-once, and that means that they are 'understaffed' 3x/day, and some patients don't get fed, and some patients get injured by the rushed 'care', etc...
Say that simply changing from a batch-prep kitchen system to a continuous-prep system, and asking the patients whether they'd like their meals earlier than the Standard Meal Time, or later than the Standard Meal Time, would mean some statistical spread so that the hospital wouldn't be 'understaffed', anymore, they'd be entirely able to manage...
Say the hospital won't allow awareness of this assumption that-determines-potential, because they use all means they can to keep everyone in the assumption they are in-love-with ( and this alternative means assuming a patient is human, and has valid, real human-worth, of course, other's human-worth threatens ASSumed Institutional Amportance[tm]... )...
They may even validly believe that they're getting increased potential-funding ( if they live/work in a political-world ), but doing-this undermines worth, and grows false-assumption-mode.
Accommodating this grows false-assumption-mode.
Anything other than destroying this: grows false-assumption-mode.
If one is to be integrity, one must commit total living integrity, and absolutely non-allow bogus-'integrity'.
In Other Words, whenever they ( or anyone else ) deploys FUD, bogus-reasoning, ignore-the-important -to- concentrate-on-whatever-we-say-is-'urgent', etc. we clue-in to what ignorance-commitment's doing, AND attack the method of ignorance-committing as-it-happens.
Behold:
Essence-of-integrity is the ultimate weapon.
( actually, from the buddhist AND from the nagual perspective, this is a key-method of mind-survival )
raidtab? MDADM's better, it can take care o'itself
on
Managing RAID on Linux
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
at O'Reilly, mdadm
and, I'd recommend Enterprise Volume Management System rather than LVM ( Logical Volume Manager ), simply because LVM's seems to be being dropped as
redundant ( ironic, that : ) as EVMS gets more effective, and I don't want the conversion-work from LVM to EVMS, if I can just do EVMS right now, see
Do Not, EVER, enable s.m.a.r.t. on a Promise controller-chip connected drive ( your machine will be killed dead. Period. No magic sys-req key, no anything. it crashes the PCI bus, and I've bothered the kernel developers about this until it was discovered that this was the case )...
Notice that I said controller-chip, rather than only-their-RAID-controller-chips, mine's a straight ATA100 chip, and it kills the system the instant I try to enable smart in any device hooked up to it.
yes I've lost stuff to that, and no I'm not happy.
Promise's determination to prevent smart-capability on all devices connected via their chips is.. killing ( machine-integrity-killing, that is )
of the emerging science of complexity
Damn funny, that...
Secondly, it was in New Scientist, years ago ( paper edition ) where it was noted that each dimension of complexity is equivalent to about an order-of-magnitude increase in detail:
Having neurons ( synthetic neural-net ) that stimulate other neurons, only, in one system, and having neurons-that-stimulate and neurons-that-suppress in a second system, the first system would require 10x~100x ( IIRC, it actually may have been a factor of 10 000 ) as many neurons to get the job done, as the second.
Interestingly, our neurons communicate by stimulative synapses, by suppressive synapses, by pattern-of-signal, and by nitrous-oxide diffusion ( as well as possibly electrical conduction ), so the mere 100 000 000 000 neurons we're born with
( with ~100 synapses, and ~1000 dendrites on each one, +/- an order-of-magnitude, in short a stunning quantity of connections )
can accomplish as much as many-more of a less-dimensionally-deep neural-net...
And that is boggling, but the principle, that each extra ( necessary ) dimension removes the need for a quantum-order-of-magnitude of detail-level-things, holds reasonably well... ... is elegant, and very useful ( try simplifying your business/processes/anything this way... 'The 7 Habits..' does this, unconsciously... )
"The Santa Fe Institute is a private, non-profit, multidisciplinary research and education center, founded in 1984. Since its founding SFI has devoted itself to creating a new kind of scientific research community, pursuing emerging science."
"Operating as a small, visiting institution, SFI seeks to catalyze new collaborative, multidisciplinary projects that break down the barriers between the traditional disciplines, to spread its ideas and methodologies to other individuals and encourage the practical applications of its results."
And if the opponent-machine is committing a DoS/flood-attack against my connection/machine?
Dropping the packets isn't going to save me from paying for the bandwidth, or unclog my connection ( this IS assault, we're talking about ), and no matter how I makebelieve that "they aren't touching my machine, therefore I have no right to touch theirs", it isn't that clear/simple ( they are obliterating my resources, for starters ):
If A PROCESS among their machine is attacking me & costing me, then have I the right to kill that process's action..?
If not, then assaulting/damaging others' ( by losing them their ISP/connection, or costing them thousands of dollars in bandwidth, or obliterating their livelihood's function ) is a right, and neither one's-own-resources, nor defensive-action is *equal* a right.
This *is not* the same as the "gun rights" discussion, though similar, because what I'm talking about is the right to kill their gun, not to kill them, see...
I use the first-initial, second-name pattern, not merely with one of my online-accounts, but with one of my bank-accounts, even, because I'm in the process of switching from being commonly-known-as my first-name to being commonly-known-as my second-name.
Period.
It takes time to get everything sorted-out, and everyone-one-deals-with adjusted, and fucking-up a name-change means sabotaging one's ID, for one thing ( possibly also property/business/will-ownership ), so I'm doing it as gradually as necessary.
Actors have to have unique name-identifiers ( within their union ), because their primary 'buzz-inducing' strength is their name, so when Michael Fox ( the guy who's now hammered by parkinson's ) went to join the actors' union, he got told that 'Michael Fox' was taken, so he changed it to 'Michael J. Fox', even though he hasn't a middle-J-name to justify it ( IIRC ). His choice was: do that or non-work.
