Criticism of Today's Tectonic Theory and the Launching of a New Investigation Angle
Today's issue: Tectonic theory, the theory that deals with the Earth's crust, it's "moving plates". I'm sceptical toward the version of tectonic plates that says that mountains extend all the way down to the lava/magma under the crust of the Earth.
While this may be true in some cases, I think most of the time, one finds "sediment layers", very compact at that that can negotiate the roundness of the Earth much better than the harder materials can justify. Thus, the plates are more like the semi-firm/hard "dough" (of peppercake kind) than the rock-hard impression most people have.
But this is of the enormous scale such that our impression of standing on rock-hard ground stays with us. These are just thoughts and I'm not well-read on this matter.
But what this does, is to corroborate or pave the way for how hydrocarbons (fossil fuels, pop. speaking) can be found even under the mountains and that hydrocarbons in this way are _not_ "dead plants, dead dinosaurs" and so on, but are created in a different way, out of the "bio-nuclear" reactor core of Earth.
This way of creating new matter, you know, from the very formation of the Earth may have entirely different origins for coming into being than what is hithertho known/understood/thought of. Your thoughts, please. (It is now made a proper note/document/communiqué.)
In asserting hope for people in terms of water and fuel: Water, estimated findings 0 - 1 km below Earth's surface, Oil/Gas, estimated findings 1 - 15 km below Earth's surface. Agree? :-D (This is without any particular knowledge, but I know of Deep Sea drilling (Mexican Gulf catastrophy) and general water basin consideration, something I find to be function of surrounding sea levels and other, rain etc. You can consider Japan vs. China/Inner China, fx.)
A more serious formulation:
I've now come to name this: new Crust Formation Theory.
It says that, given a certain body of Earth Crust, there is a (steady probability) proportional, "equal" chance to that of fx. USA to actually find oil and gas there, *where-ever* you search!
That everywhere on the planet, given this basic unit of Earth Crust there is a certain precentage chance to identify oil and gas, if not the minerals as well.
What's been stopping us? I believe, the politics, the lies and craving for financial power, the greed, from the "first" powers and the people with them (the powers as nations), like that of Old and Decadent Europe, that of Nazi-Sponsoring USA.
So now what? Yes, on a broader level, big units of political power need to establish "best standards" oil and gas institutes with the heart of the exploration, the resources identifying geological unit very central, to establish the IIT equiv. of oil and gas geology here and there in the World, going head on against companies like Halliburton and Baker-Hughes!
This is my advise and you're now responsible for carrying it through! Go, go, go!
Note: This has originally been posted to Static Display... on Facebook, 17. August 2011 by time 05:58 and 06:39.
Note2: The original note on Facebook, "This is written to the Facebook group, Static Display of Work... today, 17.08.2011, at appx. 05:58 and some 20 minutes backward from this point in time."
Note3: A more serious formulation has been entered today, 2012-12-09.
As an update for my tectonics theory, you can add the usual search methods: all photon spectrum methods for detection/location of earthly resources, oil, gas, various minerals of mining. These photon ranges include all the gamma rays, the high intensity spectrum of the electro-magnetic spectrum! In addition comes the use of sound waves. All these are angled toward the bottom and range of investigation and reflected upward again (as substance signature, i.e., sea, mud, sediments and so on) toward the detector ship, with its fleet of detectors tugged behind it! The it comes to the drilling for confirmation/verification! There is no doubt that the US Americans have been fooling us, the rest of the World! Good luck, people!
First posted to Facebook moments ago!
Friday 30 December 2011
Monday 19 December 2011
A Little Notice to Our (U.S.) American Friends - So eager on dividing the continents into new and exciting ways->
One: there is a cultural _divide_ over the mountains from Greece to Turkey, but NOT one over the river by Istanbul! You get it?!!!
On Programming (and Salutation to Sid Meier's Civ3) - Surveillance of Mozilla Firefox - An Example
Posted Tuesday, 18 October 2011!
I will here make the case for surveillance of Mozilla Firefox. They're operating under the premises that they represent IT Democracy, that they make a safe and secure browser, that they are reliable and so forth. I will now hold this to them, and possibly wage hard criticism if I find something stupid, peccable
or corrupt, on the verge to being relentless or criminal!
First update, above 7.01, that is preferably 7.10. Secondly, I think we in Europe should have our own Mozilla Firefox going. I see no reason why the names Mozilla or Firefox are supposed to be stuck/fixed to USA! We represent a large crowd of people (in EU) and so also programmers. We also like to support our own Computing/IT departments and faculties around Europe! So when we disagree, we put out our Euro-grade, recommended browser for our population, our good citizens (in order for them to feel safe from fx. sociopaths)!
The Update includes (8.0):
(Coming...)
My background is of Red Hat 5.1, a continued interest in IT/Internet technology and development and in the memory of the Mosaic browser, bought by Microsoft in late '90s or early (20)'00s.
Posted by L.F.O.-L. at 10/18/2011 04:21:00 AM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: firefox, mozilla, surveillance
Reactions:
20 comments:
L.F.O.-L. said...
Today, a few hours ago, I've received an Update notification for Mozilla Firefox to 8.0! I will report on this version as soon as possible. Besides, as a rule, ALL Mozilla Firefox users around the World _should be_ notified within 2 hours or so, on a fair basis, by loose estimate (and not days and months)!
12 November 2011 05:49
L.F.O.-L. said...
I've formerly criticised Mozilla for Firefox handling of cache (for 3 missing cache opportunities, I'll come back to this later)! Now you only get History of URLs and these are necessarily placed by themselves and out of reach for the user to deal with them themselves. These are CLEAR cases where user autonomy is being abruptly, coarsely IGNORED! I just WARN against these tendencies and if necessary I call for heads to ROLL, i.e., getting some idiots sacked!!!
12 November 2011 05:53
L.F.O.-L. said...
It can also be noted how one computer _only_ allows for, unnecessarily, ONE version of the program, i.e., only Mozilla Firefox 7.01 and only Thunderbird 7.01 and so forth! I think this adds to blatant user autonomy ignorance and how small changes, requiring little programming at all, REMOVE an intelligent user for investigating the programs! Cheers!
12 November 2011 06:05
L.F.O.-L. said...
Why is it their business what YOUR computer runs???!!!
12 November 2011 06:05
L.F.O.-L. said...
Concerning cookies handling: don't you find it weird that when you set "Never remember history" that you loose direct control over the cookies as opposed to the custom settings (7.01). Not only this but without checking, you're never asked for when to ACCEPT or DENY cookies AND there is NO option for this either!!! This is insulting, by (self-)declared top performance programmers! Remembering: "What we strive for
As a non-profit organization, we define success in terms of building communities and enriching people’s lives instead of benefiting shareholders. We believe in the power and potential of the Internet and want to see it thrive for everyone, everywhere.
Who we work with
Building a better Internet is an ambitious goal, but we believe that it is possible when people who share our passion get involved. Coders, artists, writers, testers, surfers, students, grandparents—anyone who cares about the web can help make it even better. Find out how you can help.
What drives us
Read the Mozilla Manifesto to learn more about the values and principles that guide the pursuit of our mission."
12 November 2011 06:24
L.F.O.-L. said...
http://www.mozilla.org/about/mission.html !
http://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto.en.html !
Read this and hold them liable/responsible! Discipline to them should should be appropiately delivered (a bit of slapping or not)! ;-)
12 November 2011 06:26
L.F.O.-L. said...
I've yet to locate my suggestion for cache handling under the Mozilla "5 million likes" group, where I've posted it and under my own profile because "There are no more posts to show at the moment", not even displaying the 3 last days of personal writings! (They must be) F*cking freaks! Speaking about democracy and openness when it's more like direct censorship! Morons (to them)!
12 November 2011 06:46
L.F.O.-L. said...
The cache handling that I've suggested on Facebook some time ago, concerns a history cache-folder, a primary cache folder (for seeing files NOW) and a secondary cache folder (for moderated content according to rules. There are also possibilities for for a pre-fetch/"view web-pages faster" cache, that makes all the caches 4. Perhaps a bit much, but programming should be sophisticated in year 2011. I've also noted the various agents working only IN to the 2ndary cache folder and a separate "agent" for working between the browser itself and the "Main" cache folder that is the cache folder that has always been necessary! This can make the number of "agents"/"daemons" 5, I think! Cheers!
12 November 2011 07:00
L.F.O.-L. said...
I've changed the line of "The Update includes (7.xx):" to "The Update includes (8.0):".
My first notes:
"v.8.0, offered to release channel users on November 8th, 2011"
*Comment*: _My_ 4 days delay is probably a part of the Mozilla Firefox "personal account" program and I think they are syndicating corruption on a massively large scale, with or without U. S. American state/Echelon program support!
What’s New in Firefox
The latest version of Firefox has the following changes:
Add-ons installed by third party programs are now disabled by default
Added a one-time add-on selection dialog to manage previously installed add-ons
Added Twitter to the search bar for select locales. Additional locale support will be added in the future
Added a preference to load tabs on demand, improving start-up time when windows are restored
Improved performance and memory handling when using and elements
Added CORS support for cross-domain textures in WebGL
Added support for HTML5 context menus
Added support for insertAdjacentHTML
Improved CSS hyphen support for many languages
Improved WebSocket support
Fixed several stability issues
Fixed several security issues
Please see the complete list of changes in this version. Web and extension developers should also view the curated list of platform changes. You may also be interested in the list of changes in the previous version.
Known Issues
This list covers some of the known problems with Firefox which will be resolved in future versions:
All Systems
Users of the Twitter search plugin may see Twitter appear in the search provider list multiple times (see bug 690658)
Choosing the "Pop out" menu item while watching fullscreen YouTube videos may cause Firefox to hang (see bug 675645)
Roundcube, webmail software used by many hosting companies, incorrectly displays an ellipses in place of long email titles. The Roundcube team has been notified of the issue (see bug 680610)
Arabic text on BBC.co.uk does not display correctly. The BBC has been notified of the issue (see bug 674335)
Firefox will now display a corrupted content error when it detects certain types of misconfigured servers. This is not a Firefox issue, please contact the website owner (see bug 681140)
For some users, scrolling in the main GMail window will be slower than usual (see bug 579260)
If you try to start Firefox using a locked profile, it will crash (see bug 573369)
Microsoft Windows
Some users of Adobe Reader X have experienced instability when viewing PDF documents in the browser. Uninstalling and reinstalling Adobe Reader X has been determined to resolve the issue (see bug 640901)
Some ALPS touchpad drivers break scrolling in Firefox. A workaround has been identified (see bug 605357)
Mac OS X
For some users, the preference dialog is not shown and a rendering error (in the form of a white square) is shown instead. This is caused an add-on incorrectly setting Firefox preferences (see bug 641288)
Users running Mac OS X 10.7 may see a crash when the file chooser dialog is shown. Apple has been notified of the issue (see bug 670842)
Users running Mac OS X 10.7 are no longer able to use gestures to navigate. This is due to underlying operating system changes and is fixed by Mac OS X 10.7.2 (see bug 668953)
This version of Firefox will not work on Macintosh hardware with Power PC CPUs (see bug 587799)
Linux and Unix
The video control buttons may not work when viewing QuickTime videos with libtotem (see bug 625036)
Users compiling from source might need a newer gcc and libstdc++ as the build requirements have changed (see bug 578880)
13 November 2011 03:31
L.F.O.-L. said...
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/8.0/releasenotes/buglist.html
13 November 2011 03:32
L.F.O.-L. said...
The original lines of suggestion for Mozilla Firefox have been (on Facebook):
Also, I still miss the simple cache-handling of Mozilla Firefox where one could visit the basket once one had explored the internet enough. To put a url inside the tabs and options of Preferences in Firefox should be the simplest and I see no need for Firefox to make its users public by either the Bookmarks or the Cache one has gathered during one's internet sessions. Why can't these two be properly PRIVATE? Anyhow, good luck to you! Cheers!
"16 hours ago"
Funny also, I had these words above posted earlier and suddenly they've gone from my writings here on Facebook! Queer! "Long live the micromanagement of Facebook and its Sociopathic behaviour!" - Uhh... JOKE!!! :-) :-D 8-D
"16 hours ago"
The time-stamp for the idea above with the "parity-code" should thus be appx. 04:41 05.11.2011 CET, just to put "them" off!
"16 hours ago"
For the cache-handling, please remember that the cache folder is organised by the system settings for that folder, including type and file-name. There is no good disorganisation argument against it. Also, unwanted files can be cut when the browsing session has finished or when the site has been left for another!
"7 hours ago"
Also, why can't the cache-folder have a user-set name? Is this a problem and can it _additionally_ be protected by a _user-stored_ password of the cuffs-design, i.e., browser holds the folders password and user holds the folders password!
"7 hours ago"
...(and the password remains impossible to alter by Firefox server or any other nativity server to the system)!
"7 hours ago"
I've updated my writing on the Mozilla Facebook-page with these last comments!
"7 hours ago"
To sort out the Privacy for the browser concerning the cache, you /can/ use a secondary cache for strict handling (by necessity) of the pages you're watching. If you want to sort out a concern over pre-fetch or "stored pages for faster viewing when you revisit" you can perhaps divide the data-stream for this by agent to a separate (3.) cache for this or by separate agents/daemons handling the intermediate traffic between the cache for storage and the caches that are more actively used with the browser, this again for solving PRIVACY concerns! Cheers!
"5 hours ago"
Last post also to Mozilla Firefox!
"5 hours ago"
Ideally, one wants a IN-stream only to the storage-cache (for removing the unnecessarily explicit and "structured" "history" category that has very few options for file and file-components handling!
"4 hours ago"
From Facebook, at night, date, 05.11.2011 CET.
13 November 2011 03:38
L.F.O.-L. said...
Otherwise, there's nothing much new to note with 8.0 compared with 7.01. The optional preferences are basically the same from what I can see! Still, then, the above points are valid and should be resolved! Good? To user autonomy and privacy! Cheers!
13 November 2011 03:40
L.F.O.-L. said...
You can include this: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Firefox_8_for_developers#Changes_to_the_build_system
I really think a European/EU Computing Department should look through the Browser and just launch "A Browser" or other name of their choice because I suspect USA is abusing its every virtue it has, and that there are concerns out of European/EU concerns, at least for competence that we should take care of regionally! Cheers #2!
13 November 2011 03:44
L.F.O.-L. said...
The size of the package, ready to be unpacked, is 14 238 KB (some 14 MBs, loosely and inaccurate, but so and so) as opposed to 7.01, 13717 (some 13 MBs, loosely and inaccurate, but so and so).
That's the size, I do recommend people to tick off the "Warn me when the web sites try to redirect or reload the page" that gives you greater control. This is under "Advanced" under "General". I also advise you to _never_ trust the browser with passwords! Because, generally, the passwords gathered are too important for anyone to get hold of them that easily, merely by breaking the passwords service of browser by configuration files fixing, switching them forth and back, reading out an indexed impression! I consider the Thunderbird too "thin" for there too be any good hacking possibility because (heh-heh, my naivity or not) "it should _only_ work toward the email protocols (you can identify these yourselves)! Cheers!
13 November 2011 05:23
L.F.O.-L. said...
"it should _only_ work toward the email protocols"
13 November 2011 05:23
L.F.O.-L. said...
An extra notice for the Thunderbird client may be that it's being hacked by criminal "parsing"/"preparation" for those who choose the Masterpassword option and hacked by supercomputer-attempts on particular subjects. This is of course done by "a squared set-up, limited selection of types" and this particular imposed/fixed "email account by Mozilla where they get unlimited hacking opportunities against your Thunderbird client! This is thus "Hyper-crime" for sure! What to do with this criminal having a super-computer and Mozillla under ones arms (would this be USA/CIA?)? I don't know!!! Preparation of package of the .exe file at several locations and by several people by the many mirrors! Yes, hopefully the preparation will then be "true to code"!!! Cheers!
13 November 2011 05:39
L.F.O.-L. said...
Hmm... Castro eh... Fidel Castro eh... under Mountain View by the Military Complex... of the High Command of USA, those who send you a nuke somewhere near (enough)...? Alright! USA, and you plead...? (I guess, NOT guilty, because "we're good"!)
13 November 2011 05:42
L.F.O.-L. said...
