You make some good points, one of them is called telecommuting and yes I have written about that. The problem is intelligence and wisdom is not being applied to the current systems to create efficiency because there are those that favor unnecessary profitable consumption.
This was part of something I wrote a year ago, I have plenty of work right now, obviously MIT picked up on it they are on the distribution list.
Which is part of the plan, as well as keeping the technology in the public domain and engineering big brother out of the system.
It is about time we applied techonolgy to solve the worlds problems.
What if all the business leaders coordinated to shift their employee arrival and departure times slightly so as to create a well orchestrated movement of workers?
With a little funding I could build a system to coordinate the daily rush hours. The system would take into account departure points and destinations, the course and various elements on the course, and perhaps the best course, preferences and people would select a travel spot.
Even better all the cars can communicate with each other, knowing their drivers intended destination an artificial intelligence could coordinate suggesting the best time to move into the middle or left lane, sending some cars down an alternate route to relieve some congestion which in the end results in everyone getting home quickly which is the incentive to participate.
How many billions of gallons of gasoline could be saved if we simply knew the most energy efficient route especially when driving in unfamiliar territory? Far more money would be saved than the cost of the system and the benefits would be extraordinary.
Well they would need to pick the cable up to tap it and perhaps the extreme weather, divine intervention stopped them. If they were going to tap it then they would need to feed the data to something? What and how would they do this? I doubt they layed another fiber cable.
Would it not make more sense to tap it where it meets the land, where it is already probably tapped?
What if the intention was to demonstrate that they could be cut off from the world or to see how it would affect them?
Of course there is a culprit lurking in the background a new characters that has been entering the scene. Extreme Weather which will be increasing as more energy enters the global system producing turbulence.
It could be a sign! That extreme weather has entered the chain of cause and effect and we best are prepared and ready to adapt.
Yes, a mysterious force operating behind the scenes part of some divine plan and the unfolding of our evolution.
I think there will be a market for higher quality audio. Ultimately everyone will want the highest quality sound and MP3's won't cut it for that. So the record labels could see the high quality formats which of course are larger in size and don't move as well over the Internet.
There is no reason you couldn't set your car's speed with your cell phone using Blue Tooth.
Just say 80 MPH please. Or reduce rapid, no break lights, 60.
Or speak "reduce 3 spot 60 BL not." That means reduce speed to 60 in 3 seconds no break lights. Over the course of 3 microseconds the car determines based on recent stored values if there is another vehicle approaching from behind and how close speed and if a collision would result from your command. If not it executes the command. Everyone could be tweaking the safety parameters to have the fastest vehicle. With enough sensors and computerized control we could travel much faster safely.
Of course there is an issue with voice command in an environment with lots of noise pollution.
Of course why not just tell it your destination and have it automatically race like a bat out of hell, coordinating with all the other cars on the road, to get you there while change stations on the stereo and recline the seat.
Obviously we would engineer any big brother features out of the traffic intelligence system creating autonomous anonymous intelligent navigation.
I can imagine the day we speak the name of some legislation in the phone and say "vote yes" or "vote no". The results show up on our congressman's web site and some other third party sites that archive.
This way we take control of a few and transfer it to the less corruptible and wiser "many".
It looks like the Netherlands have it correct then. Yet this conversation brings up another idea. There is a difference in quality of listening between the methods of encoding. MP3 is not that good because it reduces quality but not that noticible of a reduction so that it can be small and compressed.
Record companies good provide high quality downloads becuase that is what I would want. Mp3s are diminshed in quality.
No actually, I am buying the license to listen to a particular copyrighted work. You may be buying the piece of plastic, not me. And if that were true you are overpaying for the plastic disc. There seems to be some confusion regarding this issue and it needs so be clarified.
Maybe this idea will get to the right minds perhaps one of you know who they are and will create awareness. When we purchase music we purchase a license to listen to the songs we paid for. I don't think the music industry understands this; apparently this has not been clarified in the courts. We are not buying the piece of plastic they are printed on.
It does not matter what the source is or what format we have it in. We are purchasing a license to listen at our leisure to a song or watch a movie. We can have a thousand copies because we can only listen to one at a time. Somebody needs to argue this in court. That we are in fact purchasing a license to listen, not a piece of plastic or a digital file of zero's and ones.