Also, anyone who's had their name become part of an abuse-(self)identity ( Ohhh, look at molested/worthless/whatever-little-Chris... ), has to change the name-they're-known-by in order to get leverage in undoing shoved-in negation/worth-suppression from their unconscious mind,... or they aren't going to get past the unconscious limitation-of-their-worth ( this I concretely know from experience ) to become a whole, operational, autonomous-worth person and full-human.
what if they ( and he seems to have a scary/extremely-capable reputation ) use media-players to infect the in memory copy of the gnutella-net client ( linux filepermissions preventing infection of the/usr/bin version ), or to simply attach a small executable onto the running-in-memory client ( a wrapper, sorta ), would that work?
It'd bypass the checksum/tripwire test for it, right off, too...
Of course, then we'd also see Iraq/Iran/Israel / Pakistan/India / China / North Korea use 'em too, but isn't that merely 'escalation'?
Hey, wasn't WWII merely a sequence of 'escalation'?
...
I'm nominating our civilization for a Darwin Award, now, because I don't see anyone doing the nominating after WWIII... ( the remnant'd have, ah, other concerns...
Pimsleur realized that we don't learn language as children by writing, by rote, by lists, or any of that junk, and realized that sound-forms and meaning-patterns were key ( any mother could have told him half of this, at least, but chauvanism enforces ignorance to protect its 'authority' and 'ass-umption', and yeah, I battle with my ignorance too: I'm criticizing the mechanism-of-ignorance, not some-ones who have it... )
Therefore, he made a language-learning program based on learning language the way we are born to.
Their "travellers" editions are 8 tapes, 16 lessons, and aren't enough for more than "oh, I'm going through the province/prefecture/canton of XYZYZ, and need to be able to get by...", but I gather that their Level 3 course is good-enough to be able to understand basic philosophy-discussion and carry oneself in business negotiation...
Also, it used to be that one could buy individual units ( Tape 1 French, ferinstance ), so one could get a tape to discover how stunningly effective it is, compared with Standard Model language-training, ring 'em up and ask 'em if that's still on...
Damn! I just hit that link, and they've stuck the first lesson of Spanish for speakers-of-American online ( no I don't know if it's Latin American Spanish or European Spanish, and IIRC they had both, years ago ), it's up in Real Audio, so you can get a taste for the effectiveness of it...
Part of the staggering effectiveness of it, is.. it is using the same hear-a-sound-form, do-the-sound-form, hear-more-sound-form, do-more-sound-form, associate-it-with-meaning, syncopate-practice so meaning/sound-form units get imprinted in long-term-memory... that got us our own language ( another part of it is the lesson-length, not insufficient, not over-training )
Yes I know that you said this was for Arabic speakers, but I want you to know about the difference between easily effective language-training and the standard stuff, and I know they used to do commissions ( the language Twi was one commissioned by the Red Cross, I believe ), and I want your results to be good.
I hope you find good means, get good results, and create good luck.
Re:You misunderstand completely
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 1
If it is God, beyond Time and Space, then how come it is limited-to-within-male-gender, then??
Obviously non-infinite, any christian male 'god'...
I'm a buddhist tulku, so my take on all this is that.. much of it is ( at best ) idiocy:
1. Occam's razor is interpretive, as another ( above ) noted, so underlying assumptions define what is 'seen' as simpler/eleganter versus what is 'seen' as not-simpler/eleganter.
2. Some science can explain/predict, some can only describe-what-is, and our cultural chauvanism/make-believe is that descriptive science isn't as Important/Authoritative as explanatory science, so all sorts of BS goes on when from the observer's position no more than description is warranted.
3. According to scientism ( yes. it. is. a. religion. ) mind isn't really real ( my favourite form of it is
'it is ( scientifically ) known that.. knowing.. cannot be',
which is perfection-of-hypocrisy ), but Time and Space ( and particulate matter ) are real ( field-matter not counting, of course[tm] ), even though non-locality ( aka mind aka quantum-entanglement ) can be seen in quantum-stuff, in quantum-stuff-spread-over-hundreds-of-kilometres, in schools-of-fish ( non-local coherency that goes quicker than re-action allows but action implies knowing/mind, so therefore... ), in the famous electron ( or buckyball, now ) interfering with itself while it goes, simultaneously/non-locally through 2 physically-parallel slits... ( there's one, 'simplest/elegantest' by what standard? ), or a martial-artist's KI, or...
I've got a textbook on 'the hard problem of consciousness', and though it was written by ones of western culture ( I'm a tulku, western-body, eastern-deepmind ), even it admits that consciousness is only a 'hard problem' when one assumes that mind cannot be real... ( reductionism/mechanism/scientism is a reaction against us-possibly-being-not-god: fear-rooted prejudice, only. ).
Newtonian Mechanics didn't permit mind among universe: all is clockwork. Will, let-alone our-will, cannot be. That is Newtonian Mechanics' Law. This 'law' has been used as means of ignoring responsibility-for-action by many, against many.
Contrast that with cause/effect among mind, where the meaning this-soul's apparent-minds commit land on this-soul in future apparent-mind-manifestations ( or 'days' or 'lives' or 'incarnations' or 'someones', different words, same reality )...