"The size of the package, ready to be unpacked, is 14 238 KB (some 14 MBs, loosely and inaccurate, but so and so) as opposed to 7.01, 13717 (some 13 MBs, loosely and inaccurate, but so and so)."
These numbers go under Windows 7 and its way of calculating the KBs. Please, note the K*B*. Bytes, B, are 8 bits, b, each.
Technically then, by Wikipedia:
The kilobyte (symbol: kB)[1] is a multiple of the unit byte for digital information. Although the prefix kilo- means 1000, the term kilobyte and symbol KB have historically been used to refer to either 1024 (210) bytes or 1000 (103) bytes, dependent upon context, in the fields of computer science and information technology.[2][3][4]
and
On modern systems, Mac OS X Snow Leopard represents a 65,536 byte file as "66 KB",[10] while Microsoft Windows 7 would represent this as "64 KB".[11]
by the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilobyte
16 November 2011 10:48
L.F.O.-L. said...
Thus the members of Mozilla Europe, the "Board of Directors", should at least retain honorary after a reorganisation to meet democratic, security and competence concerns for Europe/EU itself and being an example for other countries outside USA/EU/Europe!!! Alright? This is part of the call for a European/EU Internet and Operating System Security Body. (The Call is to be posted here soon.)
19 November 2011 16:13
L.F.O.-L. said...
Here is the message it connects with, the message above:
I've formerly noted Mozilla Europe, http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/about/ , for being OUR team! I'm now going to make the call for an Internet and Operating System Security Body that governs the oversight and has legal authority over all IT aspects for what goes into Europe! They should be of the normal and good standard for a governing body of this kind and be big enough NOT to fall for crooks and idiots (incl. sufficient transparency)!
19 November 2011 16:50
I will here make the case for surveillance of Mozilla Firefox. They're operating under the premises that they represent IT Democracy, that they make a safe and secure browser, that they are reliable and so forth. I will now hold this to them, and possibly wage hard criticism if I find something stupid, peccable
or corrupt, on the verge to being relentless or criminal!
First update, above 7.01, that is preferably 7.10. Secondly, I think we in Europe should have our own Mozilla Firefox going. I see no reason why the names Mozilla or Firefox are supposed to be stuck/fixed to USA! We represent a large crowd of people (in EU) and so also programmers. We also like to support our own Computing/IT departments and faculties around Europe! So when we disagree, we put out our Euro-grade, recommended browser for our population, our good citizens (in order for them to feel safe from fx. sociopaths)!
The Update includes (8.0):
(Coming...)
My background is of Red Hat 5.1, a continued interest in IT/Internet technology and development and in the memory of the Mosaic browser, bought by Microsoft in late '90s or early (20)'00s.
Posted by L.F.O.-L. at 10/18/2011 04:21:00 AM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: firefox, mozilla, surveillance
Reactions:
20 comments:
L.F.O.-L. said...
Today, a few hours ago, I've received an Update notification for Mozilla Firefox to 8.0! I will report on this version as soon as possible. Besides, as a rule, ALL Mozilla Firefox users around the World _should be_ notified within 2 hours or so, on a fair basis, by loose estimate (and not days and months)!
12 November 2011 05:49
L.F.O.-L. said...
I've formerly criticised Mozilla for Firefox handling of cache (for 3 missing cache opportunities, I'll come back to this later)! Now you only get History of URLs and these are necessarily placed by themselves and out of reach for the user to deal with them themselves. These are CLEAR cases where user autonomy is being abruptly, coarsely IGNORED! I just WARN against these tendencies and if necessary I call for heads to ROLL, i.e., getting some idiots sacked!!!
12 November 2011 05:53
L.F.O.-L. said...
It can also be noted how one computer _only_ allows for, unnecessarily, ONE version of the program, i.e., only Mozilla Firefox 7.01 and only Thunderbird 7.01 and so forth! I think this adds to blatant user autonomy ignorance and how small changes, requiring little programming at all, REMOVE an intelligent user for investigating the programs! Cheers!
12 November 2011 06:05
L.F.O.-L. said...
Why is it their business what YOUR computer runs???!!!
12 November 2011 06:05
L.F.O.-L. said...
Concerning cookies handling: don't you find it weird that when you set "Never remember history" that you loose direct control over the cookies as opposed to the custom settings (7.01). Not only this but without checking, you're never asked for when to ACCEPT or DENY cookies AND there is NO option for this either!!! This is insulting, by (self-)declared top performance programmers! Remembering: "What we strive for
As a non-profit organization, we define success in terms of building communities and enriching people’s lives instead of benefiting shareholders. We believe in the power and potential of the Internet and want to see it thrive for everyone, everywhere.
Who we work with
Building a better Internet is an ambitious goal, but we believe that it is possible when people who share our passion get involved. Coders, artists, writers, testers, surfers, students, grandparents—anyone who cares about the web can help make it even better. Find out how you can help.
What drives us
Read the Mozilla Manifesto to learn more about the values and principles that guide the pursuit of our mission."
12 November 2011 06:24
L.F.O.-L. said...
http://www.mozilla.org/about/mission.html !
http://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto.en.html !
Read this and hold them liable/responsible! Discipline to them should should be appropiately delivered (a bit of slapping or not)! ;-)
12 November 2011 06:26
L.F.O.-L. said...
I've yet to locate my suggestion for cache handling under the Mozilla "5 million likes" group, where I've posted it and under my own profile because "There are no more posts to show at the moment", not even displaying the 3 last days of personal writings! (They must be) F*cking freaks! Speaking about democracy and openness when it's more like direct censorship! Morons (to them)!
12 November 2011 06:46
L.F.O.-L. said...
The cache handling that I've suggested on Facebook some time ago, concerns a history cache-folder, a primary cache folder (for seeing files NOW) and a secondary cache folder (for moderated content according to rules. There are also possibilities for for a pre-fetch/"view web-pages faster" cache, that makes all the caches 4. Perhaps a bit much, but programming should be sophisticated in year 2011. I've also noted the various agents working only IN to the 2ndary cache folder and a separate "agent" for working between the browser itself and the "Main" cache folder that is the cache folder that has always been necessary! This can make the number of "agents"/"daemons" 5, I think! Cheers!
12 November 2011 07:00
L.F.O.-L. said...
I've changed the line of "The Update includes (7.xx):" to "The Update includes (8.0):".
My first notes:
"v.8.0, offered to release channel users on November 8th, 2011"
*Comment*: _My_ 4 days delay is probably a part of the Mozilla Firefox "personal account" program and I think they are syndicating corruption on a massively large scale, with or without U. S. American state/Echelon program support!
What’s New in Firefox
The latest version of Firefox has the following changes:
Add-ons installed by third party programs are now disabled by default
Added a one-time add-on selection dialog to manage previously installed add-ons
Added Twitter to the search bar for select locales. Additional locale support will be added in the future
Added a preference to load tabs on demand, improving start-up time when windows are restored
Improved performance and memory handling when using and elements
Added CORS support for cross-domain textures in WebGL
Added support for HTML5 context menus
Added support for insertAdjacentHTML
Improved CSS hyphen support for many languages
Improved WebSocket support
Fixed several stability issues
Fixed several security issues
Please see the complete list of changes in this version. Web and extension developers should also view the curated list of platform changes. You may also be interested in the list of changes in the previous version.
Known Issues
This list covers some of the known problems with Firefox which will be resolved in future versions:
All Systems
Users of the Twitter search plugin may see Twitter appear in the search provider list multiple times (see bug 690658)
Choosing the "Pop out" menu item while watching fullscreen YouTube videos may cause Firefox to hang (see bug 675645)
Roundcube, webmail software used by many hosting companies, incorrectly displays an ellipses in place of long email titles. The Roundcube team has been notified of the issue (see bug 680610)
Arabic text on BBC.co.uk does not display correctly. The BBC has been notified of the issue (see bug 674335)
Firefox will now display a corrupted content error when it detects certain types of misconfigured servers. This is not a Firefox issue, please contact the website owner (see bug 681140)
For some users, scrolling in the main GMail window will be slower than usual (see bug 579260)
If you try to start Firefox using a locked profile, it will crash (see bug 573369)
Microsoft Windows
Some users of Adobe Reader X have experienced instability when viewing PDF documents in the browser. Uninstalling and reinstalling Adobe Reader X has been determined to resolve the issue (see bug 640901)
Some ALPS touchpad drivers break scrolling in Firefox. A workaround has been identified (see bug 605357)
Mac OS X
For some users, the preference dialog is not shown and a rendering error (in the form of a white square) is shown instead. This is caused an add-on incorrectly setting Firefox preferences (see bug 641288)
Users running Mac OS X 10.7 may see a crash when the file chooser dialog is shown. Apple has been notified of the issue (see bug 670842)
Users running Mac OS X 10.7 are no longer able to use gestures to navigate. This is due to underlying operating system changes and is fixed by Mac OS X 10.7.2 (see bug 668953)
This version of Firefox will not work on Macintosh hardware with Power PC CPUs (see bug 587799)
Linux and Unix
The video control buttons may not work when viewing QuickTime videos with libtotem (see bug 625036)
Users compiling from source might need a newer gcc and libstdc++ as the build requirements have changed (see bug 578880)
13 November 2011 03:31
L.F.O.-L. said...
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/8.0/releasenotes/buglist.html
13 November 2011 03:32
L.F.O.-L. said...
The original lines of suggestion for Mozilla Firefox have been (on Facebook):
Also, I still miss the simple cache-handling of Mozilla Firefox where one could visit the basket once one had explored the internet enough. To put a url inside the tabs and options of Preferences in Firefox should be the simplest and I see no need for Firefox to make its users public by either the Bookmarks or the Cache one has gathered during one's internet sessions. Why can't these two be properly PRIVATE? Anyhow, good luck to you! Cheers!
"16 hours ago"
Funny also, I had these words above posted earlier and suddenly they've gone from my writings here on Facebook! Queer! "Long live the micromanagement of Facebook and its Sociopathic behaviour!" - Uhh... JOKE!!! :-) :-D 8-D
"16 hours ago"
The time-stamp for the idea above with the "parity-code" should thus be appx. 04:41 05.11.2011 CET, just to put "them" off!
"16 hours ago"
For the cache-handling, please remember that the cache folder is organised by the system settings for that folder, including type and file-name. There is no good disorganisation argument against it. Also, unwanted files can be cut when the browsing session has finished or when the site has been left for another!
"7 hours ago"
Also, why can't the cache-folder have a user-set name? Is this a problem and can it _additionally_ be protected by a _user-stored_ password of the cuffs-design, i.e., browser holds the folders password and user holds the folders password!
"7 hours ago"
...(and the password remains impossible to alter by Firefox server or any other nativity server to the system)!
"7 hours ago"
I've updated my writing on the Mozilla Facebook-page with these last comments!
"7 hours ago"
To sort out the Privacy for the browser concerning the cache, you /can/ use a secondary cache for strict handling (by necessity) of the pages you're watching. If you want to sort out a concern over pre-fetch or "stored pages for faster viewing when you revisit" you can perhaps divide the data-stream for this by agent to a separate (3.) cache for this or by separate agents/daemons handling the intermediate traffic between the cache for storage and the caches that are more actively used with the browser, this again for solving PRIVACY concerns! Cheers!
"5 hours ago"
Last post also to Mozilla Firefox!
"5 hours ago"
Ideally, one wants a IN-stream only to the storage-cache (for removing the unnecessarily explicit and "structured" "history" category that has very few options for file and file-components handling!
"4 hours ago"
From Facebook, at night, date, 05.11.2011 CET.
13 November 2011 03:38
L.F.O.-L. said...
Otherwise, there's nothing much new to note with 8.0 compared with 7.01. The optional preferences are basically the same from what I can see! Still, then, the above points are valid and should be resolved! Good? To user autonomy and privacy! Cheers!
13 November 2011 03:40
L.F.O.-L. said...
You can include this: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Firefox_8_for_developers#Changes_to_the_build_system
I really think a European/EU Computing Department should look through the Browser and just launch "A Browser" or other name of their choice because I suspect USA is abusing its every virtue it has, and that there are concerns out of European/EU concerns, at least for competence that we should take care of regionally! Cheers #2!
13 November 2011 03:44
L.F.O.-L. said...
The size of the package, ready to be unpacked, is 14 238 KB (some 14 MBs, loosely and inaccurate, but so and so) as opposed to 7.01, 13717 (some 13 MBs, loosely and inaccurate, but so and so).
That's the size, I do recommend people to tick off the "Warn me when the web sites try to redirect or reload the page" that gives you greater control. This is under "Advanced" under "General". I also advise you to _never_ trust the browser with passwords! Because, generally, the passwords gathered are too important for anyone to get hold of them that easily, merely by breaking the passwords service of browser by configuration files fixing, switching them forth and back, reading out an indexed impression! I consider the Thunderbird too "thin" for there too be any good hacking possibility because (heh-heh, my naivity or not) "it should _only_ work toward the email protocols (you can identify these yourselves)! Cheers!
13 November 2011 05:23
L.F.O.-L. said...
"it should _only_ work toward the email protocols"
13 November 2011 05:23
L.F.O.-L. said...
An extra notice for the Thunderbird client may be that it's being hacked by criminal "parsing"/"preparation" for those who choose the Masterpassword option and hacked by supercomputer-attempts on particular subjects. This is of course done by "a squared set-up, limited selection of types" and this particular imposed/fixed "email account by Mozilla where they get unlimited hacking opportunities against your Thunderbird client! This is thus "Hyper-crime" for sure! What to do with this criminal having a super-computer and Mozillla under ones arms (would this be USA/CIA?)? I don't know!!! Preparation of package of the .exe file at several locations and by several people by the many mirrors! Yes, hopefully the preparation will then be "true to code"!!! Cheers!
13 November 2011 05:39
L.F.O.-L. said...
Hmm... Castro eh... Fidel Castro eh... under Mountain View by the Military Complex... of the High Command of USA, those who send you a nuke somewhere near (enough)...? Alright! USA, and you plead...? (I guess, NOT guilty, because "we're good"!)
13 November 2011 05:42
L.F.O.-L. said...
"The size of the package, ready to be unpacked, is 14 238 KB (some 14 MBs, loosely and inaccurate, but so and so) as opposed to 7.01, 13717 (some 13 MBs, loosely and inaccurate, but so and so)."
These numbers go under Windows 7 and its way of calculating the KBs. Please, note the K*B*. Bytes, B, are 8 bits, b, each.
Technically then, by Wikipedia:
The kilobyte (symbol: kB)[1] is a multiple of the unit byte for digital information. Although the prefix kilo- means 1000, the term kilobyte and symbol KB have historically been used to refer to either 1024 (210) bytes or 1000 (103) bytes, dependent upon context, in the fields of computer science and information technology.[2][3][4]
and
On modern systems, Mac OS X Snow Leopard represents a 65,536 byte file as "66 KB",[10] while Microsoft Windows 7 would represent this as "64 KB".[11]
by the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilobyte
16 November 2011 10:48
L.F.O.-L. said...
Thus the members of Mozilla Europe, the "Board of Directors", should at least retain honorary after a reorganisation to meet democratic, security and competence concerns for Europe/EU itself and being an example for other countries outside USA/EU/Europe!!! Alright? This is part of the call for a European/EU Internet and Operating System Security Body. (The Call is to be posted here soon.)
19 November 2011 16:13
L.F.O.-L. said...
Here is the message it connects with, the message above:
I've formerly noted Mozilla Europe, http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/about/ , for being OUR team! I'm now going to make the call for an Internet and Operating System Security Body that governs the oversight and has legal authority over all IT aspects for what goes into Europe! They should be of the normal and good standard for a governing body of this kind and be big enough NOT to fall for crooks and idiots (incl. sufficient transparency)!
19 November 2011 16:50
Sunday 18 December 2011
Some Discussion over "Quantum Cats" - Follows...
I've written to the Physorg.com under http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-quantum-cats-hard.html!
"Quantum cats are hard to see" by
"www.physorg.com"
"Are there parallel universes? And how will we know? This is one of many fascinations people hold about quantum physics. Researchers from the universities of Calgary and Waterloo in Canada and the University of Geneva in Switzerland have published a paper this week in Physical Review Letters ..."