This is the New legal justification for open downloads of music or copy righted material:
In fact the record labels need to, I think legally provide, free downloads of music. The record companies have not provided a way for me to enjoy my license to listen if the CD gets scratched, as it is now they force us to buy a new license they should probably reimburse anyone who has had to buy more than one license because of damage media.
I noticed about 10 years ago CDs became very easy to scratch not the bottom but the top.
Because the carrier medium can be damaged we should all be able to get a download of a new instance of the song we paid for from the Internet if we purchased the license to listen to it. Since the record companies have not provided a way for us to get a replacement copy the Internet downloads can ethically be justified.
Truth is we don't need the record companies anymore. We can all buy from the artists direct and vote with a link what is most popular. I would be happy to pay the creative talent directly without the huge middle man cut. Another things is corporate pressure to maintain the status quo system cannot be put on artists by large corporations.
Hopefully someone will get this into the hands of the attorneys for the defendants.
Technically based on quantum physics there is only one copy of a piece of music in the universe. This exists in the intangible realm; all tangible manifestations of this one copy are simply a physical conveyance of this one real instance. It is an information universe, everything is ultimately just information.
I suppose that the return address on an envelope is private now then. An IP address is the communications address. It does not mormally reflect the same use because they are often dynamic rather than static. Hundreds of people can come through the same IP address. So an IP address seldom represents a single entity for more than a short period of time.
On the other hand I think who the IP address is assigned to below the provider is private information. In other words ISPs whould not be divulgin who they assigned an IP address to becuase this could allow individual specific information to be collected.
Maybe this idea will get to the right minds perhaps one of you know who they are and will create awareness. When we purchase music we purchase a license to listen to the songs we paid for. I don't think the music industry understands this; apparently this has not been clarified in the courts. We are not buying the piece of plastic they are printed on.
It does not matter what the source is or what format we have it in. We are purchasing a license to listen at our leisure to a song or watch a movie. We can have a thousand copies because we can only listen to one at a time. Somebody needs to argue this in court. That we are in fact purchasing a license to listen, not a piece of plastic or a digital file of zero's and ones.
This is the New legal justification for open downloads of music or copy righted material:
In fact the record labels need to, I think legally provide, free downloads of music. The record companies have not provided a way for me to enjoy my license to listen if the CD gets scratched, as it is now they force us to buy a new license they should probably reimburse anyone who has had to buy more than one license because of damage media.
I noticed about 10 years ago CDs became very easy to scratch not the bottom but the top.
Because the carrier medium can be damaged we should all be able to get a download of a new instance of the song we paid for from the Internet if we purchased the license to listen to it. Since the record companies have not provided a way for us to get a replacement copy the Internet downloads can ethically be justified.
Truth is we don't need the record companies anymore. We can all buy from the artists direct and vote with a link what is most popular. I would be happy to pay the creative talent directly without the huge middle man cut. Another things is corporate pressure to maintain the status quo system cannot be put on artists by large corporations.
Hopefully someone will get this into the hands of the attorneys for the defendants.
Technically based on quantum physics there is only one copy of a piece of music in the universe. This exists in the intangible realm; all tangible manifestations of this one copy are simply a physical conveyance of this one real instance. It is an information universe, everything is ultimately just information.
Maybe this idea will get to the right minds perhaps one of you know who they are and will create awareness. When we purchase music we purchase a license to listen to the songs we paid for. I don't think the music industry understands this; apparently this has not been clarified in the courts. We are not buying the piece of plastic they are printed on.
It does not matter what the source is or what format we have it in. We are purchasing a license to listen at our leisure to a song or watch a movie. We can have a thousand copies because we can only listen to one at a time. Somebody needs to argue this in court. That we are in fact purchasing a license to listen, not a piece of plastic or a digital file of zero's and ones.
This is the New legal justification for open downloads of music or copy righted material:
In fact the record labels need to, I think legally provide, free downloads of music. The record companies have not provided a way for me to enjoy my license to listen if the CD gets scratched, as it is now they force us to buy a new license they should probably reimburse anyone who has had to buy more than one license because of damage media.
I noticed about 10 years ago CDs became very easy to scratch not the bottom but the top.
Because the carrier medium can be damaged we should all be able to get a download of a new instance of the song we paid for from the Internet if we purchased the license to listen to it. Since the record companies have not provided a way for us to get a replacement copy the Internet downloads can ethically be justified.