Buddhism has the single-word for it 'karma', the Bible calls it one's 'robe', see here, or 'putting their deeds on their heads', or This Way... both extremely-different traditions hold it to be the case, yet the Bible assumes man-style-motivation of god so much that it isn't possible for universe to be instantiated to intrinsically include cause/effect itself, there has to be some authority doing it to all ( which shows god's limitation, 'he' couldn't get the universe to take care of itself or balance or express... )
Here's another one, the language the bible was written-in assumed that god-itself couldn't be gender-nugatory..., so wasn't that assumed simpler/eleganter than some non-men-centric reality?
Statistics also requires reality be mindless-in-nature, that reality be non-mind-holding.
If mind is, though, it is in universe, and that means it exists within universe ( baby-steps-here ), and that means universe-dimensions include enough depth for mind to be real in 'em ( just as they have to be N-dimensionally deep-enough to contain N-1 dimensional branes, according to Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe. ).
Buddhism holds that there isn't some Male Authority Patriarch God[tm], but buddhism does hold that shedding ego/false-mind, gaining deep-mind, is possible,
does hold that going-from-there shedding deep-mind gaining soul/very-subtle-mind/third-attention is possible,
and does hold that having shed bogus ( transient- ) minds it is possible to gain Awake! condition ( hence Buddha == Awake!-Soul == Enlightenment... Liberation is lesser ).
Buddhism's been using scientific-method for a couple of thousand years ( current cycle ), but it has been doing so assuming that mind is ( rather than is-not ), and knows that all is dependent on the observer ( Einstein et al re-discovered this ), and knows that there are different kinds of doubt, some valid and some not...
It is scientific analysis of mind allowing Universe.
It is effective, and THAT is the ultimate standard.
No I'm not going to claim most who label-theirselfs 'buddist' are scientific-method rather than religious, any more than I will allow that most who are among western 'science' ( which James Burke says is 'dragged, kicking and screaming' into the present ) are scientific-method rather than religious.
It is, to this-one, all-or-nothing ( if one values absolute truth ): one can commit, totally, to knowing universe's truth, on its terms, or one can commit to phony truth that at-least makes one seem important among one's belonging-group among human civilization/society. Choosing absolute truth means making oneself evolve ( that's right, evolution requires mind, or didn't the shocking difference between a living-body and a corpse, in-which entropic chemical process goes the way reductionism says it should.. was significant? ) and accepting the damage/hurt in unlearning one's ignosis and growing gnosis...
We can describe the early universe, but cannot get past that ourselfs. Scientism cannot deal-with being not-god, so it pretends otherwise. That is profoundly offensive.
The whole 'why did THE universe occur in some way that allowed Our Human Life?' question is tautological idiocy... rightly stated it is:
In a universe that can have us in it, us occurred.
Description, not Authority Explaining...
The most spectacular example of scientism ( the religion-nature ) is in Douglas R. Hofstadter's Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern.
In two IIRC consecutive chapters, he
1. remaps male-female non-equality/rigged-suppression-of-validity to white/black, to shove-it-in-our-faces how default assumptions ( his term ) arrange that one cannot even question reality correctly, because default assumptions blind one's mind, and
2. attacks The Zetetic Scholar for openmindedly using scientific-method to test what Scientific Establishment already knows to be nugatory, and therefore non-worthy of considering/questioning/testing ( he even admits that it is their openmindedness that offends him )
Another spectacular example of this, is the Biblical use of the term 'day' in several senses ( the day of Isaiah, the day of Yeshua, as well as the conventional by-human-calendar-limit day ), and the assumption that The Third Day refers to calendar-day, rather than incarnation-day.. even though the Bible states clearly that there are two lesser days ( teachers who lay fallen for 3.5 days ), and one vast day ( the Alpha and Omega )... Does it matter what religion one is, if one won't see what is in front of one's face while one is 'knowing' one's world?
If one accepts the Bible as correct, and won't allow it to mean anything other than what makes one authoritative...
one is in the same boat as one is in with scientism ( not *scientific-method*! )...
Nothing I know of precludes there being a God(God), or, to phrase that otherly, a god-itself who is origin of livingness, origin of very-subtle-minds ( 'souls' or 'third-attentions', to use the terms familliar to other traditions ), origin-of-living-creation, AND ( simultaneously ) there being a god-of-our-Universe's-creator/god.
Why is that a problem?
Why is accepting the stark fact that mind is, a problem to scientism? ( answer? because it'd mean that scientism was within a Universal-Sea-of-mind, rather than ON universe, and our race won't know that our ASSUMED authority isn't centre-of-reality, that's all, and it is pathetic ).
Scientism can't accept/deal-with there being limits to scientism's authority, so scientism engages in weirdly contorted ignorings in order to maintain its sham.
If we're made-of substance-of-Universe, then we can't reach, with substance-of-Universe, beyond Universe ( where this-universe's laws-of-physics don't apply ).
Simple limit, ignored or non-accepted.
I don't care if that limit is macro-scale or micro-scale ( it may well be that if one goes fine-enough in scale one ceases-to-be-within-universe? ).
Having found means that change the substance of one's mind from lead to gold ( ignorance to wisdom, it's allegory, only, and if materialists won't-know that mind is real, then materialists can commit all reality to making reality obey materialism while some ones remove ourselves from the setting/context, thank-you-very-much ), I'm doing my damnedest to evolve me out so that this-one isn't again beaten-on by/in incarnate reality and its habitual ignorances.
Because effectiveness rules.
Because inner-peace rules.