This is what I intend to write them: I've proven that Chrisoph Simon is wrong by "I can refer you to my own writing on Schrodinger's Cat (or Rat) and you will see that I've proven that the above author is WRONG, just like the above people say, the Schrodinger's Cat kills Schrodinger (iff. such a relation is necessary)! Cheers!" (text of mine)!
I've also tried to post this: Schrödinger's theory and Schrödinger's cat
Schrödinger's cat. The probability expresses the statistical chance for the cat. There's nothing more to say about it. There's something wrong with Schrödinger's theory if this is a necessary implication.
I'd also like to point out that the "mystery" of Schrödinger's cat comes down to the Copenhagen Interpretation, that I follow strictly on the observation point only, of having to be observed for something to exist. Schrodinger's cat goes clearly against this, even as an indirect observation. I therefore think that the whole of this line of thinking (Schrödinger's cat etc.) is flawed. It's almost embarrassing how mistaken it seems in regard to the huge interest.
Schrödinger's cat can also be set up with a rat, by requirement of the ladies, slightly sedated and laid under the guillotine. So when this condition of the atom triggers, the guillotine blade falls and decapitates the rat, rendering it certainly and clearly dead, with its head chopped off and thus leaving the rat in 2 pieces. This may be a better demonstration of the experiment. - But they remain closed idiots! (Not also accepting ö, ridiculous!)
Computing, however, involves quantum mechanics, and the above "uninformed" attitude by the above poster, Nanobanano, is taken away by referring to anything involving a quant, a particle, any given machine, and the person is wrong, definitively! Quantum mechanics remain though only or mostly in experimental set-ups so we'll see! We refer Nanobanano to Princeton University studies of quantum mechanics and the best papers elsewhere! (Nobel prizes? I think so! You can start with Erwin Schrodinger himself, for the 1933 prize!)
OK, the posting to Physorg has again gone in. Nothing wrong again, only some irritating waiting!
There is a user there, Nanobanano, who claims that classical physics is all there is. I think this is wrong because classical physics is limited (from what I remember by my own studies! However, one is always making the definite ...
Let's hold quantum physics, quantum mechanics and classical physics separate! I'm coming back to this, but to my knowledge the merger between these 3 hasn't been achieved and classical physics remains limited, to my knowledge. Have you read about dr. Dick Bierman's experiments? To rule out quantum physics by the above argumentation makes no sense at this point because Quantum Physics is about science and not about what you can use in your daily life.
That is, some new posting to this url, http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-quantum-cats-hard.html!
One can always make the definite requirement for one's conduct in Science to be one of proper procedure, and this requirement holds, regardless, but is classical physics eclipsing all there is of proper procedure in physics? I don't think so! The user, Nanobanano, is just that, very small ("nano"), tentatively!
My points are made! Cheers!
"The above people say" in the text above is only one user, Nanobanano, and he/she has possibly ignored or forgotten to refer to my writing because the argument on Schrödinger's cat or rat is MINE, of my invention! One of the turns of mine in this (short) writing is that I cut off the Copenhagen Interpretation to be only valid for direct/indirect observation! This may very well be the destruction of the Copenhagen Interpretation as well (I think it _has_ been destroyed), but as always, the future isn't for certain! Let's see what the other scientists say!
What is it that you object to? We can only know about observations.
My answer: it is common knowledge that Schrodingers cat destroys Schrodingers theory. That's what the cat was there for in the first place!
Because they INSIST that the cat is in TWO states, dead AND alive and this is now known to be dead wrong! The cat will never be both dead and alive and this is where the limits to human abilities come in! You are not all-knowing! We have to admit that the world obtains states that we have no clue of and that we need to get to definite observation to be certain of it! The "possible worlds" considerations belong to a different topic! You get it, please?
This is the answer of mine to Noumenon!
Besides, this stupid "quantum theory". If there is a used cat's "house"/box in some building. How do you know that the cat is either born yet, alive or dead? As this is 3 states, do we get a new problem? Thi-hi-hi-hi... :-) That is, the former cat is dead and they're waiting for a new one, but this cat /can/ be in a cat's mother womb, and not born yet, but pre-sold to new owners?
The "innuendo" of insisting on "contextualism"/"quantum interaction" is to be trapped in failure because what do you know of nature or reality or anything else merely from sitting there in an armchair, feelin/sensing "contextualism"/"quantum interaction": definite answer, NOTHING!
Still, most of the comments here (or _0_, zero) actually deals with the problem of cat destroying the Schrodinger's or why it should be the other way around! This is dubious, people!
Still, most of the comments here (or _0_, zero) actually doesn't deal with the problem of cat destroying the Schrodinger's or why it should be the other way around! This is dubious, people! (Excuse me for "feelin" and perhaps it's not nothing, but rather very little!)
Hey, smarta**, by (the petty) Wikipedia (but more than enough for you): Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, usually described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The scenario presents a cat that might be alive or dead, depending on an earlier random event. Although the original "experiment" was imaginary, similar principles have been researched and used in practical applications. The Cat paradox is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. In the course of developing this experiment, Schrödinger coined the term Verschränkung (entanglement).
I think the Quantum Computing relates to a quartz similar to the quartz that run the system time! Just so you are notified!
(This has been written to Facebook and to the page on the story by Physorg.com.)
"Quantum cats are hard to see" by
"www.physorg.com"
"Are there parallel universes? And how will we know? This is one of many fascinations people hold about quantum physics. Researchers from the universities of Calgary and Waterloo in Canada and the University of Geneva in Switzerland have published a paper this week in Physical Review Letters ..."
This is what I intend to write them: I've proven that Chrisoph Simon is wrong by "I can refer you to my own writing on Schrodinger's Cat (or Rat) and you will see that I've proven that the above author is WRONG, just like the above people say, the Schrodinger's Cat kills Schrodinger (iff. such a relation is necessary)! Cheers!" (text of mine)!
I've also tried to post this: Schrödinger's theory and Schrödinger's cat
Schrödinger's cat. The probability expresses the statistical chance for the cat. There's nothing more to say about it. There's something wrong with Schrödinger's theory if this is a necessary implication.
I'd also like to point out that the "mystery" of Schrödinger's cat comes down to the Copenhagen Interpretation, that I follow strictly on the observation point only, of having to be observed for something to exist. Schrodinger's cat goes clearly against this, even as an indirect observation. I therefore think that the whole of this line of thinking (Schrödinger's cat etc.) is flawed. It's almost embarrassing how mistaken it seems in regard to the huge interest.
Schrödinger's cat can also be set up with a rat, by requirement of the ladies, slightly sedated and laid under the guillotine. So when this condition of the atom triggers, the guillotine blade falls and decapitates the rat, rendering it certainly and clearly dead, with its head chopped off and thus leaving the rat in 2 pieces. This may be a better demonstration of the experiment. - But they remain closed idiots! (Not also accepting ö, ridiculous!)
Computing, however, involves quantum mechanics, and the above "uninformed" attitude by the above poster, Nanobanano, is taken away by referring to anything involving a quant, a particle, any given machine, and the person is wrong, definitively! Quantum mechanics remain though only or mostly in experimental set-ups so we'll see! We refer Nanobanano to Princeton University studies of quantum mechanics and the best papers elsewhere! (Nobel prizes? I think so! You can start with Erwin Schrodinger himself, for the 1933 prize!)
OK, the posting to Physorg has again gone in. Nothing wrong again, only some irritating waiting!
There is a user there, Nanobanano, who claims that classical physics is all there is. I think this is wrong because classical physics is limited (from what I remember by my own studies! However, one is always making the definite ...
Let's hold quantum physics, quantum mechanics and classical physics separate! I'm coming back to this, but to my knowledge the merger between these 3 hasn't been achieved and classical physics remains limited, to my knowledge. Have you read about dr. Dick Bierman's experiments? To rule out quantum physics by the above argumentation makes no sense at this point because Quantum Physics is about science and not about what you can use in your daily life.
That is, some new posting to this url, http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-quantum-cats-hard.html!
One can always make the definite requirement for one's conduct in Science to be one of proper procedure, and this requirement holds, regardless, but is classical physics eclipsing all there is of proper procedure in physics? I don't think so! The user, Nanobanano, is just that, very small ("nano"), tentatively!
My points are made! Cheers!
"The above people say" in the text above is only one user, Nanobanano, and he/she has possibly ignored or forgotten to refer to my writing because the argument on Schrödinger's cat or rat is MINE, of my invention! One of the turns of mine in this (short) writing is that I cut off the Copenhagen Interpretation to be only valid for direct/indirect observation! This may very well be the destruction of the Copenhagen Interpretation as well (I think it _has_ been destroyed), but as always, the future isn't for certain! Let's see what the other scientists say!
What is it that you object to? We can only know about observations.
My answer: it is common knowledge that Schrodingers cat destroys Schrodingers theory. That's what the cat was there for in the first place!
Because they INSIST that the cat is in TWO states, dead AND alive and this is now known to be dead wrong! The cat will never be both dead and alive and this is where the limits to human abilities come in! You are not all-knowing! We have to admit that the world obtains states that we have no clue of and that we need to get to definite observation to be certain of it! The "possible worlds" considerations belong to a different topic! You get it, please?
This is the answer of mine to Noumenon!
Besides, this stupid "quantum theory". If there is a used cat's "house"/box in some building. How do you know that the cat is either born yet, alive or dead? As this is 3 states, do we get a new problem? Thi-hi-hi-hi... :-) That is, the former cat is dead and they're waiting for a new one, but this cat /can/ be in a cat's mother womb, and not born yet, but pre-sold to new owners?
The "innuendo" of insisting on "contextualism"/"quantum interaction" is to be trapped in failure because what do you know of nature or reality or anything else merely from sitting there in an armchair, feelin/sensing "contextualism"/"quantum interaction": definite answer, NOTHING!
Still, most of the comments here (or _0_, zero) actually deals with the problem of cat destroying the Schrodinger's or why it should be the other way around! This is dubious, people!
Still, most of the comments here (or _0_, zero) actually doesn't deal with the problem of cat destroying the Schrodinger's or why it should be the other way around! This is dubious, people! (Excuse me for "feelin" and perhaps it's not nothing, but rather very little!)
Hey, smarta**, by (the petty) Wikipedia (but more than enough for you): Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, usually described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The scenario presents a cat that might be alive or dead, depending on an earlier random event. Although the original "experiment" was imaginary, similar principles have been researched and used in practical applications. The Cat paradox is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. In the course of developing this experiment, Schrödinger coined the term Verschränkung (entanglement).
I think the Quantum Computing relates to a quartz similar to the quartz that run the system time! Just so you are notified!
(This has been written to Facebook and to the page on the story by Physorg.com.)
The Two Collected Writings on the Free Will Theorem
1. The Free Will Theorem and Quants - Complexity
Various!Posted by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea 2011-07-05 03:30:40
I think it requires complexity of heavier bodies of matter for free will to obtain.
The Free Will Theorem is presented by John Conway and Simon Kochen and the Wikipedia page has a criticism of them as a part of presenting The Free Will Theorem.
The url to it is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem.
Fx. a stream of photons of visible light can only do that much when speeding away from the Sun. There is no evidence that the stream of photons can change anything in particular, let's say direction, compensating for some gravity. See Einstein's relativity for gravity effects on photons.
Also, complexity should also be required for the decision for choosing between pleasure and relaxation and exercise and feeding and hunt. Although, these properties are only present with animals and ourselves, the humans.
So unless a bigger body is chosen and the choices are somehow explicated, I think "undetermined" is too weak for giving any plausibility to it or credibility for that matter.
I think, though, that the Dr. Dick Bierman experiments of Holland show that "monades" are likely to obtain in a fundamental way, in line with The Free Will Theorem by John Conway and Simon Kochen, rather than an unknown mechanism that may be impossible to find. This is a warning to future experimenters (the physicists).
The conclusion must be that a bigger system is effectuating the free will existing everywhere whether you call it God or some strange uknown super entity of the Universe / Multiverse or whatever.
Note: originally posted as http://blog.t-lea.net/#post232
Note2: you can also read about this on Static Display... on Facebook, it's an open group of mine.
Note3: To Blogspot, by Whatiswritten777 Friday, 26 August 2011, by 2011/08/26, 03:22:00 PM!
2. Concerning The Free Will Hypothesis of Math - Suggested Modification
This will be the Modified Hypothesis of Free Will by quantum experiment maths. Applied Mathematics!
Allegedly then, by this, Free Will is obtained by merely _neutral_ and positive values of tested particles.
That is, you simply _deselect_ some options like an extremely (medically aided) long life, by one argument for Free Will!
This is inline with both my own Free Will arguments and with the two mathematicians of Princeton! Good for them and cheers to you!
The free will theorem of John H. Conway and Simon B. Kochen states that, if we have a certain amount of "free will", then, subject to certain assumptions, so must some elementary particles. Conway and Kochen's paper was published in Foundations of Physics in 2006.[1] - My respects to them _by name_!
Secondly, people are deeply _wrong_ if they think that I don't understand that The Free Will Theorem is about the free will of particles, I _merely_ dispute the degree "their", the particles Free Will is _*significant*_!!! I also wonder what kind of Free Will would be displayed if these particles roam toward the edges of space/universe! To my knowledge, Free Will arises as matter of life on planets and that, of course, Free Will _takes hold_, is made possible by this _only_! But in the end, I don't need to question the status of Free Will in these particles. I only need to point toward the consequences of larger facts (by ..._deselect_...) of life and _downward_ to these particles, regardless of what Free Will lies there! If I'm pushed on this matter, I simply fall because I believe in "monads" too! Cheers! (This has been posted to the Facebook group "The Free Will Theorem"
To Blogspot, Whatiswritten777, by 8 November 2011 04:26 AM CET.
Further notice on Free Will and Determinism as Metaphysical Entities:
On the Free Will Theorem, and Free Will, all in all, thoroughly proven, it's important to remember that Free Will lies *UNDER* science and NOT above it. Free Will or Determinism has absolutely no implication for science and the laws are of course held under the concept of "laws", because they are expected to never break!
As laws of nature or principles, as correct description, of nature! (This is entered here as well! I think about entering it also to the primary Free Will Theorem where I've added the _neutral_ state to the Theorem of Conway's, thus remaking their Theorem to a new Theorem! This has first been added to Facebook moments ago!)
By Blogspot, Whatiswritten777, by 18 December 2011 05:18 AM!
This looks rather bad right now and I'll straighten out this mess sometime soon!
Various!Posted by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea 2011-07-05 03:30:40
I think it requires complexity of heavier bodies of matter for free will to obtain.
The Free Will Theorem is presented by John Conway and Simon Kochen and the Wikipedia page has a criticism of them as a part of presenting The Free Will Theorem.
The url to it is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem.
Fx. a stream of photons of visible light can only do that much when speeding away from the Sun. There is no evidence that the stream of photons can change anything in particular, let's say direction, compensating for some gravity. See Einstein's relativity for gravity effects on photons.
Also, complexity should also be required for the decision for choosing between pleasure and relaxation and exercise and feeding and hunt. Although, these properties are only present with animals and ourselves, the humans.
So unless a bigger body is chosen and the choices are somehow explicated, I think "undetermined" is too weak for giving any plausibility to it or credibility for that matter.
I think, though, that the Dr. Dick Bierman experiments of Holland show that "monades" are likely to obtain in a fundamental way, in line with The Free Will Theorem by John Conway and Simon Kochen, rather than an unknown mechanism that may be impossible to find. This is a warning to future experimenters (the physicists).
The conclusion must be that a bigger system is effectuating the free will existing everywhere whether you call it God or some strange uknown super entity of the Universe / Multiverse or whatever.
Note: originally posted as http://blog.t-lea.net/#post232
Note2: you can also read about this on Static Display... on Facebook, it's an open group of mine.
Note3: To Blogspot, by Whatiswritten777 Friday, 26 August 2011, by 2011/08/26, 03:22:00 PM!
2. Concerning The Free Will Hypothesis of Math - Suggested Modification
This will be the Modified Hypothesis of Free Will by quantum experiment maths. Applied Mathematics!
Allegedly then, by this, Free Will is obtained by merely _neutral_ and positive values of tested particles.
That is, you simply _deselect_ some options like an extremely (medically aided) long life, by one argument for Free Will!
This is inline with both my own Free Will arguments and with the two mathematicians of Princeton! Good for them and cheers to you!