Truth is we don't need the record companies anymore. We can all buy from the artists direct and vote with a link what is most popular. I would be happy to pay the creative talent directly without the huge middle man cut. Another things is corporate pressure to maintain the status quo system cannot be put on artists by large corporations.
Hopefully someone will get this into the hands of the attorneys for the defendants.
Technically based on quantum physics there is only one copy of a piece of music in the universe. This exists in the intangible realm; all tangible manifestations of this one copy are simply a physical conveyance of this one real instance. It is an information universe, everything is ultimately just information.
Yes, you are technically correct about the stick. It was meant to convey an idea. As an object approaches the speed of light,it's mass approaches infinity. So reach the speed of light it would need to cease to have mass becoming pure information.
That is part of the revelation of Intangics, that there are no particles only the appearance of particles and there is no travel only the appearance of travel.
When you drive down the street you are not moving, the world is moving around you.
If it's an information universe then prehaps it is possible and information technology may give us more insight into the universe than we think. Being that all you are reading now is the result of two values 0 and 1.
There are two things that have not been understood yet. That quantum randomness is all pervading and that consciousness / observer [virtual particles] give rise to form via a filtering mechanism which is also the same as projection. Quantum randomness is the field. In other words from the entropy of the universe comes order as a function of consciousness.
The other thing that has yet to be understood is that space connects everything. Action at a distance is possible because the two objects are connected by the very same space. If I have a long stick and you hold the other end of it and I thrust my end towards you, you will instantly faster than the speed of light feel it at your end. Now replace the stick with space.
Travel across the universe is possible because travel is a function of space not matter and with that you can understand the gravity of the situation. Travel is only an appearance a valid one at that, creating a real experience, it's all about choice of perception.
You can fantasize all you want and believe or fictionalize, but if the math doesn't work, it is not going to become reality.
The one thing that does not appear to have needed to evolve is DNA. It seems to have started out whole and complete. That is important point that evolutionary theorists seem to miss.
So to reiterate, it would seem that DNA has never evolved. Just different switches are flipped by somthing intelligent. Organic flash memory or EEPROM.
The other thing that is no explained is the seemingly sudden appearance of certain species which is why there are so many missing links.
Another things is that no one has explained species wide mutation for example turning off of the enzyme that produces vitamin C.
In Infinite Play the Movie http://www.infiniteplaythemovie.com/ they claim that viruses are a way the one member of a species propagates a change to other members of the species. They also claim that DNA is software programmed by something intelligent. But not some personalized God.
A lot of people don't know that 40,000 years there were only 1,000 members of our species based on mitochondrial DNA.
The standard theory of evolution is destroyed by a very white beetle, correlation The Beetles White album.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/beetle_biomimic.php
The Cyphochilus beetle has a highly unusual brilliant white shell. New research by the University of Exeter and Imerys Minerals Ltd. and published in journal Science (19 January), reveals the secret to this beetle's bizarre appearance.
The Cyphochilus beetle has evolved its brilliant whiteness using a unique surface structure. At one 200th of a millimetre thick, its scales are ten times thinner than a human hair. Industrial mineral coatings, such as those used on high quality paper, plastics and in some paints, would need to be twice as thick to be as white. According to ISO accredited measurements for whiteness and brightness, the beetle is much whiter and brighter than milk and the average human tooth, which are both considerably thicker.
'This kind of brilliant whiteness from such a thin sample is rare in nature. As soon as I saw it, every instinct told me that the beetle was something very special,' said Dr Pete Vukusic of the University of Exeter's School of Physics. 'In future, the paper we write on, the colour of our teeth and even the efficiency of the rapidly emerging new generation of white light sources will be significantly improved if technology can take and apply the design ideas we learn from this beetle.'
Colour in both nature and technology can be produced by pigmentation or by very regularly arranged layers or structures. Whiteness, however, is created through a random structure, which produces 'scattering' of all colours simultaneously. Using electron microscope imaging, Dr Vukusic studied the beetle's body, head and legs and found them to be covered in long flat scales, which have highly random internal 3D structures.
These irregular internal forms are the key to its uniquely effective light scattering. By balancing the size of the structures with the spacing between them, they scatter white light far more efficiently than the fibres in white paper or the enamel on teeth.