Buddhism holds that there are three major dimensions, Mind, Time, and Space ( each major-dimension can contain minor dimensions, like harmonics, fractally, so the 3-open space-dimensions and the 7-hidden space-dimensions are all part of the Space-dimension, and the slightly symmetrical 3-minds that arise and 7 subtle-mind-structures, or chakras, that arise are part of the Mind dimension, and doesn't hold prejudice/hatred opposing-that in order to make universe obey some established authority-assumption ).
'creation' is a device whose function is to be:
1. place ( for souls to manifest/arise/be ), and
2. process manufacturing realization ( realization that is unlimiting, or ignosis-erasing, souls )
Buddhism considers the question of the origin of this device to be partly idiocy, because from our perspective only partial answers can be, but if one sheds false-mind, and then sheds deep-mind, and then annihilates ignorance from one's soul, then one's mind/instrument/observer can know the nature-of-reality's-being.
Who of you could possibly value or care-about this writing?
True, but Lithium Carbonate is used to treat manic-depression, and if someone's really into using explosives etc. as a means of modifying their mood...
Also, I don't recall any flames from lithium+water, it just sort of fizzled on the water while turning into some strange whitish salt...
What's to oppose in effective homeschooling, then?
Oughtn't we be investing in the maximally effective and lowest-cost means of increasing our population's adaptability/ diversity-of-knowing/ autonomous-competence?
The Teenage Liberation Handbook ( Grace Llewellyn ) caused me to accept that the damage the 'educational' system did to me was valid ( until then I'd ignored the validity of my own experience because:
education is unquestionable, right?
And, therefore, the instituted method of enforcing 'education' must be valid, right?
And, therefore also, what standards 'education' is measured-by must be whatever the instituted special-interest-groups want assumed/enforced, right? )
After accepting that the damage it enforced was damage, then getting basically operational as an owning-one's-self human being worked better: growing one's own knowing worked from then on...
Simply making training more an obstacle won't grow capability+adaptability, but it'd help enforce an assumption-regime, for awhile... ( if that's what some want, then at least they could be honest about it... )
Read Corps Business: The 30 Management Principles of the US Marines ( David H. Freedman ) to see that inclusive-community is fundamental to gaining maximal effectiveness from the Marines, and if they're staking their lives on that knowing, can our pretentious/rigid rules ( which we stake others' lives on, enforcing it into children whose damage we don't have to endure-the-consequences-of ) be correct?
Slashdot Mirror
one single rights-subsuming ( privilege-subsuming ) self-protecting party-system has taken over, lad, and
the same gov't that attempted to commit Patriot II without permitting the governed to know about it you are saying .. doesn't block access to public records?
sophistry.
"of course public records aren't blocked" the logic goes ... "only non-public records are blocked from the public, dummy!"
riiighttt..
Yeah.
Notice How The Word "Political" is assumed throughout, yet made explicit at the very end...
POLITICAL-'POWER' DOESN'T DEFINE 'POWER', PEOPLE!!
Discussion is a kind of power ( that many are excluded-from, for underlying reasons that don't have their origin in 'politics' )
Right-to-vote is a kind of power ( remember the term 'suffrage', people? racism/sexism/chauvanism isn't political, it is merely cultural-belonging prejudice, us/them with appearances triggering the group-boundaries/reactions, and 'politics' being merely a bunch of labels ladled ontop: animals have us/them unconscious determinations, and I don't see any valid point in accusing them of politics! )
Self-command is a kind of power..
Right-to-BE is a kind of power..
Health/well-being is a kind of power..
Tranquil/Immoveable Mindfulness is a kind of POWER, and I don't buy that it is inherently corrupt!!
Ah, I just realized that the ones committed to making sure that 'power' be defined/assumed political, are committed-to controlling-the-definitions so as to prevent alternative knowing...
interesting...
All right, then, what about the One Word .. DAFT .. ?
Eh?
.. explanation for them-of-us non-knowing me sense-of-reason: political-motivation is, to me, inherently daft.
apparently political choices, if made from human-worth motivation, can be valid, but no politically-motivated determination can be valid.
Neither god-itself, nor universe-itself is a political-reality, therefore no valid action can be of sooo-bogus a motivation.
Perhaps too buddhist to make-sense to Proper/Correct people, ...
or, kill 'em ALL off, with the addendum to HOSTS at...
http://www.smartin-designs.com/
( ads, tracker-sleazers, etc, all of 'em, and it speeds-up one's browsing, too. )
Think about this, though:
IF AMD released a desktop version of their hammer, the "Athlon 64", and...
... there wasn't an Athlon 64 version of MS-Windows, .. which OS do you think would push sales?
AMD's suppressing Athlon 64 is partly because the margins are better on the Opteron-class's market, and ..
.. because if they put 'em out, then they'll be moving the market-share boundaries to reduce MS and grow Linux, and MS won't allow anyone, anywhere ( who's a 'partner' ), to do that ( see the latest bit where they *coded* broken style-sheets to make Opera users non-able to work well with msn, and remember how they pressured IBM so suppress OS/2 ( if what I'd read about the evidence presented in the pre-Bush prosecution of MS was correct )... )
Or, try DeskNote a929, which you can price at PriceWatch ( though I don't see any of the 1400x1050 versions there ), or on froogle.google.com, whough they don't sort-by .. anything .. apparently...
OR .. wouldn't it be prior-art to have a mathematical-formula describe a universal mathematical form?
Algorithms are discovered, not invented ( though it may feel-like invention, but if genetic-algorithms can discover better sort-algorithms, then it is discovery. Period. ).
Re-labelling an algorithm a 'method', as our current culture/religion does, to permit Law Enforced Monopoly ( a LEM just as monarchy is a monopoly, and we pretend to be opposed to monarchy... : ) is .. phony, really...