The free will theorem of John H. Conway and Simon B. Kochen states that, if we have a certain amount of "free will", then, subject to certain assumptions, so must some elementary particles. Conway and Kochen's paper was published in Foundations of Physics in 2006.[1] - My respects to them _by name_!
Secondly, people are deeply _wrong_ if they think that I don't understand that The Free Will Theorem is about the free will of particles, I _merely_ dispute the degree "their", the particles Free Will is _*significant*_!!! I also wonder what kind of Free Will would be displayed if these particles roam toward the edges of space/universe! To my knowledge, Free Will arises as matter of life on planets and that, of course, Free Will _takes hold_, is made possible by this _only_! But in the end, I don't need to question the status of Free Will in these particles. I only need to point toward the consequences of larger facts (by ..._deselect_...) of life and _downward_ to these particles, regardless of what Free Will lies there! If I'm pushed on this matter, I simply fall because I believe in "monads" too! Cheers! (This has been posted to the Facebook group "The Free Will Theorem"
To Blogspot, Whatiswritten777, by 8 November 2011 04:26 AM CET.
Further notice on Free Will and Determinism as Metaphysical Entities:
On the Free Will Theorem, and Free Will, all in all, thoroughly proven, it's important to remember that Free Will lies *UNDER* science and NOT above it. Free Will or Determinism has absolutely no implication for science and the laws are of course held under the concept of "laws", because they are expected to never break!
As laws of nature or principles, as correct description, of nature! (This is entered here as well! I think about entering it also to the primary Free Will Theorem where I've added the _neutral_ state to the Theorem of Conway's, thus remaking their Theorem to a new Theorem! This has first been added to Facebook moments ago!)
By Blogspot, Whatiswritten777, by 18 December 2011 05:18 AM!
This looks rather bad right now and I'll straighten out this mess sometime soon!
Thursday 15 December 2011
The Value of Generic Products
Subject: Big ideas wanted for China's hi-tech revolution
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 02:19:48 +0200
From: [email no longer in use]
To: ningdong @ peopledaily com cn
Hi People Daily (I'm not used to Chinese names to which I apologise)
I have the suggestion that, by the example of Mr Wu, one seeks
the generic technologies, first and foremost.
The generic technologies have little expenses attached to them in
terms of patents and they make great use and bring higher life-quality
to people in general, thus making swift positive changes.
It's therefore my suggestion that China sees new technology as kind
of (culturalised) fashion, tweaked by its own way of doing things.
I've also noted that Ren Ren newly got listed on the New York Stock
Exchange.
This suggestion relates to the BBC story, Big ideas wanted for China's
hi-tech revolution, by the link,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12396640.
I hope you greet my message well and I'm very happy that you are
progressing so fast and my best wishes to you for this to continue!
Sincerely yours,
(Mr.) L. F. Olsnes-Lea
Norway
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 02:19:48 +0200
From: [email no longer in use]
To: ningdong @ peopledaily com cn
Hi People Daily (I'm not used to Chinese names to which I apologise)
I have the suggestion that, by the example of Mr Wu, one seeks
the generic technologies, first and foremost.
The generic technologies have little expenses attached to them in
terms of patents and they make great use and bring higher life-quality
to people in general, thus making swift positive changes.
It's therefore my suggestion that China sees new technology as kind
of (culturalised) fashion, tweaked by its own way of doing things.
I've also noted that Ren Ren newly got listed on the New York Stock
Exchange.
This suggestion relates to the BBC story, Big ideas wanted for China's
hi-tech revolution, by the link,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12396640.
I hope you greet my message well and I'm very happy that you are
progressing so fast and my best wishes to you for this to continue!
Sincerely yours,
(Mr.) L. F. Olsnes-Lea
Norway
Wednesday 14 December 2011
Opinions on Physics
Schrödinger's theory and Schrödinger's cat
Schrödinger's cat. The probability expresses the statistical chance for the cat. There's nothing more to say about it. There's something wrong with Schrödinger's theory if this is a necessary implication.
I'd also like to point out that the "mystery" of Schrödinger's cat comes down to the Copenhagen Interpretation, that I follow strictly on the observation point only, of having to be observed for something to exist. Schrodinger's cat goes clearly against this, even as an indirect observation. I therefore think that the whole of this line of thinking (Schrödinger's cat etc.) is flawed. It's almost embarrassing how mistaken it seems in regard to the huge interest.
Schrödinger's cat can also be set up with a rat, by requirement of the ladies, slightly sedated and laid under the guillotine. So when this condition of the atom triggers, the guillotine blade falls and decapitates the rat, rendering it certainly and clearly dead, with its head chopped off and thus leaving the rat in 2 pieces. This may be a better demonstration of the experiment.
Over Problems with Schrödinger's theory and other - New Angles
It's with pleasure that I note that "Branching with Uncertain Semantics: Disc. Note by N. Belnap and T. Müller, published by BJPS lies in line with my writing and that they may have been reading this writing of mine. The future should be exciting!
It's certainly time for the "wave theory" to be demolished as expressing "wave" forming from the future in opposition to my own common sense sentiment that the past shapes the future. Thus, the "wave" of future possibilities is shaped by the past/history! This has been expressed earlier/above by the rejection of the Copenhagen Interpretation, except for the one point and the rejection of Schrödinger's (et al.?) theory.
In opposition to the Copenhagen Interpretation, I hold that one needs to always take into account the 3 necessary factors of matter, energy and mathematics. If you don't have matter and energy, there will not be any reality where your mathematics can apply. Thus, mathematics can't, whatsoever, be seen as more fundamental than reality itself, ie. matter and energy, perhaps along with space and time and some other.
Take the note, please, that energy is also matter, just split up in very tiny particles that also have a very tiny (physical) mass. So, by common knowledge, the particle/wave duality of the photon enters. The physics feels very fragmented at times and I'm still awaiting the Master Work in one series of volumes on it!
On Standard Model and the Future of It
Assertion: Photons are the smallest constituents of all matter. I assume the other particles of the Standard Model are made up of photons. Why is this? The sun burns mass and to my knowledge it only/mostly by far emits electromagnetic radiation, consequently in the form of photons. When a nuclear bomb explodes, it converts matter into electromagnetic radiation, energy of various forms. Compared to this, I think one can throw the string theory out the window along with dimensions beyond the usual 4 (I'm not certain about this concerning Einstein's theories that I'd like to keep as it is). Also, let's assume higher intensity radiation emits more dense amounts of photons and that it declines further down the electromagnetic spectrum.
New on photons: I think I can also hold that photons are "semi-fluid" on a hyper-level (of course). I don't know what this adds to our view of reality, but it's a possible way of reconciling the wave-particle duality.
Aether Aesthetics and a More Credible View on Gravity by Strong and Weak Interactions
Assertion: The space and possibly everywhere is held in a background uniform space that extends to the edges of the Universe, its gravitational system I'd like to call the Neo-aether that is consistent with Michelson-Morley experiment and functions in a more sublime way that we are yet to discover the full extension of. Einstein's theory effectively describes some of the nature of the Neo-aether.
I just like to say that I support the aether theory, if not exactly for a fluid, but I guess most theorists hold that the "fluid" is not a fluid as such. Rather, it's more about undetected phenomena connected to gravity yet not being any graviton.
An alternative view to aether can be this: in a unified picture of physics where the strong and weak magnetic forces are combined, one may achieve a calculated picture that equals what we perceive as gravity, but without adding any new particles and only asserting properties to mass in general, that is, "monades", the most basic constituents have a gravity/magnetic property to them and that is all. Job's done! This is all there is to describe because we have simply reached the bottom level there is to describe whatsoever!
Let me point out again that magnetism has north and south poles and thus reflect earth gravity, but on a micro scale. So this post is now also an update on my view on aether!
So let me be clear: I'm open to both of these views and that I intend to investigate these magnetic calculations first. I'm not sure on the approach for (new) aether, MM-compatible, other than for the fact that I see it logical in the extension of Einstein's RT. But I must point out that the aether research program now looks weak as one is yet to determine any property of it (apart from pure physical space). I've been in the hope one can find or identify a kind of new ocean, one that is "plastic" in nature, has some kind of an unknown physical property and is subtle and that matter just represents a function opposite to it by making gravity definite. Further than this is hard to describe other than the fact that I think it is an aesthetic property of the Universe.
My Successful Prediction of Mini-Black Holes by CERN Experiment
Concerning the Large Hadron Collider, LHC, it's my belief there will be absolutely no possibility of baby-black holes! If the smallest building blocks really are the photons then in LHC we'll see greater emission of photons from the collisions.
Note: The reason is that it takes Supernovas to make them and they are HUGE in the sense of Universe. They are in fact far bigger than our Sun which is our heaviest object in our Solar System. I don't think it's possible even to generate the power needed for such an experiment (to actually create Mini-/Baby-Black Holes). You could put 10 nuclear power plants right beside CERN and still the energy wouldn't match the assignment. I don't think there is possibility for such things in our Earthly lives!
On Big-Bang, Natural Laws, Asymmetry and Symmetry
I guess it's a common view to consider the Big Bang "a generative mechanism for the pattern of natural laws of the Universe". I still find the mind and the phenomena elusive, though, like if it's relevant here! It may be necessary to look to the moments after Big Bang to solve the riddle of the reason for matter to exist in particles, atoms, as they do, i.e., solving the question of the Higgs boson particle. It's also worth mentioning that unless there's formation of new matter from the absorption of photons, something I think there isn't, the matter in atoms is lost forever once it's dissolved. This is seldomly pointed out by physicists. Also, the absorption of photons into existing atomic structures brings increased excitation and perhaps weight and this fact, I think, adds to the Photon theory, ie. photons are the smallest building blocks in nature, universe.
On the Complexity of the Standard Model and Particles in Nature
I also like to mention that particle physics is far more complex than being just the Standard Model. Sir Roger Penrose writes in his book, The Road to Reality - A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, p. 628, about the pions, kaons, lambda, sigma, omega-minus, anti-protons, anti-neutrons, "vast hordes of particles whose existence is so fleeting that they are never directly observed, tending to be referred to merely as 'resonances'", 'virtual' particles and 'ghosts'. There are also mentioned numerous other "theoretical" particles by other theories.
It's just a quirk of mine, but I'd like to have the Charm and Strange quarks renamed as this, Charm gets the name Control and Strange gets the name Random. Does this make sense? Is it possible to prove the characteristics of control and randomness in the two quarks?
Note: I now think it may be that the Standard Model can be (relatively) completed! As analogy, Psychiatry has been in a haze concerning its diagnostication system and I think it's likely to make this finding in Physics as well.
On Impossibility of the Graviton and the Higgs' Boson
Concerning the Graviton and the Higgs' Boson:
I think it's clear at this stage that the Graviton and the Higgs' boson are blown out the window and are not to return to the world of physics ever again.
Why? Because they need to show that the photon is relevant to both of these concepts when it's hard in the first place to show the definite particle nature of the photon. Thus, photon necessarily must have both of these properties by which are hardly ever conceivable to prove, as separable particles apart from the photon itself!
It's clear however that the photon has "graviton" and "Higgs' boson" properties before we start out simply because "graviton" is to explain why particles are drawn to other objects, especially planets, and "Higgs' boson" is to explain why particles have mass whatsoever which all(?) have. It's therefore a kind of cheating to add "false particles" or "false names of properties" when they do not add explanatory force. The "mystery" of the (basic) particle of photon remains and also the mysteries with how mass and gravitation arise in the first place. Simply adding two names isn't very constructive in the general work of physics, I think (as mass and gravity are already in place).
I acknowledge that the Fermilab has set a confidence level for the finding of the Higgs' boson to 95%, but I'm sceptical of how they get there and if their work is more than mere "string theory work".
It's definite though, that the photon has both properties of mass and particle nature since it is affected by gravity (fx. from Mercury passing by the Sun). Yet the problem arises when you are to identify the graviton and the Higgs' boson, separately from the photon itself!
The URL to Fermilab and the Higgs' boson: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_releases/Higgs-mass-constraints-20100726-images.html.
On the Nature of Radio Signals From Space and how They Fit the Big Picture
Public education. Question: how are radio signals from space or through space explained? This is a terrible riddle to me. Radio waves, conventionally, are fluctuations through atoms like air, water and other substances. Do you have a good explanation of it? I have an update on this and it turns out radio waves are just another part of the electromagnetic spectrum with an even weaker intensity than infra-red. Thus, just another form of emission of photons. Done! (I'm sorry to bother you with such a puny question, but I've been wondering about it and I therefore want to make this clear to all, including the school kids!)
The link to a good spectrum including sound waves and electromagnetic waves, here.
On the Bending of Light(-Streams as Photons) by Electro-Magnetic Field, a Very Strong One
I think I'll state here right away that is in fact possible to bend light with a very strong, elelctro-generated magnetic field comparable to light from Mercury passing the gravity field of the Sun, like in the classic example of Einstein Relativity Theory.
Remember the lev-trains of the Japanese and their magnet experiments where they lift an object up only by the use of electro-magnetism and draw a sheet of paper underneath, between the lower and the upper physical bodies.
You should also have in mind the relative small size of the photon and the power of the elctro-magnetic field because I think it's fairly feasible.
Now, how this is done? At least for the calculation, it's fairly known how much pull the gravity of the Sun generates and the Planck's Mass(?) of the Photon should also be possible to consider. Then it's just to add the numbers and calculate what it takes to bend light. I also think this can be done in the classroom!
Wikipedia on magnets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnets!
The calculations are up to you to make, but at least for now, I remain optimistic (partly because I've seen it demonstrated in our classroom while finishing upper secondary school having the physics class. Rather this than any negative demonstation I can recall or heard of). Thus, kill the negative notions you read about on the internet!
I'd love to hear about your own searches. I haven't come up with the positive results just yet.
I'm also writing this primarily for public education and quenching myths of people who cite uncertain, novice sources.
Note on My Competence to These Respects
Note on my competence to this [Opinions on Physics and the Evolution webpage as a whoel]: I must "warn" readers that I have been reading Lee Smolin's "The Trouble With Physics" (by Penguin Group, 2006) and Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality" (by Vintage Books, 2004). I have also studied physics all the way through upper high school, 3 years, for the Norwegian equivalent of GCSE Science and I've looked carefully into Bayesian problems in philosophy (relating to the Raven's Paradox by Carl Hempel) and (the metaphysics of) Time for that matter.
By Terje Lea, 21.10.2009, 29.10.2009, 05.11.2009, 19.11.2009, 21.11.2009, 03.04.2010, 27.09.2010, 12.11.2010, 25.01.2011, 16.02.2011, 20.02.2011, 24.02.2011 and 11.03.2011. (Small comments: 13.08.2010, 25.01.2011 and 11.03.2011.)
Note: on the Bending of Light(-streams as photons) by electro-magnetic field has first been written on the Philosophy Now forum 15.02.2011.
Note: concerning the Graviton and the Higgs' boson, this has first been written on the Philosophy Now forum 19.02.2011.
Note: additional comment on the issue of aether as well as an alternative view has been added 24.02.2011 that has first been written on the Philosophy Now forum earlier today divided on two posts.
Note: added the rat option into writing today, 11.03.2011.
Note: added note on my competence today, 11.03.2011.
Schrödinger's cat. The probability expresses the statistical chance for the cat. There's nothing more to say about it. There's something wrong with Schrödinger's theory if this is a necessary implication.
I'd also like to point out that the "mystery" of Schrödinger's cat comes down to the Copenhagen Interpretation, that I follow strictly on the observation point only, of having to be observed for something to exist. Schrodinger's cat goes clearly against this, even as an indirect observation. I therefore think that the whole of this line of thinking (Schrödinger's cat etc.) is flawed. It's almost embarrassing how mistaken it seems in regard to the huge interest.
Schrödinger's cat can also be set up with a rat, by requirement of the ladies, slightly sedated and laid under the guillotine. So when this condition of the atom triggers, the guillotine blade falls and decapitates the rat, rendering it certainly and clearly dead, with its head chopped off and thus leaving the rat in 2 pieces. This may be a better demonstration of the experiment.
Over Problems with Schrödinger's theory and other - New Angles
It's with pleasure that I note that "Branching with Uncertain Semantics: Disc. Note by N. Belnap and T. Müller, published by BJPS lies in line with my writing and that they may have been reading this writing of mine. The future should be exciting!