In a free market economy inflation should hover around zero.
The academics and experts are still debating the cause of inflation.
I find that a little odd that it is a mystery as to the cause? It's just math.
I suspect inflation is really the measure of accumulated theft as well as the amount of money that goes to the public sector which causes an instant devaluation of all currency because the return (value) is not equal to that which created it in the private sector.
This means that taxes are not good for anyone.
How much does it cost to do a million transactions on your computer?
Sure there is a little more to it then that, banking it is all automated now requiring very little human labor or raw materials. The only real cost is hardware and electricity.
The privately owned federal reserve member banks control the symbol and charge people for the use of it, it make sit very hard to participate in the economy if you don't use the symbol.
It does not cost anything to create money so why should someone be charged for it's creation?
Much of that thinking is operating in the realm of the illusion that has been created surrounding energy and assets exchange accounting systems.
As for inflation since academics are still debating the cause I think inflation is the measure of asset devaluation and THEFT from the system. Theft being manipulation of monetary instruments to extract wealth from the system rather than creating economic value.
If I had the power to create the money, which is just a few keystrokes and mouse clicks to create a general ledger entry, in the real world.
The.05 percent isn't for profit, it is just for system maintenance and to cover anyone that defaults.
It's time to update the world's financial and monetary systems to reflect the advanced and new capabilities of technology.
No longer should a small private group charge excessive fees for the use of their monetary system, subject to being manipulated to artificially extract wealth by those not actually making a value contribution to the other participants.
We should also allow competition in providing monetary system services it is currently a monopoly.
Interest should be replaced with some sort of dividend return. Or nothing, if you pay back something you get to borrow more interest free. So you can only borrow a little bit starting out building up reputation.
When borrowing we are really making a commitment to produce goods or services in the future. Interest can be looked at as a tax on participating in the economic system or what they charge us (at least at the first tier) for the use of the monetary system they maintain.
Banks do several things. Track transactions, create GL entries to produce new money out of nothing, attempt to recover bad debt, asses and evaluate risk.
For doing these few things they collectively generated over, the last 3 years over a trillion dollars in NET profit.
The current cost or charge for contributing to the economic system in the US is about 6% of each dollar. Obviously the real cost is less than half a percent thanks to technology.
It is time for the public to own the monetary system and pay third parties to provide the above services taking advantage of technology.
Obviously we don't really need bank buildings anymore, just some data centers, and home PC's to support the whole system.
Thanks to the Internet and Technology the worlds Monetary and Financial systems are outdated and no longer needed so we don't need to pay 6% of the wealth we generate to the bankers.
More like.5% should be enough to support our Monetary system.
Slashdot Mirror
You make some good points, one of them is called telecommuting and yes I have written about that. The problem is intelligence and wisdom is not being applied to the current systems to create efficiency because there are those that favor unnecessary profitable consumption. This was part of something I wrote a year ago, I have plenty of work right now, obviously MIT picked up on it they are on the distribution list. Which is part of the plan, as well as keeping the technology in the public domain and engineering big brother out of the system.
It is about time we applied techonolgy to solve the worlds problems. What if all the business leaders coordinated to shift their employee arrival and departure times slightly so as to create a well orchestrated movement of workers? With a little funding I could build a system to coordinate the daily rush hours. The system would take into account departure points and destinations, the course and various elements on the course, and perhaps the best course, preferences and people would select a travel spot. Even better all the cars can communicate with each other, knowing their drivers intended destination an artificial intelligence could coordinate suggesting the best time to move into the middle or left lane, sending some cars down an alternate route to relieve some congestion which in the end results in everyone getting home quickly which is the incentive to participate. How many billions of gallons of gasoline could be saved if we simply knew the most energy efficient route especially when driving in unfamiliar territory? Far more money would be saved than the cost of the system and the benefits would be extraordinary.
Well they would need to pick the cable up to tap it and perhaps the extreme weather, divine intervention stopped them. If they were going to tap it then they would need to feed the data to something? What and how would they do this? I doubt they layed another fiber cable. Would it not make more sense to tap it where it meets the land, where it is already probably tapped? What if the intention was to demonstrate that they could be cut off from the world or to see how it would affect them?
But we all know there are no accidents in an intelligent universe.