My thought is that an implementation/expression of an algorithm could be patented ( like, say, a C implementation of it ), IF the language is .. damn, how-to-say.. . . sufficiently concrete ( as-in Not Mathematics Itself ).
Therefore, someone could patent a C-version of an algorithm, but that patent wouldn't cover any other language implementation of it.
Messy? perhaps, but it would, INSTEAD-OF permitting patenting of mathematical-forms their-own-selves ( which is the same game 'Kings' and 'Emperors' and 'Authority' and 'Churches' play ), induce proliferation of language-diversity, and that is a kind of innovation, so that particular trade-off I consider good.
Man, oh, man.
Marketing isn't committing voting?
(political) Careermaking isn't committing voting?
Lobbying isn't committing voting?
Rigging regulations, laws, taxes, awareness, behaviour, context, civil 'reality' toone can't possibly be that naïve...
As for the earlier comment ( about socialism being The Sedimentary Lifestyle, and capitalism being dynamic .. I believe that dynamism is a phase that civilization/society goes through ( hence them damned periodic revolutions, going 'round and 'round, that way and this ), and stratification/calcification is what happens after the dynamic phase... look at Hitler's dynamic-at-the-beginning group/society, it got rigid, just as ours is now getting, and did-it quicker than ours does, but that's because reasonably pure fascism short-circuits/annihilates community efficiently...
Socialism's 'capital' is belonging-force ( or belonging-enforcing )
Capitalism's 'capital' is Economic Position ( conjunction of money +image +social-position +title, or one's worth is how much of 'others' is worth-less-than-oneself )
'Society's 'capital' is social-awareness's seeming/saying... ( hence the fashion-scene: it doesn't matter whether society's 'seeming/saying' is valid or not, just that it is saying is sufficient )
Civilization's 'capital' is .. what, concerted ignorance-force? .. enforcing, yet hating/opposing community-including -and- being open and unitary, simultaneously... ( comical, that particular bit, machine-part's good because then one has no responsibility, and community-among's bad, because it requires relationship-awareness. Gutless..? ), assumed authority ( what guy-culture calls 'BS' ), .. objects instead of being+way... the whole pattern of it...
I'm thinking of the conjunction of beaurocratic-rigidity, ignorance-of-all's-worth [ or (some)-one's worth, rather than enforcement/authority-'worth', nuqular family or otherwise ], the being in-love-with being-part-in-one-machine
What do you know-of that is effective in knowing and communicating what this book purports to be?
Actually, what I was getting-at was fundamentaller: .. somewhat isn't entirely-valid a concept, in this context )
allowing anyone to control-the-definitions, or torque-the-assumptions, or 'authoritatively' arrange somewhat-false assumption into being-assumed 'normal', for any reason, in any context, in any way, means allowing them to own one's totality, or whole-potential... ( or allowing 'em to own at-least-some-of one's totality and whole-potential: it's like being slightly-having-cancer
Figure it this way:
Say I'm arguing with a hospital that rigs their meals for their patients to happen all-at-once, and that means that they are 'understaffed' 3x/day, and some patients don't get fed, and some patients get injured by the rushed 'care', etc...
Say that simply changing from a batch-prep kitchen system to a continuous-prep system, and asking the patients whether they'd like their meals earlier than the Standard Meal Time, or later than the Standard Meal Time, would mean some statistical spread so that the hospital wouldn't be 'understaffed', anymore, they'd be entirely able to manage...Say the hospital won't allow awareness of this assumption that-determines-potential, because they use all means they can to keep everyone in the assumption they are in-love-with ( and this alternative means assuming a patient is human, and has valid, real human-worth, of course, other's human-worth threatens ASSumed Institutional Amportance[tm]... )...
They may even validly believe that they're getting increased potential-funding ( if they live/work in a political-world ), but doing-this undermines worth, and grows false-assumption-mode.
Accommodating this grows false-assumption-mode.
Anything other than destroying this: grows false-assumption-mode.
If one is to be integrity, one must commit total living integrity, and absolutely non-allow bogus-'integrity'.
In Other Words, whenever they ( or anyone else ) deploys FUD, bogus-reasoning, ignore-the-important -to- concentrate-on-whatever-we-say-is-'urgent', etc. we clue-in to what ignorance-commitment's doing, AND attack the method of ignorance-committing as-it-happens.
Behold:
Essence-of-integrity is the ultimate weapon.
( actually, from the buddhist AND from the nagual perspective, this is a key-method of mind-survival )
Yeah, buddy: what fs you formatting 'em with?
Eh?!?
at O'Reilly, mdadm
and, I'd recommend Enterprise Volume Management System rather than LVM ( Logical Volume Manager ), simply because LVM's seems to be being dropped as
redundant ( ironic, that : ) as EVMS gets more effective, and I don't want the conversion-work from LVM to EVMS, if I can just do EVMS right now, see
You, ah, reformat your kids periodically, to keep 'em in line?
echh
Do Not, EVER, enable s.m.a.r.t. on a Promise controller-chip connected drive ( your machine will be killed dead. Period. No magic sys-req key, no anything. it crashes the PCI bus, and I've bothered the kernel developers about this until it was discovered that this was the case )...
Notice that I said controller-chip, rather than only-their-RAID-controller-chips, mine's a straight ATA100 chip, and it kills the system the instant I try to enable smart in any device hooked up to it.
yes I've lost stuff to that, and no I'm not happy.