It's certainly time for the "wave theory" to be demolished as expressing "wave" forming from the future in opposition to my own common sense sentiment that the past shapes the future. Thus, the "wave" of future possibilities is shaped by the past/history! This has been expressed earlier/above by the rejection of the Copenhagen Interpretation, except for the one point and the rejection of Schrödinger's (et al.?) theory.
In opposition to the Copenhagen Interpretation, I hold that one needs to always take into account the 3 necessary factors of matter, energy and mathematics. If you don't have matter and energy, there will not be any reality where your mathematics can apply. Thus, mathematics can't, whatsoever, be seen as more fundamental than reality itself, ie. matter and energy, perhaps along with space and time and some other.
Take the note, please, that energy is also matter, just split up in very tiny particles that also have a very tiny (physical) mass. So, by common knowledge, the particle/wave duality of the photon enters. The physics feels very fragmented at times and I'm still awaiting the Master Work in one series of volumes on it!
On Standard Model and the Future of It
Assertion: Photons are the smallest constituents of all matter. I assume the other particles of the Standard Model are made up of photons. Why is this? The sun burns mass and to my knowledge it only/mostly by far emits electromagnetic radiation, consequently in the form of photons. When a nuclear bomb explodes, it converts matter into electromagnetic radiation, energy of various forms. Compared to this, I think one can throw the string theory out the window along with dimensions beyond the usual 4 (I'm not certain about this concerning Einstein's theories that I'd like to keep as it is). Also, let's assume higher intensity radiation emits more dense amounts of photons and that it declines further down the electromagnetic spectrum.
New on photons: I think I can also hold that photons are "semi-fluid" on a hyper-level (of course). I don't know what this adds to our view of reality, but it's a possible way of reconciling the wave-particle duality.
Aether Aesthetics and a More Credible View on Gravity by Strong and Weak Interactions
Assertion: The space and possibly everywhere is held in a background uniform space that extends to the edges of the Universe, its gravitational system I'd like to call the Neo-aether that is consistent with Michelson-Morley experiment and functions in a more sublime way that we are yet to discover the full extension of. Einstein's theory effectively describes some of the nature of the Neo-aether.
I just like to say that I support the aether theory, if not exactly for a fluid, but I guess most theorists hold that the "fluid" is not a fluid as such. Rather, it's more about undetected phenomena connected to gravity yet not being any graviton.
An alternative view to aether can be this: in a unified picture of physics where the strong and weak magnetic forces are combined, one may achieve a calculated picture that equals what we perceive as gravity, but without adding any new particles and only asserting properties to mass in general, that is, "monades", the most basic constituents have a gravity/magnetic property to them and that is all. Job's done! This is all there is to describe because we have simply reached the bottom level there is to describe whatsoever!
Let me point out again that magnetism has north and south poles and thus reflect earth gravity, but on a micro scale. So this post is now also an update on my view on aether!
So let me be clear: I'm open to both of these views and that I intend to investigate these magnetic calculations first. I'm not sure on the approach for (new) aether, MM-compatible, other than for the fact that I see it logical in the extension of Einstein's RT. But I must point out that the aether research program now looks weak as one is yet to determine any property of it (apart from pure physical space). I've been in the hope one can find or identify a kind of new ocean, one that is "plastic" in nature, has some kind of an unknown physical property and is subtle and that matter just represents a function opposite to it by making gravity definite. Further than this is hard to describe other than the fact that I think it is an aesthetic property of the Universe.
My Successful Prediction of Mini-Black Holes by CERN Experiment
Concerning the Large Hadron Collider, LHC, it's my belief there will be absolutely no possibility of baby-black holes! If the smallest building blocks really are the photons then in LHC we'll see greater emission of photons from the collisions.
Note: The reason is that it takes Supernovas to make them and they are HUGE in the sense of Universe. They are in fact far bigger than our Sun which is our heaviest object in our Solar System. I don't think it's possible even to generate the power needed for such an experiment (to actually create Mini-/Baby-Black Holes). You could put 10 nuclear power plants right beside CERN and still the energy wouldn't match the assignment. I don't think there is possibility for such things in our Earthly lives!
On Big-Bang, Natural Laws, Asymmetry and Symmetry
I guess it's a common view to consider the Big Bang "a generative mechanism for the pattern of natural laws of the Universe". I still find the mind and the phenomena elusive, though, like if it's relevant here! It may be necessary to look to the moments after Big Bang to solve the riddle of the reason for matter to exist in particles, atoms, as they do, i.e., solving the question of the Higgs boson particle. It's also worth mentioning that unless there's formation of new matter from the absorption of photons, something I think there isn't, the matter in atoms is lost forever once it's dissolved. This is seldomly pointed out by physicists. Also, the absorption of photons into existing atomic structures brings increased excitation and perhaps weight and this fact, I think, adds to the Photon theory, ie. photons are the smallest building blocks in nature, universe.
On the Complexity of the Standard Model and Particles in Nature
I also like to mention that particle physics is far more complex than being just the Standard Model. Sir Roger Penrose writes in his book, The Road to Reality - A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, p. 628, about the pions, kaons, lambda, sigma, omega-minus, anti-protons, anti-neutrons, "vast hordes of particles whose existence is so fleeting that they are never directly observed, tending to be referred to merely as 'resonances'", 'virtual' particles and 'ghosts'. There are also mentioned numerous other "theoretical" particles by other theories.
It's just a quirk of mine, but I'd like to have the Charm and Strange quarks renamed as this, Charm gets the name Control and Strange gets the name Random. Does this make sense? Is it possible to prove the characteristics of control and randomness in the two quarks?
Note: I now think it may be that the Standard Model can be (relatively) completed! As analogy, Psychiatry has been in a haze concerning its diagnostication system and I think it's likely to make this finding in Physics as well.
On Impossibility of the Graviton and the Higgs' Boson
Concerning the Graviton and the Higgs' Boson:
I think it's clear at this stage that the Graviton and the Higgs' boson are blown out the window and are not to return to the world of physics ever again.
Why? Because they need to show that the photon is relevant to both of these concepts when it's hard in the first place to show the definite particle nature of the photon. Thus, photon necessarily must have both of these properties by which are hardly ever conceivable to prove, as separable particles apart from the photon itself!
It's clear however that the photon has "graviton" and "Higgs' boson" properties before we start out simply because "graviton" is to explain why particles are drawn to other objects, especially planets, and "Higgs' boson" is to explain why particles have mass whatsoever which all(?) have. It's therefore a kind of cheating to add "false particles" or "false names of properties" when they do not add explanatory force. The "mystery" of the (basic) particle of photon remains and also the mysteries with how mass and gravitation arise in the first place. Simply adding two names isn't very constructive in the general work of physics, I think (as mass and gravity are already in place).
I acknowledge that the Fermilab has set a confidence level for the finding of the Higgs' boson to 95%, but I'm sceptical of how they get there and if their work is more than mere "string theory work".
It's definite though, that the photon has both properties of mass and particle nature since it is affected by gravity (fx. from Mercury passing by the Sun). Yet the problem arises when you are to identify the graviton and the Higgs' boson, separately from the photon itself!
The URL to Fermilab and the Higgs' boson: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_releases/Higgs-mass-constraints-20100726-images.html.
On the Nature of Radio Signals From Space and how They Fit the Big Picture
Public education. Question: how are radio signals from space or through space explained? This is a terrible riddle to me. Radio waves, conventionally, are fluctuations through atoms like air, water and other substances. Do you have a good explanation of it? I have an update on this and it turns out radio waves are just another part of the electromagnetic spectrum with an even weaker intensity than infra-red. Thus, just another form of emission of photons. Done! (I'm sorry to bother you with such a puny question, but I've been wondering about it and I therefore want to make this clear to all, including the school kids!)
The link to a good spectrum including sound waves and electromagnetic waves, here.
On the Bending of Light(-Streams as Photons) by Electro-Magnetic Field, a Very Strong One
I think I'll state here right away that is in fact possible to bend light with a very strong, elelctro-generated magnetic field comparable to light from Mercury passing the gravity field of the Sun, like in the classic example of Einstein Relativity Theory.
Remember the lev-trains of the Japanese and their magnet experiments where they lift an object up only by the use of electro-magnetism and draw a sheet of paper underneath, between the lower and the upper physical bodies.
You should also have in mind the relative small size of the photon and the power of the elctro-magnetic field because I think it's fairly feasible.
Now, how this is done? At least for the calculation, it's fairly known how much pull the gravity of the Sun generates and the Planck's Mass(?) of the Photon should also be possible to consider. Then it's just to add the numbers and calculate what it takes to bend light. I also think this can be done in the classroom!
Wikipedia on magnets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnets!
The calculations are up to you to make, but at least for now, I remain optimistic (partly because I've seen it demonstrated in our classroom while finishing upper secondary school having the physics class. Rather this than any negative demonstation I can recall or heard of). Thus, kill the negative notions you read about on the internet!
I'd love to hear about your own searches. I haven't come up with the positive results just yet.
I'm also writing this primarily for public education and quenching myths of people who cite uncertain, novice sources.
Note on My Competence to These Respects
Note on my competence to this [Opinions on Physics and the Evolution webpage as a whoel]: I must "warn" readers that I have been reading Lee Smolin's "The Trouble With Physics" (by Penguin Group, 2006) and Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality" (by Vintage Books, 2004). I have also studied physics all the way through upper high school, 3 years, for the Norwegian equivalent of GCSE Science and I've looked carefully into Bayesian problems in philosophy (relating to the Raven's Paradox by Carl Hempel) and (the metaphysics of) Time for that matter.
By Terje Lea, 21.10.2009, 29.10.2009, 05.11.2009, 19.11.2009, 21.11.2009, 03.04.2010, 27.09.2010, 12.11.2010, 25.01.2011, 16.02.2011, 20.02.2011, 24.02.2011 and 11.03.2011. (Small comments: 13.08.2010, 25.01.2011 and 11.03.2011.)
Note: on the Bending of Light(-streams as photons) by electro-magnetic field has first been written on the Philosophy Now forum 15.02.2011.
Note: concerning the Graviton and the Higgs' boson, this has first been written on the Philosophy Now forum 19.02.2011.
Note: additional comment on the issue of aether as well as an alternative view has been added 24.02.2011 that has first been written on the Philosophy Now forum earlier today divided on two posts.
Note: added the rat option into writing today, 11.03.2011.
Note: added note on my competence today, 11.03.2011.
Monday 12 December 2011
Who is going to decide the EU-case? (Uploading an old writing from the former websites)
Stavanger Aftenblad refused to publish my answer to Thomas Chr. Wyller, both in the paper edition and on the internet (www.stavanger-aftenblad.no), so I rather publish it on my own on my homepage.
Who is going to decide the EU-case?
Stavanger Aftenblad, 07.02.2003
By Thomas Chr. Wyller, Professor emeritus in Political Science
The procedure for a new EU-vote has to be clarified in reasonable time before the EU-clash is over us again in full. Because the tactics will rule then.
A new EU-debate is coming up. Unclear messages are being sent. Situation is unstable. But one point seems unavoidable: A new EU-clash.
Choice of point of view in the case be left without a risk. But one decision is urgent: On method of determination. Even on that issue, the messages are ambiguous.
This is worrying. An unclarity with method on procedure was close to create a deeply serious crisis in 1994. A Yes-majority among voters in conflict with a constitutionally veto-strong No-minority in Stortinget (remark: name of the Norwegian parliament) would have created a closed down situation. Every thinkable solution would have triggered tensions in our political system.
Potential of crisis lies in the double-tracked system of decision: the EU-case is going to be decided through both the Stortinget’s indirect and the people’s direct democratic processes. The laws of constitution are crystal clear: Stortinget has supreme say, the people’s vote is only advisory. In addition will a Yes to EU demand ¾ majority in Stortinget, while no laws exist regarding the voters’ advice.
The relationship is still being complicated politically: By the people’s vote has been acknowledged as decisive two times in the past, and by the expectations with its similar function a third time. The laws of the courts are not motivating for action; political issues strike with great weight. Thereof can the crisis occur. Its key word is a possible disagreement between the voters’ majority and a Stortinget-minority.
Four possibilities
Four possibilities exist in the relationship between the two forms of determination:
Two of them concern agreement between parliament and voters, of Yes in contradiction to No. They both eliminate every problem of decision. A third option is a voters’ No against a (at least) ¾ parliaments-Yes.
Constitutionally Stortinget will be able to disregard the voters’ majority advice. But politically it is almost unimaginable that a third time’s voters’ No is being tried to forced through.
Remains a fourth alternative: A voters’ Yes against a parliament-No. It is like in 1994 – the constellation of potential of crisis: Who decides if the voters say Yes and the elected No?
Killing a myth
A discussion can be introduced by killing a myth.
The EU-case wasn’t decided by voters’ majority alone. In addition there was a set of expected actions in Stortinget. There was no majority constitutionally strong enough to overthrow the voters’ No. But if it was the case, one would not have known what could have happened.
Therefore the 1994-resolution has to be perceived this way: The voters’ No was perhaps a necessity, but not a sufficient condition for the outcome. Stortinget contributed – with 49 resistant No-representatives – indirectly. The constellation comes in under the two alternatives of agreement that I outlined. No-fellowship between voters and representatives.
In that perspective, the upcoming disagreement will have to be considered. Again the process will be double-tracked: Stortinget will belong to the situation of decision. Purely theoretically together with a third time voters’ No. But in fact, together with a possible voters’ Yes. Because a voters’ majority will not alone make us a member of the EU; it has to have with it a constitutional majority in parliament. Tinget (remark: slang for Stortinget) will have to vote over the case.
But again it is the blend of law and politics that can cause problems. The law is clear: Stortinget can say No. But politics can trigger a pressure on the No-representative: You must vote against your conviction because the voters demand it! If that demand wins through, the Norwegian constitution is run off-track. Does it not get consent, a voters’ majority is going to get frustrated. Both solutions will be critical for both the EU-case and the democracy.
In that sort of terrain, both map and compass and competent guides are required. Signals from the heavens are though confusing. Prime-minister and foreign-minister and the chairman of the committee of foreign affairs will all make the election for national assembly 2005 to an EU-vote. But simultaneously they will note the authority of decision of the people’s vote. The Norwegian national assembly is given a subordinate role.
This is official disinformation about the framework of laws. At the same time it is given a taste of an ugly Yes/No-mixture. The Yes-pack’s plan? The election like an opinion poll, like a basis for a tactical consideration of and when a vote is going to be held? No vote before one has assured forecasts and a sufficient majority in a newly elected Storting?
The plan is good enough. But it is founded on the presumption of agreement of the two bodies, and looks exactly away from the possibility of the opposite. That one that can cause crisis. Because no guarantee on beforehand can be made. Opinion polls are one, election is another.
Factual debate, thank you.
And the No-pack’s tactics? Maybe something so neat as to lure the opposition to battle over an European union exactly in that year the celebration of the breakdown of the union (remark: with Sweden) in 1905 is going to put us all in a nationalistic intoxication?
A factual debate is missing here! EU-neutral, procedure-focused, system-oriented. Only a few contributions have been presented. Hallvard Bakke discusses the problems without taking a stand himself: Per Kleppe is having a rabbit’s paw over “formal” laws of constitution (Dagsavisen 23. December and 10. January) (remark: Dagsavisen is a Norwegian labour-party-biased newspaper). Otherwise there is almost only a supremacy of silence. But one (remark: issue) is important here: That the debate of procedure is being led before it gets infected from stands of the case! It therefore has to be activated before the election of the parliament. Because afterwards case-focused tactics will dominate all discussion.
Like this I formulate my own point of view (for a more in depth discussion, look to my writing: 'Folkeavstemning for tredje gang?' (remark: General Vote a Third Time?) A research report, Institute of Political Sciences, 2002): Our double-tracked system of decision – where the people’s vote at the same time is only advisory regarding laws and is trying to be made politically decisive – is really only an unfortunate arrangement of bastardy. That its function is first being declared in the moment a voting result is ready – like that in 1994 – is maximally unfortunate for both case, system and citizens. We must choose openly between decision and advice.