As for the possibility that it was an effort coordinated by some government intelligence agency or group I would rate it that probability very low.
It could be due to extreme weather which is altering ship behavior in the region.
However this low probability incident occurring in a set of three with such a close proximity in time is against random odds.
I suspect there may be a mysterious force at work, like the one in Infinite Play the Movie, http://infiniteplaythemovie.com/mysterious_force.aspx a sort of all pervading intelligence.
Of course there is a culprit lurking in the background a new characters that has been entering the scene. Extreme Weather which will be increasing as more energy enters the global system producing turbulence.
It could be a sign! That extreme weather has entered the chain of cause and effect and we best are prepared and ready to adapt.
Yes, a mysterious force operating behind the scenes part of some divine plan and the unfolding of our evolution.
The trick is to become lucid in it.
I think there will be a market for higher quality audio. Ultimately everyone will want the highest quality sound and MP3's won't cut it for that. So the record labels could see the high quality formats which of course are larger in size and don't move as well over the Internet.
There is no reason you couldn't set your car's speed with your cell phone using Blue Tooth. Just say 80 MPH please. Or reduce rapid, no break lights, 60. Or speak "reduce 3 spot 60 BL not." That means reduce speed to 60 in 3 seconds no break lights. Over the course of 3 microseconds the car determines based on recent stored values if there is another vehicle approaching from behind and how close speed and if a collision would result from your command. If not it executes the command. Everyone could be tweaking the safety parameters to have the fastest vehicle. With enough sensors and computerized control we could travel much faster safely. Of course there is an issue with voice command in an environment with lots of noise pollution. Of course why not just tell it your destination and have it automatically race like a bat out of hell, coordinating with all the other cars on the road, to get you there while change stations on the stereo and recline the seat. Obviously we would engineer any big brother features out of the traffic intelligence system creating autonomous anonymous intelligent navigation.
I can imagine the day we speak the name of some legislation in the phone and say "vote yes" or "vote no". The results show up on our congressman's web site and some other third party sites that archive. This way we take control of a few and transfer it to the less corruptible and wiser "many".
It looks like the Netherlands have it correct then. Yet this conversation brings up another idea. There is a difference in quality of listening between the methods of encoding. MP3 is not that good because it reduces quality but not that noticible of a reduction so that it can be small and compressed. Record companies good provide high quality downloads becuase that is what I would want. Mp3s are diminshed in quality.
No actually, I am buying the license to listen to a particular copyrighted work. You may be buying the piece of plastic, not me. And if that were true you are overpaying for the plastic disc. There seems to be some confusion regarding this issue and it needs so be clarified.
It does not matter what the source is or what format we have it in. We are purchasing a license to listen at our leisure to a song or watch a movie. We can have a thousand copies because we can only listen to one at a time. Somebody needs to argue this in court. That we are in fact purchasing a license to listen, not a piece of plastic or a digital file of zero's and ones.
This is the New legal justification for open downloads of music or copy righted material:
In fact the record labels need to, I think legally provide, free downloads of music. The record companies have not provided a way for me to enjoy my license to listen if the CD gets scratched, as it is now they force us to buy a new license they should probably reimburse anyone who has had to buy more than one license because of damage media. I noticed about 10 years ago CDs became very easy to scratch not the bottom but the top.
Because the carrier medium can be damaged we should all be able to get a download of a new instance of the song we paid for from the Internet if we purchased the license to listen to it. Since the record companies have not provided a way for us to get a replacement copy the Internet downloads can ethically be justified.
Truth is we don't need the record companies anymore. We can all buy from the artists direct and vote with a link what is most popular. I would be happy to pay the creative talent directly without the huge middle man cut. Another things is corporate pressure to maintain the status quo system cannot be put on artists by large corporations.
Hopefully someone will get this into the hands of the attorneys for the defendants.
Technically based on quantum physics there is only one copy of a piece of music in the universe. This exists in the intangible realm; all tangible manifestations of this one copy are simply a physical conveyance of this one real instance. It is an information universe, everything is ultimately just information.
On the other hand I think who the IP address is assigned to below the provider is private information. In other words ISPs whould not be divulgin who they assigned an IP address to becuase this could allow individual specific information to be collected.