Promise's determination to prevent smart-capability on all devices connected via their chips is .. killing ( machine-integrity-killing, that is )
Brilliant!! why didn't I perceive this?!
Firstly:
of the emerging science of complexity
Damn funny, that...
Secondly, it was in New Scientist, years ago ( paper edition ) where it was noted that each dimension of complexity is equivalent to about an order-of-magnitude increase in detail: Having neurons ( synthetic neural-net ) that stimulate other neurons, only, in one system, and having neurons-that-stimulate and neurons-that-suppress in a second system, the first system would require 10x~100x ( IIRC, it actually may have been a factor of 10 000 ) as many neurons to get the job done, as the second.
Interestingly, our neurons communicate by stimulative synapses, by suppressive synapses, by pattern-of-signal, and by nitrous-oxide diffusion ( as well as possibly electrical conduction ), so the mere 100 000 000 000 neurons we're born with
( with ~100 synapses, and ~1000 dendrites on each one, +/- an order-of-magnitude, in short a stunning quantity of connections )
can accomplish as much as many-more of a less-dimensionally-deep neural-net...
And that is boggling, but the principle, that each extra ( necessary ) dimension removes the need for a quantum-order-of-magnitude of detail-level-things, holds reasonably well...
... is elegant, and very useful ( try simplifying your business/processes/anything this way... 'The 7 Habits..' does this, unconsciously... )
PS, here's the link from above, clickable, for your incconvenience:
http://www.santafe.edu/
"The Santa Fe Institute is a private, non-profit, multidisciplinary research and education center, founded in 1984. Since its founding SFI has devoted itself to creating a new kind of scientific research community, pursuing emerging science."
"Operating as a small, visiting institution, SFI seeks to catalyze new collaborative, multidisciplinary projects that break down the barriers between the traditional disciplines, to spread its ideas and methodologies to other individuals and encourage the practical applications of its results."
Worthy intention, 't seems...
And if the opponent-machine is committing a DoS/flood-attack against my connection/machine?
Dropping the packets isn't going to save me from paying for the bandwidth, or unclog my connection ( this IS assault, we're talking about ), and no matter how I makebelieve that "they aren't touching my machine, therefore I have no right to touch theirs", it isn't that clear/simple ( they are obliterating my resources, for starters ):
If A PROCESS among their machine is attacking me & costing me, then have I the right to kill that process's action..?
If not, then assaulting/damaging others' ( by losing them their ISP/connection, or costing them thousands of dollars in bandwidth, or obliterating their livelihood's function ) is a right, and neither one's-own-resources, nor defensive-action is *equal* a right.
This *is not* the same as the "gun rights" discussion, though similar, because what I'm talking about is the right to kill their gun, not to kill them, see...
I use the first-initial, second-name pattern, not merely with one of my online-accounts, but with one of my bank-accounts, even, because I'm in the process of switching from being commonly-known-as my first-name to being commonly-known-as my second-name.
Period.
It takes time to get everything sorted-out, and everyone-one-deals-with adjusted, and fucking-up a name-change means sabotaging one's ID, for one thing ( possibly also property/business/will-ownership ), so I'm doing it as gradually as necessary.
Actors have to have unique name-identifiers ( within their union ), because their primary 'buzz-inducing' strength is their name, so when Michael Fox ( the guy who's now hammered by parkinson's ) went to join the actors' union, he got told that 'Michael Fox' was taken, so he changed it to 'Michael J. Fox', even though he hasn't a middle-J-name to justify it ( IIRC ). His choice was: do that or non-work.
Also, anyone who's had their name become part of an abuse-(self)identity ( Ohhh, look at molested/worthless/whatever-little-Chris... ), has to change the name-they're-known-by in order to get leverage in undoing shoved-in negation/worth-suppression from their unconscious mind, ... or they aren't going to get past the unconscious limitation-of-their-worth ( this I concretely know from experience ) to become a whole, operational, autonomous-worth person and full-human.
what if they ( and he seems to have a scary/extremely-capable reputation ) use media-players to infect the in memory copy of the gnutella-net client ( linux filepermissions preventing infection of the /usr/bin version ), or to simply attach a small executable onto the running-in-memory client ( a wrapper, sorta ), would that work?
It'd bypass the checksum/tripwire test for it, right off, too...
Of course, then we'd also see Iraq/Iran/Israel / Pakistan/India / China / North Korea use 'em too, but isn't that merely 'escalation'?
Hey, wasn't WWII merely a sequence of 'escalation'?
...
I'm nominating our civilization for a Darwin Award, now, because I don't see anyone doing the nominating after WWIII... ( the remnant'd have, ah, other concerns...
... that I know of is The Pimsleur Tapes, though get 'em in CDs...
Pimsleur realized that we don't learn language as children by writing, by rote, by lists, or any of that junk, and realized that sound-forms and meaning-patterns were key ( any mother could have told him half of this, at least, but chauvanism enforces ignorance to protect its 'authority' and 'ass-umption', and yeah, I battle with my ignorance too: I'm criticizing the mechanism-of-ignorance, not some-ones who have it... )
Therefore, he made a language-learning program based on learning language the way we are born to.
Their "travellers" editions are 8 tapes, 16 lessons, and aren't enough for more than "oh, I'm going through the province/prefecture/canton of XYZYZ, and need to be able to get by...", but I gather that their Level 3 course is good-enough to be able to understand basic philosophy-discussion and carry oneself in business negotiation...
Also, it used to be that one could buy individual units ( Tape 1 French, ferinstance ), so one could get a tape to discover how stunningly effective it is, compared with Standard Model language-training, ring 'em up and ask 'em if that's still on...