Solutions
Several imaginable solutions exist:
1. We can make a constitutional prohibition against every use of general vote. No suggestion has been presented; besides the idea is politically quite unrealistic.
2.We can advance hereafter as up to now and trust that fate will serve us well. The vote can wait until the people’s majority is being undeniably secured in advance along both tracks (remark: parliament and public). Disagreement between representatives and people will then not arise. But we may not reach such a certainty. And a vote will then of course be in excess.
3.We can make a deciding people’s vote constitutional. It will probably remove the bastard, but in my eyes in too great a degree several other fundamental traits with our constitutional system.
4.Our present valid voting variant can be made constitutional and thereby be given a more firm profile. That is my own preference: A suggestion is formally proposed, with it in this aspect. Thereby its advisory status will be pinpointed as far as rules of law reach. But they do not reach far enough; no-one can prevent the political dynamic from adding the advisory vote an actual function of decision.
5.A constitutional change should therefore be supplied with a systematic enlightening work of information. It must be marked by the character of advisory method where no expectancies of power of decision are being added the voters. From all positions there has to be demanded a loyalty to the criterium of the Constitution: The voters shall be questioned for advice. In the tip of such an information-campaign should our system’s top leaders stand. If they neglect this, they are making themselves guilty in a continuation of the disinformation that Gro Harlem Brundtland developed to completeness in 1994.
Appeal to Bondevik
Therefore – in the end – this appeal to prime minister Bondevik: Erect a special commission for discussing the questions of procedure by a people’s vote! And do this in time: Before the clash of the case makes us all sharpen the knives and let tactics and strategy dominate all our thought. Because through discussion alone, these problems can not be solved. It can only happen through agreement at the highest level. We should expect such an agreement, but it is perhaps a bit much to expect?
We stand – anyhow – in front of a serious test of maturity. Both the system and its bearers.
Answer to Thomas Chr. Wyller
(The chronicle, Who is going to decide the EU-case, in Stavanger Aftenblad, 07.02.2003)
This website, 08.02.2003.
By Terje Lea, Hobby-philosopher, Sandnes
EU and such. I vote Yes by the next EU-vote like I did it in 1994 and I do not think the new sciences (social science, political science and psychology) exist for real (conceptual reality is something else). This is to declare my views of the following of what is written.
I realize that the political importance a people’s vote should have in the question of EU can be questioned and in people’s votes generally.
Now it is probably that everyone feels the job they are doing or the position they have, is totally necessary. The production of some academia can though be questioned. This will be enlighted in the following.
The first interesting point is the innovative concept 'double-tracked system of decision'. I seem to recall something about 'all power in this hall' that is one of the trademarks of an indirect democracy (it is the parliament-politicians who make the decisions on a national level for the voters, while it is the voters who elect the parliament-politicians). The direct democracy that is being aimed at here means that the voters take the political decisions directly as with binding people’s votes (with certain reservations, since it is here still thought that the parliament-politicians carry through the result of the people’s vote). This is a classical question of what political form one should have. In Norway this has been solved by the parties themselves incorporating the EU-question into their party-programmes that challenge the voters to take a stand with every election in this case and in addition to this can the politicians choose to give the voters opportunity to tell if they want to join the EU through a general vote (for a third time). As a fact that it seems to be a wider agreement that there is need for a new decision in the relationship to the EU because of the changes that have taken place this comes naturally as an advisory people’s vote without making it become a question of constitutional form. It should also be said that the parliament-politicians works around the year in order to make the best political decisions for the future that are what politics is really about.
Something about 'Solutions' was also there. I think that this that has been outlined may be under any criticism as only partly mentioned in the introduction.
point: It would be stupid to block out the possibility to give a case a broad foundation of decision and I think it seems like a badly hidden argument for mentometerbutton-politics where one takes political decisions based on opinion-polls (that was thoroughly made fun of with the 'founding' of Det Politiske Parti (remark: The Political Party) that some comedians were behind and that I think is quite popular).
point: It is the present that demands a decision and you can not simply 'secure' or 'wait' for a political result.
point: This has already been issued above and it regards form of constitution (remark: forfatningsform is just another Norwegian word for the same, more commonly used). When it comes to people’s votes, they are not done in a day and besides there are a few economical considerations and considerations of security with them.
point: I think it is unclear what this point is about, but to me it looks to be that a people’s vote founded in constitution, is supposed to be advisory that is in itself a blow in the air since people’s votes on the other hand always are advisory thereof indirect democracy.
point: Incredibly inventive! It is unclear what 'systematic enlightening work of information' is supposed to mean, but today there is already incorporated governmental support to both sides in the EU-case, for example, so that both sides are able to promote their arguments in the common debate that every voter should take part in. The point seems, with background of 'our system’s elite leaders' to be a job-application from Thomas Chr. Wyller’s side where political scientists according to the commercial have looked upon themselves as critical to the ruling power and objective (all decisions they take will always be true and perfectly proved as far as it is possible).
The appeal in the end on my own part to the readers of this answer to Thomas Chr. Wyller say that one should forget about the knives and rather concentrate about the arguments that are being put into the debate that should give each and every one voter a foundation of decision the way the individual voter sees it from her or his perspective and gives her or his vote, indirectly. I stand critical to what 'agreement on the highest level' is supposed mean other than what is already read and written in the Norwegian constitution. Something that makes that Thomas Chr. Wyller could have saved himself of the chronicle and that makes that I could have saved myself from this answer of it because all I have written is already today’s democratic regulations and the enlightenment of them.
Translation by Terje Lea, July 2004.
Til den norske originalen av kronikken og svaret på den. English-speaking? Just something in Norwegian.
Who is going to decide the EU-case?
Stavanger Aftenblad, 07.02.2003
By Thomas Chr. Wyller, Professor emeritus in Political Science
The procedure for a new EU-vote has to be clarified in reasonable time before the EU-clash is over us again in full. Because the tactics will rule then.
A new EU-debate is coming up. Unclear messages are being sent. Situation is unstable. But one point seems unavoidable: A new EU-clash.
Choice of point of view in the case be left without a risk. But one decision is urgent: On method of determination. Even on that issue, the messages are ambiguous.
This is worrying. An unclarity with method on procedure was close to create a deeply serious crisis in 1994. A Yes-majority among voters in conflict with a constitutionally veto-strong No-minority in Stortinget (remark: name of the Norwegian parliament) would have created a closed down situation. Every thinkable solution would have triggered tensions in our political system.
Potential of crisis lies in the double-tracked system of decision: the EU-case is going to be decided through both the Stortinget’s indirect and the people’s direct democratic processes. The laws of constitution are crystal clear: Stortinget has supreme say, the people’s vote is only advisory. In addition will a Yes to EU demand ¾ majority in Stortinget, while no laws exist regarding the voters’ advice.
The relationship is still being complicated politically: By the people’s vote has been acknowledged as decisive two times in the past, and by the expectations with its similar function a third time. The laws of the courts are not motivating for action; political issues strike with great weight. Thereof can the crisis occur. Its key word is a possible disagreement between the voters’ majority and a Stortinget-minority.
Four possibilities
Four possibilities exist in the relationship between the two forms of determination:
Two of them concern agreement between parliament and voters, of Yes in contradiction to No. They both eliminate every problem of decision. A third option is a voters’ No against a (at least) ¾ parliaments-Yes.
Constitutionally Stortinget will be able to disregard the voters’ majority advice. But politically it is almost unimaginable that a third time’s voters’ No is being tried to forced through.
Remains a fourth alternative: A voters’ Yes against a parliament-No. It is like in 1994 – the constellation of potential of crisis: Who decides if the voters say Yes and the elected No?
Killing a myth
A discussion can be introduced by killing a myth.
The EU-case wasn’t decided by voters’ majority alone. In addition there was a set of expected actions in Stortinget. There was no majority constitutionally strong enough to overthrow the voters’ No. But if it was the case, one would not have known what could have happened.
Therefore the 1994-resolution has to be perceived this way: The voters’ No was perhaps a necessity, but not a sufficient condition for the outcome. Stortinget contributed – with 49 resistant No-representatives – indirectly. The constellation comes in under the two alternatives of agreement that I outlined. No-fellowship between voters and representatives.
In that perspective, the upcoming disagreement will have to be considered. Again the process will be double-tracked: Stortinget will belong to the situation of decision. Purely theoretically together with a third time voters’ No. But in fact, together with a possible voters’ Yes. Because a voters’ majority will not alone make us a member of the EU; it has to have with it a constitutional majority in parliament. Tinget (remark: slang for Stortinget) will have to vote over the case.
But again it is the blend of law and politics that can cause problems. The law is clear: Stortinget can say No. But politics can trigger a pressure on the No-representative: You must vote against your conviction because the voters demand it! If that demand wins through, the Norwegian constitution is run off-track. Does it not get consent, a voters’ majority is going to get frustrated. Both solutions will be critical for both the EU-case and the democracy.
In that sort of terrain, both map and compass and competent guides are required. Signals from the heavens are though confusing. Prime-minister and foreign-minister and the chairman of the committee of foreign affairs will all make the election for national assembly 2005 to an EU-vote. But simultaneously they will note the authority of decision of the people’s vote. The Norwegian national assembly is given a subordinate role.
This is official disinformation about the framework of laws. At the same time it is given a taste of an ugly Yes/No-mixture. The Yes-pack’s plan? The election like an opinion poll, like a basis for a tactical consideration of and when a vote is going to be held? No vote before one has assured forecasts and a sufficient majority in a newly elected Storting?
The plan is good enough. But it is founded on the presumption of agreement of the two bodies, and looks exactly away from the possibility of the opposite. That one that can cause crisis. Because no guarantee on beforehand can be made. Opinion polls are one, election is another.
Factual debate, thank you.
And the No-pack’s tactics? Maybe something so neat as to lure the opposition to battle over an European union exactly in that year the celebration of the breakdown of the union (remark: with Sweden) in 1905 is going to put us all in a nationalistic intoxication?
A factual debate is missing here! EU-neutral, procedure-focused, system-oriented. Only a few contributions have been presented. Hallvard Bakke discusses the problems without taking a stand himself: Per Kleppe is having a rabbit’s paw over “formal” laws of constitution (Dagsavisen 23. December and 10. January) (remark: Dagsavisen is a Norwegian labour-party-biased newspaper). Otherwise there is almost only a supremacy of silence. But one (remark: issue) is important here: That the debate of procedure is being led before it gets infected from stands of the case! It therefore has to be activated before the election of the parliament. Because afterwards case-focused tactics will dominate all discussion.
Like this I formulate my own point of view (for a more in depth discussion, look to my writing: 'Folkeavstemning for tredje gang?' (remark: General Vote a Third Time?) A research report, Institute of Political Sciences, 2002): Our double-tracked system of decision – where the people’s vote at the same time is only advisory regarding laws and is trying to be made politically decisive – is really only an unfortunate arrangement of bastardy. That its function is first being declared in the moment a voting result is ready – like that in 1994 – is maximally unfortunate for both case, system and citizens. We must choose openly between decision and advice.
Solutions
Several imaginable solutions exist:
1. We can make a constitutional prohibition against every use of general vote. No suggestion has been presented; besides the idea is politically quite unrealistic.
2.We can advance hereafter as up to now and trust that fate will serve us well. The vote can wait until the people’s majority is being undeniably secured in advance along both tracks (remark: parliament and public). Disagreement between representatives and people will then not arise. But we may not reach such a certainty. And a vote will then of course be in excess.
3.We can make a deciding people’s vote constitutional. It will probably remove the bastard, but in my eyes in too great a degree several other fundamental traits with our constitutional system.
4.Our present valid voting variant can be made constitutional and thereby be given a more firm profile. That is my own preference: A suggestion is formally proposed, with it in this aspect. Thereby its advisory status will be pinpointed as far as rules of law reach. But they do not reach far enough; no-one can prevent the political dynamic from adding the advisory vote an actual function of decision.
5.A constitutional change should therefore be supplied with a systematic enlightening work of information. It must be marked by the character of advisory method where no expectancies of power of decision are being added the voters. From all positions there has to be demanded a loyalty to the criterium of the Constitution: The voters shall be questioned for advice. In the tip of such an information-campaign should our system’s top leaders stand. If they neglect this, they are making themselves guilty in a continuation of the disinformation that Gro Harlem Brundtland developed to completeness in 1994.
Appeal to Bondevik
Therefore – in the end – this appeal to prime minister Bondevik: Erect a special commission for discussing the questions of procedure by a people’s vote! And do this in time: Before the clash of the case makes us all sharpen the knives and let tactics and strategy dominate all our thought. Because through discussion alone, these problems can not be solved. It can only happen through agreement at the highest level. We should expect such an agreement, but it is perhaps a bit much to expect?
We stand – anyhow – in front of a serious test of maturity. Both the system and its bearers.
Answer to Thomas Chr. Wyller
(The chronicle, Who is going to decide the EU-case, in Stavanger Aftenblad, 07.02.2003)
This website, 08.02.2003.
By Terje Lea, Hobby-philosopher, Sandnes
EU and such. I vote Yes by the next EU-vote like I did it in 1994 and I do not think the new sciences (social science, political science and psychology) exist for real (conceptual reality is something else). This is to declare my views of the following of what is written.
I realize that the political importance a people’s vote should have in the question of EU can be questioned and in people’s votes generally.
Now it is probably that everyone feels the job they are doing or the position they have, is totally necessary. The production of some academia can though be questioned. This will be enlighted in the following.
The first interesting point is the innovative concept 'double-tracked system of decision'. I seem to recall something about 'all power in this hall' that is one of the trademarks of an indirect democracy (it is the parliament-politicians who make the decisions on a national level for the voters, while it is the voters who elect the parliament-politicians). The direct democracy that is being aimed at here means that the voters take the political decisions directly as with binding people’s votes (with certain reservations, since it is here still thought that the parliament-politicians carry through the result of the people’s vote). This is a classical question of what political form one should have. In Norway this has been solved by the parties themselves incorporating the EU-question into their party-programmes that challenge the voters to take a stand with every election in this case and in addition to this can the politicians choose to give the voters opportunity to tell if they want to join the EU through a general vote (for a third time). As a fact that it seems to be a wider agreement that there is need for a new decision in the relationship to the EU because of the changes that have taken place this comes naturally as an advisory people’s vote without making it become a question of constitutional form. It should also be said that the parliament-politicians works around the year in order to make the best political decisions for the future that are what politics is really about.
Something about 'Solutions' was also there. I think that this that has been outlined may be under any criticism as only partly mentioned in the introduction.
point: It would be stupid to block out the possibility to give a case a broad foundation of decision and I think it seems like a badly hidden argument for mentometerbutton-politics where one takes political decisions based on opinion-polls (that was thoroughly made fun of with the 'founding' of Det Politiske Parti (remark: The Political Party) that some comedians were behind and that I think is quite popular).
point: It is the present that demands a decision and you can not simply 'secure' or 'wait' for a political result.
point: This has already been issued above and it regards form of constitution (remark: forfatningsform is just another Norwegian word for the same, more commonly used). When it comes to people’s votes, they are not done in a day and besides there are a few economical considerations and considerations of security with them.
point: I think it is unclear what this point is about, but to me it looks to be that a people’s vote founded in constitution, is supposed to be advisory that is in itself a blow in the air since people’s votes on the other hand always are advisory thereof indirect democracy.
point: Incredibly inventive! It is unclear what 'systematic enlightening work of information' is supposed to mean, but today there is already incorporated governmental support to both sides in the EU-case, for example, so that both sides are able to promote their arguments in the common debate that every voter should take part in. The point seems, with background of 'our system’s elite leaders' to be a job-application from Thomas Chr. Wyller’s side where political scientists according to the commercial have looked upon themselves as critical to the ruling power and objective (all decisions they take will always be true and perfectly proved as far as it is possible).
The appeal in the end on my own part to the readers of this answer to Thomas Chr. Wyller say that one should forget about the knives and rather concentrate about the arguments that are being put into the debate that should give each and every one voter a foundation of decision the way the individual voter sees it from her or his perspective and gives her or his vote, indirectly. I stand critical to what 'agreement on the highest level' is supposed mean other than what is already read and written in the Norwegian constitution. Something that makes that Thomas Chr. Wyller could have saved himself of the chronicle and that makes that I could have saved myself from this answer of it because all I have written is already today’s democratic regulations and the enlightenment of them.