It does not matter what the source is or what format we have it in. We are purchasing a license to listen at our leisure to a song or watch a movie. We can have a thousand copies because we can only listen to one at a time. Somebody needs to argue this in court. That we are in fact purchasing a license to listen, not a piece of plastic or a digital file of zero's and ones.
This is the New legal justification for open downloads of music or copy righted material:
In fact the record labels need to, I think legally provide, free downloads of music. The record companies have not provided a way for me to enjoy my license to listen if the CD gets scratched, as it is now they force us to buy a new license they should probably reimburse anyone who has had to buy more than one license because of damage media.
I noticed about 10 years ago CDs became very easy to scratch not the bottom but the top.
Because the carrier medium can be damaged we should all be able to get a download of a new instance of the song we paid for from the Internet if we purchased the license to listen to it. Since the record companies have not provided a way for us to get a replacement copy the Internet downloads can ethically be justified.
Truth is we don't need the record companies anymore. We can all buy from the artists direct and vote with a link what is most popular. I would be happy to pay the creative talent directly without the huge middle man cut. Another things is corporate pressure to maintain the status quo system cannot be put on artists by large corporations.
Hopefully someone will get this into the hands of the attorneys for the defendants.
Technically based on quantum physics there is only one copy of a piece of music in the universe. This exists in the intangible realm; all tangible manifestations of this one copy are simply a physical conveyance of this one real instance. It is an information universe, everything is ultimately just information.
It does not matter what the source is or what format we have it in. We are purchasing a license to listen at our leisure to a song or watch a movie. We can have a thousand copies because we can only listen to one at a time. Somebody needs to argue this in court. That we are in fact purchasing a license to listen, not a piece of plastic or a digital file of zero's and ones.
This is the New legal justification for open downloads of music or copy righted material:
In fact the record labels need to, I think legally provide, free downloads of music. The record companies have not provided a way for me to enjoy my license to listen if the CD gets scratched, as it is now they force us to buy a new license they should probably reimburse anyone who has had to buy more than one license because of damage media. I noticed about 10 years ago CDs became very easy to scratch not the bottom but the top.
Because the carrier medium can be damaged we should all be able to get a download of a new instance of the song we paid for from the Internet if we purchased the license to listen to it. Since the record companies have not provided a way for us to get a replacement copy the Internet downloads can ethically be justified.
Truth is we don't need the record companies anymore. We can all buy from the artists direct and vote with a link what is most popular. I would be happy to pay the creative talent directly without the huge middle man cut. Another things is corporate pressure to maintain the status quo system cannot be put on artists by large corporations.
Hopefully someone will get this into the hands of the attorneys for the defendants.
Technically based on quantum physics there is only one copy of a piece of music in the universe. This exists in the intangible realm; all tangible manifestations of this one copy are simply a physical conveyance of this one real instance. It is an information universe, everything is ultimately just information.
Yes, you are technically correct about the stick. It was meant to convey an idea. As an object approaches the speed of light,it's mass approaches infinity. So reach the speed of light it would need to cease to have mass becoming pure information.
That is part of the revelation of Intangics, that there are no particles only the appearance of particles and there is no travel only the appearance of travel. When you drive down the street you are not moving, the world is moving around you.
If it's an information universe then prehaps it is possible and information technology may give us more insight into the universe than we think. Being that all you are reading now is the result of two values 0 and 1. There are two things that have not been understood yet. That quantum randomness is all pervading and that consciousness / observer [virtual particles] give rise to form via a filtering mechanism which is also the same as projection. Quantum randomness is the field. In other words from the entropy of the universe comes order as a function of consciousness. The other thing that has yet to be understood is that space connects everything. Action at a distance is possible because the two objects are connected by the very same space. If I have a long stick and you hold the other end of it and I thrust my end towards you, you will instantly faster than the speed of light feel it at your end. Now replace the stick with space. Travel across the universe is possible because travel is a function of space not matter and with that you can understand the gravity of the situation. Travel is only an appearance a valid one at that, creating a real experience, it's all about choice of perception. You can fantasize all you want and believe or fictionalize, but if the math doesn't work, it is not going to become reality.
The other thing that is no explained is the seemingly sudden appearance of certain species which is why there are so many missing links.
Another things is that no one has explained species wide mutation for example turning off of the enzyme that produces vitamin C.