Damn! I just hit that link, and they've stuck the first lesson of Spanish for speakers-of-American online ( no I don't know if it's Latin American Spanish or European Spanish, and IIRC they had both, years ago ), it's up in Real Audio, so you can get a taste for the effectiveness of it...
Part of the staggering effectiveness of it, is .. it is using the same hear-a-sound-form, do-the-sound-form, hear-more-sound-form, do-more-sound-form, associate-it-with-meaning, syncopate-practice so meaning/sound-form units get imprinted in long-term-memory... that got us our own language ( another part of it is the lesson-length, not insufficient, not over-training )
Yes I know that you said this was for Arabic speakers, but I want you to know about the difference between easily effective language-training and the standard stuff, and I know they used to do commissions ( the language Twi was one commissioned by the Red Cross, I believe ), and I want your results to be good.
I hope you find good means, get good results, and create good luck.
If it is God, beyond Time and Space, then how come it is limited-to-within-male-gender, then??
Obviously non-infinite, any christian male 'god'...
I'm a buddhist tulku, so my take on all this is that .. much of it is ( at best ) idiocy:
1. Occam's razor is interpretive, as another ( above ) noted, so underlying assumptions define what is 'seen' as simpler/eleganter versus what is 'seen' as not-simpler/eleganter.
2. Some science can explain/predict, some can only describe-what-is, and our cultural chauvanism/make-believe is that descriptive science isn't as Important/Authoritative as explanatory science, so all sorts of BS goes on when from the observer's position no more than description is warranted.
3. According to scientism ( yes. it. is. a. religion. ) mind isn't really real ( my favourite form of it is .. knowing .. cannot be',
'it is ( scientifically ) known that
which is perfection-of-hypocrisy ), but Time and Space ( and particulate matter ) are real ( field-matter not counting, of course[tm] ), even though non-locality ( aka mind aka quantum-entanglement ) can be seen in quantum-stuff, in quantum-stuff-spread-over-hundreds-of-kilometres, in schools-of-fish ( non-local coherency that goes quicker than re-action allows but action implies knowing/mind, so therefore... ), in the famous electron ( or buckyball, now ) interfering with itself while it goes, simultaneously/non-locally through 2 physically-parallel slits... ( there's one, 'simplest/elegantest' by what standard? ), or a martial-artist's KI, or...
I've got a textbook on 'the hard problem of consciousness', and though it was written by ones of western culture ( I'm a tulku, western-body, eastern-deepmind ), even it admits that consciousness is only a 'hard problem' when one assumes that mind cannot be real... ( reductionism/mechanism/scientism is a reaction against us-possibly-being-not-god: fear-rooted prejudice, only. ).
Newtonian Mechanics didn't permit mind among universe: all is clockwork. Will, let-alone our-will, cannot be. That is Newtonian Mechanics' Law. This 'law' has been used as means of ignoring responsibility-for-action by many, against many.
Contrast that with cause/effect among mind, where the meaning this-soul's apparent-minds commit land on this-soul in future apparent-mind-manifestations ( or 'days' or 'lives' or 'incarnations' or 'someones', different words, same reality )...
Buddhism has the single-word for it 'karma', the Bible calls it one's 'robe', see here, or 'putting their deeds on their heads', or This Way... both extremely-different traditions hold it to be the case, yet the Bible assumes man-style-motivation of god so much that it isn't possible for universe to be instantiated to intrinsically include cause/effect itself, there has to be some authority doing it to all ( which shows god's limitation, 'he' couldn't get the universe to take care of itself or balance or express... )
Here's another one, the language the bible was written-in assumed that god-itself couldn't be gender-nugatory..., so wasn't that assumed simpler/eleganter than some non-men-centric reality?
Statistics also requires reality be mindless-in-nature, that reality be non-mind-holding.
If mind is, though, it is in universe, and that means it exists within universe ( baby-steps-here ), and that means universe-dimensions include enough depth for mind to be real in 'em ( just as they have to be N-dimensionally deep-enough to contain N-1 dimensional branes, according to Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe. ).
Buddhism holds that there isn't some Male Authority Patriarch God[tm], but buddhism does hold that shedding ego/false-mind, gaining deep-mind, is possible,
does hold that going-from-there shedding deep-mind gaining soul/very-subtle-mind/third-attention is possible,
and does hold that having shed bogus ( transient- ) minds it is possible to gain Awake! condition ( hence Buddha == Awake!-Soul == Enlightenment... Liberation is lesser ).
Buddhism's been using scientific-method for a couple of thousand years ( current cycle ), but it has been doing so assuming that mind is ( rather than is-not ), and knows that all is dependent on the observer ( Einstein et al re-discovered this ), and knows that there are different kinds of doubt, some valid and some not...
It is scientific analysis of mind allowing Universe.
It is effective, and THAT is the ultimate standard.
No I'm not going to claim most who label-theirselfs 'buddist' are scientific-method rather than religious, any more than I will allow that most who are among western 'science' ( which James Burke says is 'dragged, kicking and screaming' into the present ) are scientific-method rather than religious.
It is, to this-one, all-or-nothing ( if one values absolute truth ): one can commit, totally, to knowing universe's truth, on its terms, or one can commit to phony truth that at-least makes one seem important among one's belonging-group among human civilization/society. Choosing absolute truth means making oneself evolve ( that's right, evolution requires mind, or didn't the shocking difference between a living-body and a corpse, in-which entropic chemical process goes the way reductionism says it should .. was significant? ) and accepting the damage/hurt in unlearning one's ignosis and growing gnosis...