Translation by Terje Lea, July 2004.
Til den norske originalen av kronikken og svaret på den. English-speaking? Just something in Norwegian.
Further "On the Euro Crisis"!
Concerning the Euro and the differences over it, it's my opinion that it has been a great triumph and that the challenges ahead relating to *greater* scientific and industrial cooperation are now most evident! So when the situation speaks for division, we should live up to the (future) European fraternity/sorority and strike out this "petty" crisis for good by doing exactly this, ehancing industrial and scientific cooperation!!! (We shouldn't forget to include, to be so hospitable, the UK in an EU that can hold both the Euro and the Pund!) To Europe and the Future! Cheers!
Even though, the Eurozone is suffering still, it holds vast resources by possible "quantifed easing" as it stays comfortably above both the Pound and the Dollar, showing off a far greater line of successes by presiding 1,43 to the Dollar when we a while ago would be worried over 1:1 ratio to the Dollar! To the Pound the story is the same, increasing it's value _over_ it, as massive currency, a mountain unmovable! So in this crisis, our common job is to work hard to keep the jobs and to create new ones! This will be our primary Euro crisis killer!
Let me add the reminder that ALL currencies are founded in "goods and services"!!! There are NO foreseeable dramatic shifts to exactly this aspect of European life, the goods and services produced, THUS WE ARE RELATIVELY SAFE almost no matter what! I'd also like to note the latest numbers on unemployment by EU vs. USA:
US. Labor Department, Oct. 2011:
United States (1) ...................| 9.0
EU Labour Statistics, Oct. 2011:
Euro 17...................................... 10.3 %
Euro 16...................................... 10.3 %
EU 27........................................ 9.8 %
EU 15........................................ 9.8 %
If we ever had an agreement with USA on labour it is NOW BROKEN!!! (Because of the 0.8 % difference in unemployment rate!) Not that I want it this way, but to rely on USA as a symmetric partner, leaning back on corruption and decadence, WILL prove to be a deep fallacy for us!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Euro I think the Euro may be bigger than the Dollar. Also, it carries more hospitability and not the controversy of U. S. American "ignorance" of all matters here and there, by false claims of WMD in Iraq, the inefficacy for their cooperation with Mexico and 40 years "helping" Colombia, but also leaving that dead Palestinian from 2010 in the grave. (Though, the Palestinian cause can be amended with their cooperation by end of 2012 if the plant is successful "and we all hope it becomes successful"!)
Euro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
"The euro (sign: €; code: EUR) is the official currency of the eurozone: 17 of ..."
I also like to note the brilliant move to "fiscal discipline" and not "tax rate discipline" because tax rates involve in a sense deep impacts into national budgets while the fiscal discipline involves only that budgets are kept, not how you arrive there. Thus you avoid to make "hundreds of decisions in one move" by sticking to budget discipline rather than enforcing certain tax politics that have always remained the center of focus by right-left politics! We would have ended up with a distant political giant in Brussels and with our electives doing "strange stuff" instead, our electives would have become without power so to speak. And if they were to regain it, we would have the EU circus all over again, crises of for all time to come!!!
Note: First written to Facebook moments ago, 12. December, 2011, time, 02:12 CET.
Even though, the Eurozone is suffering still, it holds vast resources by possible "quantifed easing" as it stays comfortably above both the Pound and the Dollar, showing off a far greater line of successes by presiding 1,43 to the Dollar when we a while ago would be worried over 1:1 ratio to the Dollar! To the Pound the story is the same, increasing it's value _over_ it, as massive currency, a mountain unmovable! So in this crisis, our common job is to work hard to keep the jobs and to create new ones! This will be our primary Euro crisis killer!
Let me add the reminder that ALL currencies are founded in "goods and services"!!! There are NO foreseeable dramatic shifts to exactly this aspect of European life, the goods and services produced, THUS WE ARE RELATIVELY SAFE almost no matter what! I'd also like to note the latest numbers on unemployment by EU vs. USA:
US. Labor Department, Oct. 2011:
United States (1) ...................| 9.0
EU Labour Statistics, Oct. 2011:
Euro 17...................................... 10.3 %
Euro 16...................................... 10.3 %
EU 27........................................ 9.8 %
EU 15........................................ 9.8 %
If we ever had an agreement with USA on labour it is NOW BROKEN!!! (Because of the 0.8 % difference in unemployment rate!) Not that I want it this way, but to rely on USA as a symmetric partner, leaning back on corruption and decadence, WILL prove to be a deep fallacy for us!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Euro I think the Euro may be bigger than the Dollar. Also, it carries more hospitability and not the controversy of U. S. American "ignorance" of all matters here and there, by false claims of WMD in Iraq, the inefficacy for their cooperation with Mexico and 40 years "helping" Colombia, but also leaving that dead Palestinian from 2010 in the grave. (Though, the Palestinian cause can be amended with their cooperation by end of 2012 if the plant is successful "and we all hope it becomes successful"!)
Euro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
"The euro (sign: €; code: EUR) is the official currency of the eurozone: 17 of ..."
I also like to note the brilliant move to "fiscal discipline" and not "tax rate discipline" because tax rates involve in a sense deep impacts into national budgets while the fiscal discipline involves only that budgets are kept, not how you arrive there. Thus you avoid to make "hundreds of decisions in one move" by sticking to budget discipline rather than enforcing certain tax politics that have always remained the center of focus by right-left politics! We would have ended up with a distant political giant in Brussels and with our electives doing "strange stuff" instead, our electives would have become without power so to speak. And if they were to regain it, we would have the EU circus all over again, crises of for all time to come!!!
Note: First written to Facebook moments ago, 12. December, 2011, time, 02:12 CET.
Thursday 8 December 2011
Psychiatric Solutions - Diagnostication and The Threshold of Mental Illness (+ a little)
On Psychiatric Diagnoses
Various!Posted by Terje Lea 2011-03-30 06:21:45
Apart from the view on Psychiatric diagnostication elsewhere, I start this topic just to see where it goes (or just for the f*ck of it)... nicely alongside the other...
Diagnoses: It's my view that Psychiatric diagnoses are in fact best categorised by the two sides (of two) of Schizophrenia and Depression. It's also inherent that these two categories also contain these two concepts as actual psychiatric illnesses. Thus:
Category: Schizophrenia - Illnesses: Schizophrenia, Bulimia, Psychopathy, Compulsive Obsession (particularly of people), (more?)
Category: Depression - Illnesses: Depression, Anorexia, Stress Syndromes, PTSD, (more?)
This view is a mere suggestion.
(This has first been published on the Philosophy Now forum, by myself, today, 30.03.2011, about 1 hour and 20 minutes ago.)
Note: originally posted as http://blog.t-lea.net/#post150.
Philosophy of Psychiatry - The Definite Illnesses!
Various!Posted by Terje Lea 2011-03-26 05:40:41
...and no blowing of white smoke or mystic diagnostication. Here comes:
Mental illnesses are generally scientifically determined by and pathologically defined by the functioning level of the case in question, being the functioning that is defined by ALL parts of a normal life, i.e., social, work, personal, mental and physical.
Thus, any absurd notion that mental illnesses are in a haze is firmly removed.
The next problem is really the diagnostication. Not only are the the categories unclear/definitely undecided by consensus, but the approach to the patients are not entirely set by procedure either. I have this fourfold suggestion:
1. Cognition of patient's language. You can make good manuals for clues to look for in the patients.
2. Patient's behaviour. This is really the brain-child of B. F. Skinner and is still in good use, although a little more intelligently, like mimicry, possibly by computer pattern recognition.
3. The classic questionnaires incl. (the rather unserious) Rorschach test.
4. Patient's self-reports and general reports about the patient by close friends, family, etc.
Not only are these good, but you can still add the metabolism test from blood sample and new approaches by (f)MRI.
By this, diagnostication should be seen as 100% and there should be little margin of error unless the mental illness is in its very early stages!
You may also want to get acquainted with the much used GAF, Global Assessment of Functioning, fx. by Wikipedia url, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Assessment_of_Functioning.
Cheers! :-)
Note: this has just been published on the Philosophy Now forum and I'm going to add it to both the "Opinions on Science..." and "Psychiatric Views and Findings"!
Note: originally posted as http://blog.t-lea.net/#post149.
Note2: notion on GAF added today, 17.07.2011.
On the Distinction Between Cheap Psychology and Expensive Psychology
Various!Posted by Terje Lea 2011-04-07 20:58:04
I would like to point out the distinction between cheap psychology and expensive psychology!
Some people call themselves "people with great insights into psychology" and thus represent a kind of Folk-Psychology. Yet other actual psychologists don't deliver according to the professional requirements. You should ditch both of these notions and seek the "expensive" psychology, psychology that makes sense and works for you!
"Expensive" psychology comes from psychologists and others with deep, academic insights and they are well-trained in Psychology. Otherwise it may be possible to obtain "expensive" psychology by books and a good deal of efforts of yourself. That is, you make serious efforts toward getting to "expensive" psychology yourself.
This for now! Cheers!
PS: I have the view that, without having profound knowledge of psychology, that it may be rewarding to roll back on psychology to the '50s and '60s and add cognitive progress in the field from today and deducting the awful racist notions from this "early" time, considering the 120 years of the "young" science of psychology.
PS2: I'd also like to add the mere fact that some people make this distinction between cheap psychology and expensive psychology and that there may be important underlying factors that makes it so!
Note: originally posted as http://blog.t-lea.net/#post158.
People may be ignoring that there are all kinds of addictions, alcoholism, drug addiction, pedophilia and _addiction to criminal behaviour, to injuring people, to the perverse_, i.e., suckers for sh*t!!! You get it?
The "categories" above are now reduced to only two, namely, Schizophrenia and Depression. All disorders now fall under these two categories. Please, take note of this. These 2 categories and the way to set up an analysis chart is an invention and result of _my work_ that started out in 2003, formally on the Internet! Good?
As for treatment strategy, psychiatric strategy, and given a few hidden assumptions/customs (by the schema of my suicide argument), I think it's fair to have the position that natural death is to prefer over other strategies that involve these hidden assumptions/customs! That is, if alcohol works (along with medication) then easily death too by that vector!
Please, be considerate over "easily", it's not that "easy", but it follows, possibly and well enough, intellectually to this particular strategy!
Put "enjoyed" in there, please! The text thus:
As for treatment strategy, psychiatric strategy, and given a few hidden assumptions/customs (by the schema of my suicide argument), I think it's fair to have the position that natural death is to prefer over other strategies that involve these hidden assumptions/customs! That is, if alcohol works (along with medication) then death can be enjoyed too by that vector! (Perhaps "enjoyed" is to go too far, but I think you get it.)
I've formerly written that I think that ADMB should file under the Schizophrenic category, although, unknown how far out from the "normal", separating the two categories of Schizophrenia and Depression!
I have been writing also that I place Psychopathy the furthest out in the Schizophrenia category, at least in lack of any "worse" diagnosis. However, schizophrenia itself can probably be placed in various places in its own category, possibly making this as ugly!
The "category" of "Other", not being a category, but a "category"/folder/registry for unplotted/uncertain illnesses in this "Other" category. Which these are, is basically for yourself to decide, but I think Autism is a good choice as a start. This "category" reflects uncertainty about the data sets and how a good description is supposed to relate to the above!
The above relates to The _Two_ Category System of Schizophrenia and Depression!
This is of course a part of my ongoing analysis and work for a more complete Philosophy of Psychiatry as I've been successful in the past on other projects! I also think the Somatist point is a fine one (emphasising careful personal behaviour and personal physical security)!
It may be, incredibly enough, that psychopaths, when on the "psycho path by primary inclination, unrestrained by observers or some or not", picks up a trait in the face or head that makes them appear different, like with a forehead extending from the usual image of the forehead of this person!
This may sound weird and out of place, but these people are "a special club" and "dangerous at that" and that there are _actually_ features, even today, in nature/reality that your little head doesn't know about just yet! Now, it may also be that these people are curiously inclined, because of the _hard_ nature of people they're with, toward "magic with people" and "experiments with people" and that sort, still VERY dangerous and not very known! For you to discover! Be careful!
I just like to insert here the notion of "Normative Research Methods of Psychiatry"! Psychiatry, at least by myself, isn't to be considered as some "trip into a jungle". No, there are probably strict guidelines in place for this and that and that psychiatry is usually guided, officially, by the primary councils, The Scientific Council and The Ethical Council. These two bodies are usually attached to the professional Guilds! For research standards, please see NESH! (More on NESH to follow!)
The NESH URLs:
http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Helsinki
http://www.codex.uu.se/en/forskningmedicin.shtml ! Good?
I'm sorry. NESH appears to be a specific Norwegian acronym that translates to The National (of Norway) Research Ethical Committee for the Political Sciences and the Humanities (Den nasjonale forskningsetiske komité for samfunnsfag og humaniora (NESH)), incl. at least psychology, if not psychiatry directly in this instance because they file under the medical conventions!
Further on Telepathy -> Ganzfeldraum and all the rest...
On telepathy: If telepathy, whatever way you see it, provides nothing, 0 results, _then_ you're justified in NOT believing in it, but if it gives you 10/100 then these 10 results may be worth something very special, on skill, almost the same as when jet-fighter pilots begin using their eyes on the sky and get better in it! Not only this, but what fantastic nature doesn't these 10 results hold? I'm telling you, START believing!!!
Further on the plotting: Megalomania sorts under Schizophrenia because of the inclinations to see oneself as a kind of God! That is, Schizophrenics has a tendency to overrate one's own capacity, even saying they're Gods who decide over life and death here and there in the World! Concl: Megalomania under the _category_ of Schizophrenia!
The manic depression, bipolar disorder as it's also named, should be placed under depression. It's really a misnomer to place it elsewhere, I think, because people may become depressed, but pushed upward to a kind of happy manic state by biological inclination toward life (and joy).
Those who have placed people with schizophrenic symptoms under the label of manic-depression are wrong by this system!!!
Manic-depression or Bipolar disorder have formerly been placed under Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). I disagree deeply with this because DID blurs up the diagnostic system and I can't see the definite use for the concept of DID in its current form!
By now then, I've added Megalomania, Manic-Depression and ADMB to the "chart". You can possibly add "Misopedia" under (F65) Disorders of sexual preference (yet not listed) and into the Schizophrenia category even more far out than Psychopathy even though the two may coincide. Misopedia has been mentioned on CNN recently in relation to the finding of a dead 7 year old girl who turned out to have been sexually abused (and probably various more). You can check out yourself! Cheers!
Note: this is now transferred from Whatiswritten777 blog and the project is about 15 days of entering its 7th year, that is, 21.12.2011! This is also meant to run alongside the Modified Somatist Position and ISO-standards concerning journalling system and management system of Psychiatry! This writing above have originally been posted as 4 different blog posts largely following the progress in "Modified Somatist Position in Psychiatry" as set on the Somatists.html-file from the old websites (that are no more today)! Cheers!
Various!Posted by Terje Lea 2011-03-30 06:21:45
Apart from the view on Psychiatric diagnostication elsewhere, I start this topic just to see where it goes (or just for the f*ck of it)... nicely alongside the other...
Diagnoses: It's my view that Psychiatric diagnoses are in fact best categorised by the two sides (of two) of Schizophrenia and Depression. It's also inherent that these two categories also contain these two concepts as actual psychiatric illnesses. Thus:
Category: Schizophrenia - Illnesses: Schizophrenia, Bulimia, Psychopathy, Compulsive Obsession (particularly of people), (more?)
Category: Depression - Illnesses: Depression, Anorexia, Stress Syndromes, PTSD, (more?)
This view is a mere suggestion.
(This has first been published on the Philosophy Now forum, by myself, today, 30.03.2011, about 1 hour and 20 minutes ago.)
Note: originally posted as http://blog.t-lea.net/#post150.
Philosophy of Psychiatry - The Definite Illnesses!
Various!Posted by Terje Lea 2011-03-26 05:40:41
...and no blowing of white smoke or mystic diagnostication. Here comes:
Mental illnesses are generally scientifically determined by and pathologically defined by the functioning level of the case in question, being the functioning that is defined by ALL parts of a normal life, i.e., social, work, personal, mental and physical.
Thus, any absurd notion that mental illnesses are in a haze is firmly removed.