In Infinite Play the Movie http://www.infiniteplaythemovie.com/ they claim that viruses are a way the one member of a species propagates a change to other members of the species. They also claim that DNA is software programmed by something intelligent. But not some personalized God.
A lot of people don't know that 40,000 years there were only 1,000 members of our species based on mitochondrial DNA. The standard theory of evolution is destroyed by a very white beetle, correlation The Beetles White album. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/beetle_biomimic.php The Cyphochilus beetle has a highly unusual brilliant white shell. New research by the University of Exeter and Imerys Minerals Ltd. and published in journal Science (19 January), reveals the secret to this beetle's bizarre appearance. The Cyphochilus beetle has evolved its brilliant whiteness using a unique surface structure. At one 200th of a millimetre thick, its scales are ten times thinner than a human hair. Industrial mineral coatings, such as those used on high quality paper, plastics and in some paints, would need to be twice as thick to be as white. According to ISO accredited measurements for whiteness and brightness, the beetle is much whiter and brighter than milk and the average human tooth, which are both considerably thicker. 'This kind of brilliant whiteness from such a thin sample is rare in nature. As soon as I saw it, every instinct told me that the beetle was something very special,' said Dr Pete Vukusic of the University of Exeter's School of Physics. 'In future, the paper we write on, the colour of our teeth and even the efficiency of the rapidly emerging new generation of white light sources will be significantly improved if technology can take and apply the design ideas we learn from this beetle.' Colour in both nature and technology can be produced by pigmentation or by very regularly arranged layers or structures. Whiteness, however, is created through a random structure, which produces 'scattering' of all colours simultaneously. Using electron microscope imaging, Dr Vukusic studied the beetle's body, head and legs and found them to be covered in long flat scales, which have highly random internal 3D structures. These irregular internal forms are the key to its uniquely effective light scattering. By balancing the size of the structures with the spacing between them, they scatter white light far more efficiently than the fibres in white paper or the enamel on teeth.
In a free market economy inflation should hover around zero. The academics and experts are still debating the cause of inflation. I find that a little odd that it is a mystery as to the cause? It's just math. I suspect inflation is really the measure of accumulated theft as well as the amount of money that goes to the public sector which causes an instant devaluation of all currency because the return (value) is not equal to that which created it in the private sector. This means that taxes are not good for anyone.
How much does it cost to do a million transactions on your computer? Sure there is a little more to it then that, banking it is all automated now requiring very little human labor or raw materials. The only real cost is hardware and electricity. The privately owned federal reserve member banks control the symbol and charge people for the use of it, it make sit very hard to participate in the economy if you don't use the symbol.
Much of that thinking is operating in the realm of the illusion that has been created surrounding energy and assets exchange accounting systems.
As for inflation since academics are still debating the cause I think inflation is the measure of asset devaluation and THEFT from the system. Theft being manipulation of monetary instruments to extract wealth from the system rather than creating economic value.
If I had the power to create the money, which is just a few keystrokes and mouse clicks to create a general ledger entry, in the real world. The .05 percent isn't for profit, it is just for system maintenance and to cover anyone that defaults.
Thanks for the info, that looks promising.
It's time to update the world's financial and monetary systems to reflect the advanced and new capabilities of technology. No longer should a small private group charge excessive fees for the use of their monetary system, subject to being manipulated to artificially extract wealth by those not actually making a value contribution to the other participants. We should also allow competition in providing monetary system services it is currently a monopoly.
When borrowing we are really making a commitment to produce goods or services in the future. Interest can be looked at as a tax on participating in the economic system or what they charge us (at least at the first tier) for the use of the monetary system they maintain.
Banks do several things. Track transactions, create GL entries to produce new money out of nothing, attempt to recover bad debt, asses and evaluate risk.
For doing these few things they collectively generated over, the last 3 years over a trillion dollars in NET profit.
The current cost or charge for contributing to the economic system in the US is about 6% of each dollar. Obviously the real cost is less than half a percent thanks to technology.
It is time for the public to own the monetary system and pay third parties to provide the above services taking advantage of technology.
Obviously we don't really need bank buildings anymore, just some data centers, and home PC's to support the whole system.
Thanks to the Internet and Technology the worlds Monetary and Financial systems are outdated and no longer needed so we don't need to pay 6% of the wealth we generate to the bankers.
More like .5% should be enough to support our Monetary system.