We can describe the early universe, but cannot get past that ourselfs. Scientism cannot deal-with being not-god, so it pretends otherwise. That is profoundly offensive.
The whole 'why did THE universe occur in some way that allowed Our Human Life?' question is tautological idiocy... rightly stated it is:
In a universe that can have us in it, us occurred.
Description, not Authority Explaining...
The most spectacular example of scientism ( the religion-nature ) is in Douglas R. Hofstadter's Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern.
In two IIRC consecutive chapters, he
1. remaps male-female non-equality/rigged-suppression-of-validity to white/black, to shove-it-in-our-faces how default assumptions ( his term ) arrange that one cannot even question reality correctly, because default assumptions blind one's mind, and
2. attacks The Zetetic Scholar for openmindedly using scientific-method to test what Scientific Establishment already knows to be nugatory, and therefore non-worthy of considering/questioning/testing ( he even admits that it is their openmindedness that offends him )
Another spectacular example of this, is the Biblical use of the term 'day' in several senses ( the day of Isaiah, the day of Yeshua, as well as the conventional by-human-calendar-limit day ), and the assumption that The Third Day refers to calendar-day, rather than incarnation-day .. even though the Bible states clearly that there are two lesser days ( teachers who lay fallen for 3.5 days ), and one vast day ( the Alpha and Omega )... Does it matter what religion one is, if one won't see what is in front of one's face while one is 'knowing' one's world?
If one accepts the Bible as correct, and won't allow it to mean anything other than what makes one authoritative...
one is in the same boat as one is in with scientism ( not *scientific-method*! )...
Nothing I know of precludes there being a God(God), or, to phrase that otherly, a god-itself who is origin of livingness, origin of very-subtle-minds ( 'souls' or 'third-attentions', to use the terms familliar to other traditions ), origin-of-living-creation, AND ( simultaneously ) there being a god-of-our-Universe's-creator/god.
Why is that a problem?
Why is accepting the stark fact that mind is, a problem to scientism? ( answer? because it'd mean that scientism was within a Universal-Sea-of-mind, rather than ON universe, and our race won't know that our ASSUMED authority isn't centre-of-reality, that's all, and it is pathetic ).
Scientism can't accept/deal-with there being limits to scientism's authority, so scientism engages in weirdly contorted ignorings in order to maintain its sham.
If we're made-of substance-of-Universe, then we can't reach, with substance-of-Universe, beyond Universe ( where this-universe's laws-of-physics don't apply ).
Simple limit, ignored or non-accepted.
I don't care if that limit is macro-scale or micro-scale ( it may well be that if one goes fine-enough in scale one ceases-to-be-within-universe? ).
Having found means that change the substance of one's mind from lead to gold ( ignorance to wisdom, it's allegory, only, and if materialists won't-know that mind is real, then materialists can commit all reality to making reality obey materialism while some ones remove ourselves from the setting/context, thank-you-very-much ), I'm doing my damnedest to evolve me out so that this-one isn't again beaten-on by/in incarnate reality and its habitual ignorances.
Because effectiveness rules.
Because inner-peace rules.
Buddhism holds that there are three major dimensions, Mind, Time, and Space ( each major-dimension can contain minor dimensions, like harmonics, fractally, so the 3-open space-dimensions and the 7-hidden space-dimensions are all part of the Space-dimension, and the slightly symmetrical 3-minds that arise and 7 subtle-mind-structures, or chakras, that arise are part of the Mind dimension, and doesn't hold prejudice/hatred opposing-that in order to make universe obey some established authority-assumption ).
'creation' is a device whose function is to be:
1. place ( for souls to manifest/arise/be ), and
2. process manufacturing realization ( realization that is unlimiting, or ignosis-erasing, souls )
Buddhism considers the question of the origin of this device to be partly idiocy, because from our perspective only partial answers can be, but if one sheds false-mind, and then sheds deep-mind, and then annihilates ignorance from one's soul, then one's mind/instrument/observer can know the nature-of-reality's-being.
Who of you could possibly value or care-about this writing?
True, but Lithium Carbonate is used to treat manic-depression, and if someone's really into using explosives etc. as a means of modifying their mood...
Also, I don't recall any flames from lithium+water, it just sort of fizzled on the water while turning into some strange whitish salt...
What's to oppose in effective homeschooling, then?
Oughtn't we be investing in the maximally effective and lowest-cost means of increasing our population's adaptability/ diversity-of-knowing/ autonomous-competence?
The Teenage Liberation Handbook ( Grace Llewellyn ) caused me to accept that the damage the 'educational' system did to me was valid ( until then I'd ignored the validity of my own experience because:
education is unquestionable, right?
And, therefore, the instituted method of enforcing 'education' must be valid, right?
And, therefore also, what standards 'education' is measured-by must be whatever the instituted special-interest-groups want assumed/enforced, right? )
After accepting that the damage it enforced was damage, then getting basically operational as an owning-one's-self human being worked better: growing one's own knowing worked from then on...
Simply making training more an obstacle won't grow capability+adaptability, but it'd help enforce an assumption-regime, for awhile... ( if that's what some want, then at least they could be honest about it... )
Read Corps Business: The 30 Management Principles of the US Marines ( David H. Freedman ) to see that inclusive-community is fundamental to gaining maximal effectiveness from the Marines, and if they're staking their lives on that knowing, can our pretentious/rigid rules ( which we stake others' lives on, enforcing it into children whose damage we don't have to endure-the-consequences-of ) be correct?