The next problem is really the diagnostication. Not only are the the categories unclear/definitely undecided by consensus, but the approach to the patients are not entirely set by procedure either. I have this fourfold suggestion:
1. Cognition of patient's language. You can make good manuals for clues to look for in the patients.
2. Patient's behaviour. This is really the brain-child of B. F. Skinner and is still in good use, although a little more intelligently, like mimicry, possibly by computer pattern recognition.
3. The classic questionnaires incl. (the rather unserious) Rorschach test.
4. Patient's self-reports and general reports about the patient by close friends, family, etc.
Not only are these good, but you can still add the metabolism test from blood sample and new approaches by (f)MRI.
By this, diagnostication should be seen as 100% and there should be little margin of error unless the mental illness is in its very early stages!
You may also want to get acquainted with the much used GAF, Global Assessment of Functioning, fx. by Wikipedia url, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Assessment_of_Functioning.
Cheers! :-)
Note: this has just been published on the Philosophy Now forum and I'm going to add it to both the "Opinions on Science..." and "Psychiatric Views and Findings"!
Note: originally posted as http://blog.t-lea.net/#post149.
Note2: notion on GAF added today, 17.07.2011.
On the Distinction Between Cheap Psychology and Expensive Psychology
Various!Posted by Terje Lea 2011-04-07 20:58:04
I would like to point out the distinction between cheap psychology and expensive psychology!
Some people call themselves "people with great insights into psychology" and thus represent a kind of Folk-Psychology. Yet other actual psychologists don't deliver according to the professional requirements. You should ditch both of these notions and seek the "expensive" psychology, psychology that makes sense and works for you!
"Expensive" psychology comes from psychologists and others with deep, academic insights and they are well-trained in Psychology. Otherwise it may be possible to obtain "expensive" psychology by books and a good deal of efforts of yourself. That is, you make serious efforts toward getting to "expensive" psychology yourself.
This for now! Cheers!
PS: I have the view that, without having profound knowledge of psychology, that it may be rewarding to roll back on psychology to the '50s and '60s and add cognitive progress in the field from today and deducting the awful racist notions from this "early" time, considering the 120 years of the "young" science of psychology.
PS2: I'd also like to add the mere fact that some people make this distinction between cheap psychology and expensive psychology and that there may be important underlying factors that makes it so!
Note: originally posted as http://blog.t-lea.net/#post158.
People may be ignoring that there are all kinds of addictions, alcoholism, drug addiction, pedophilia and _addiction to criminal behaviour, to injuring people, to the perverse_, i.e., suckers for sh*t!!! You get it?
The "categories" above are now reduced to only two, namely, Schizophrenia and Depression. All disorders now fall under these two categories. Please, take note of this. These 2 categories and the way to set up an analysis chart is an invention and result of _my work_ that started out in 2003, formally on the Internet! Good?
As for treatment strategy, psychiatric strategy, and given a few hidden assumptions/customs (by the schema of my suicide argument), I think it's fair to have the position that natural death is to prefer over other strategies that involve these hidden assumptions/customs! That is, if alcohol works (along with medication) then easily death too by that vector!
Please, be considerate over "easily", it's not that "easy", but it follows, possibly and well enough, intellectually to this particular strategy!
Put "enjoyed" in there, please! The text thus:
As for treatment strategy, psychiatric strategy, and given a few hidden assumptions/customs (by the schema of my suicide argument), I think it's fair to have the position that natural death is to prefer over other strategies that involve these hidden assumptions/customs! That is, if alcohol works (along with medication) then death can be enjoyed too by that vector! (Perhaps "enjoyed" is to go too far, but I think you get it.)
I've formerly written that I think that ADMB should file under the Schizophrenic category, although, unknown how far out from the "normal", separating the two categories of Schizophrenia and Depression!
I have been writing also that I place Psychopathy the furthest out in the Schizophrenia category, at least in lack of any "worse" diagnosis. However, schizophrenia itself can probably be placed in various places in its own category, possibly making this as ugly!
The "category" of "Other", not being a category, but a "category"/folder/registry for unplotted/uncertain illnesses in this "Other" category. Which these are, is basically for yourself to decide, but I think Autism is a good choice as a start. This "category" reflects uncertainty about the data sets and how a good description is supposed to relate to the above!
The above relates to The _Two_ Category System of Schizophrenia and Depression!
This is of course a part of my ongoing analysis and work for a more complete Philosophy of Psychiatry as I've been successful in the past on other projects! I also think the Somatist point is a fine one (emphasising careful personal behaviour and personal physical security)!
It may be, incredibly enough, that psychopaths, when on the "psycho path by primary inclination, unrestrained by observers or some or not", picks up a trait in the face or head that makes them appear different, like with a forehead extending from the usual image of the forehead of this person!
This may sound weird and out of place, but these people are "a special club" and "dangerous at that" and that there are _actually_ features, even today, in nature/reality that your little head doesn't know about just yet! Now, it may also be that these people are curiously inclined, because of the _hard_ nature of people they're with, toward "magic with people" and "experiments with people" and that sort, still VERY dangerous and not very known! For you to discover! Be careful!
I just like to insert here the notion of "Normative Research Methods of Psychiatry"! Psychiatry, at least by myself, isn't to be considered as some "trip into a jungle". No, there are probably strict guidelines in place for this and that and that psychiatry is usually guided, officially, by the primary councils, The Scientific Council and The Ethical Council. These two bodies are usually attached to the professional Guilds! For research standards, please see NESH! (More on NESH to follow!)
The NESH URLs:
http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Helsinki
http://www.codex.uu.se/en/forskningmedicin.shtml ! Good?
I'm sorry. NESH appears to be a specific Norwegian acronym that translates to The National (of Norway) Research Ethical Committee for the Political Sciences and the Humanities (Den nasjonale forskningsetiske komité for samfunnsfag og humaniora (NESH)), incl. at least psychology, if not psychiatry directly in this instance because they file under the medical conventions!
Further on Telepathy -> Ganzfeldraum and all the rest...
On telepathy: If telepathy, whatever way you see it, provides nothing, 0 results, _then_ you're justified in NOT believing in it, but if it gives you 10/100 then these 10 results may be worth something very special, on skill, almost the same as when jet-fighter pilots begin using their eyes on the sky and get better in it! Not only this, but what fantastic nature doesn't these 10 results hold? I'm telling you, START believing!!!
Further on the plotting: Megalomania sorts under Schizophrenia because of the inclinations to see oneself as a kind of God! That is, Schizophrenics has a tendency to overrate one's own capacity, even saying they're Gods who decide over life and death here and there in the World! Concl: Megalomania under the _category_ of Schizophrenia!
The manic depression, bipolar disorder as it's also named, should be placed under depression. It's really a misnomer to place it elsewhere, I think, because people may become depressed, but pushed upward to a kind of happy manic state by biological inclination toward life (and joy).
Those who have placed people with schizophrenic symptoms under the label of manic-depression are wrong by this system!!!
Manic-depression or Bipolar disorder have formerly been placed under Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). I disagree deeply with this because DID blurs up the diagnostic system and I can't see the definite use for the concept of DID in its current form!
By now then, I've added Megalomania, Manic-Depression and ADMB to the "chart". You can possibly add "Misopedia" under (F65) Disorders of sexual preference (yet not listed) and into the Schizophrenia category even more far out than Psychopathy even though the two may coincide. Misopedia has been mentioned on CNN recently in relation to the finding of a dead 7 year old girl who turned out to have been sexually abused (and probably various more). You can check out yourself! Cheers!
Note: this is now transferred from Whatiswritten777 blog and the project is about 15 days of entering its 7th year, that is, 21.12.2011! This is also meant to run alongside the Modified Somatist Position and ISO-standards concerning journalling system and management system of Psychiatry! This writing above have originally been posted as 4 different blog posts largely following the progress in "Modified Somatist Position in Psychiatry" as set on the Somatists.html-file from the old websites (that are no more today)! Cheers!
Tuesday 6 December 2011
On the Expansion of the Universe
The idea that the Universe is held together by gravity forces despite the expansion is ridiculous, IMO, because the expansion is likely to happen at lightspeed and that photons, regardless, beam toward the edges of it, meaning a definite drain on the more central parts of the Universe. All in all, this means that the Universe loses mass and that this makes it more easy for the Universe to expand, going at maximum speed!
Note: this is my opinion only. I don't know to what degree I agree with other scientists, just that I've heard enough about the expansion of the Universe for a good 20 years!
Note: this is my opinion only. I don't know to what degree I agree with other scientists, just that I've heard enough about the expansion of the Universe for a good 20 years!
Monday 5 December 2011
A Solution for Anomalous Benefits - The Removal of the Social Benefits (and Its Clients)
The Social Benefits can be replaced with Citizen's Unemployment Benefits, with appropriate, coordinated, additional programs automatically assigned to them. These programs are of course the programs that usually apply to these people, if any at all, beside their special "Citizen's...", psychiatric, rehabilitation and detoxication programs!
The "basket" of Social Benefits has always been marked by dubious standards and it's my belief that the clients are better protected by entering professional set-ups rather than being placed in a pin-ball arrangement! This carries quite some weight to legal considerations, I think, in cleaning up unwanted characteristics of the public sector!
(Get, set, go!)
Besides, it should be noted that in the discussion of Social Benefits vs. Disability Benefits, Social Benefits hold _no_ particular requirement according to law, but Disability Benefits do! So when OECD a time ago noted that Norway kept a part of its potential workforce "on the outside", not on "Social Benefits", but on "Disability Benefits", then I would argue that Social Benefits can happen to hide Medical Conditions while Disability Benefits have no such drawback because of an extensive qualifying program of medical assessment. In Norway this is 6 years now, or less if you came out alive from a traffic accident severely injured, fx!
There is another issue with the leisure/leash-ure time of the "grating" system worldwide, that freedom is hard to achieve and hard to perceive as possibility anywhere whatsoever. My answer is, of course, that there is only _one_ answer and it is that the legal systems and legal practices _must be strengthened_ worldwide and that the (1000 mile/long?) march toward democracy (and not D. democracy) must continue! This is hard and dangerous work!!!
Note: I have a particular post on the Blogs reposted here where I note that all or most academic subjects rate as science. This has a particular foundation and is reformulated under HDM, as most of them pertain to matters of experience, the so called "empirical data"! This contribution to this blog is therefore noted as an explicit scientific contribution.
The "basket" of Social Benefits has always been marked by dubious standards and it's my belief that the clients are better protected by entering professional set-ups rather than being placed in a pin-ball arrangement! This carries quite some weight to legal considerations, I think, in cleaning up unwanted characteristics of the public sector!
(Get, set, go!)
Besides, it should be noted that in the discussion of Social Benefits vs. Disability Benefits, Social Benefits hold _no_ particular requirement according to law, but Disability Benefits do! So when OECD a time ago noted that Norway kept a part of its potential workforce "on the outside", not on "Social Benefits", but on "Disability Benefits", then I would argue that Social Benefits can happen to hide Medical Conditions while Disability Benefits have no such drawback because of an extensive qualifying program of medical assessment. In Norway this is 6 years now, or less if you came out alive from a traffic accident severely injured, fx!
There is another issue with the leisure/leash-ure time of the "grating" system worldwide, that freedom is hard to achieve and hard to perceive as possibility anywhere whatsoever. My answer is, of course, that there is only _one_ answer and it is that the legal systems and legal practices _must be strengthened_ worldwide and that the (1000 mile/long?) march toward democracy (and not D. democracy) must continue! This is hard and dangerous work!!!
Note: I have a particular post on the Blogs reposted here where I note that all or most academic subjects rate as science. This has a particular foundation and is reformulated under HDM, as most of them pertain to matters of experience, the so called "empirical data"! This contribution to this blog is therefore noted as an explicit scientific contribution.
Sunday 4 December 2011
Psychiatry and the Modified Somatist Position
This whole (web-)page of my writings belongs to my person, i.e., © Terje Lea / Terje L. F. Olsnes-Lea / Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea 2005 - 2011. Make no mistake about it!
Update: 04.07.2011. Written by Terje Lea / Terje L. F. Olsnes-Lea / Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea. 20.12.2005(?)-2011.
Psychiatric Views and Findings
Seriously,
Somatist: I regard the somatist psyciatry in combination with telepathy and telepathic effects, the only possible psychiatric position one can have for real.
Concerning telepathy, just laugh, ignorance has never solved anything, but if you're curious and mindful enough, you should know that experiments on telepathy have shown statistical significance and that in one experiment, perhaps in Scotland, two American couples have gotten 100% scores, perfect scores! I'd say a way to telepathy is hypersensitivity and the way to enhance those feelings is to be conscious about them. Not only that, but to make the necessary connection that if it's done correctly, puts you into the telepathic domain, is to analyse the feelings you have by lying on a bench, not being occupied with anything. Some of those feelings are clearly due to you lying on a bench, a comfortable place, preferably, but others are sensations coming from somewhere else, most likely people who are inclined, as the Moon's inclination to the Earth is a natural relationship, to engage with you emotionally or intellectually. There are, beside the telepathy of feelings, also visual, auditory and the combination of all three telepathy. The impressions vary from what you make in your own mind to more reasonable results of various. Telepathy can be very inexact and it can be troubling to discern it all. With telepathy, you may want to investigate "quantum entanglement", "contextualism" and "chaos theory". All of this is just assertions based on personal experience, but I've written it so now you can find out yourselves. Godspeed!
Additional message to Europe (and to the sceptics): Now, do you think they had a boatload of Americans to test? NO, God dammit! I think, by admission, the Americans, 4 of them, landed on the bank of Europe, Scotland, Edinburgh or Glasgow, and made their point! And what a Hell of a point! Are we in Europe dumb or something? I say no more!!!
Additional note: you may want to take notice of the word "truthiness" that has been named the word of the year in USA, 2004(?). I believe this word derives from a certain special relationship akin to a telepathic mechanism, either in relation to other people or aspects from nature itself in the instance of fx. quantum entanglement.
Efficiency in the private sector is known to be far better both in terms of quality (outcome of every consult) and on quantity (they treat more people per day and also perhaps, spend less time on the perverse).
Mental disorders:
The separation of issue. Example: I give here 2 examples of disadvantages, 1 disease and 1 genetic disorder. The first is Syphilis. It is caused by bacteria. The next is Down's Syndrome which is given pre-birth and represented by genetic disorder. These 2 examples are chosen because they were commonly known to be psychiatric illnesses in the past while they are NOT. They cause typical mental characteristics that differ from those found in normal people.
Then we find the proper categories:
Depression. Every depression is the result of a threat to the bond, your body and health. This has been said by an experienced psychologist/psychiatrist. If you suffer a loss of a person, you usually become sad, but in this sense, if the person has been critical to your physical security, you may enter depression. Depression is not a joke! Recently, it has been announced through media that depression may cause suicide at every severity. I have the sense that people who suffer depression are being held to the flames through some informal mechanism of society. It's assumed that this mechanism can be destroyed. I must also say that I see opportunities for Utopia in the future. I like to add this. It's better to die as a person, morality intact, than none at all. Keep yourself alert and have that focus on physical security!
Manic-depressive, bipolar.
Schizophrenia. Rebound of attitudes that the soul cannot carry without creating a personality fracture on the terms of moral in the type of experience. So all of these cases in this view have something to do with an outlook that breaches the natural moral of the inner mental life. When these breaches occur, the soul is suppressed by own negative view and replaced with externally founded personality from single or multiple people. Schizophrenia, I believe, is irreversible. If you go down that road, there's no turning back! I think it can be slowed down to some degree by alcohol or drugs, medicine and thereby be given a better functioning to the social connections, suppressing these tendencies of stupid, bizarre, deviant thoughts. More information on Schizophrenia here. I hope you can make good use of it.
Paranoia. The thought of being persecuted/stalked without being so. I believe, honestly, that few paranoid people haven't experienced something criminal either as a victim or as an offender. The following mistaken view is one of natural consequence, but not one for real. One is about to loose control because of stress due to spin of thoughts.
Dissociative Identity Disorder. I'd say there's no doubt that suffering from DID puts one on the ladder of Schizophrenia, but the person is at the lowest level and there should be good possibility of reversing the condition. The person, presumably, has been living under conditions that have been life threatening, but in a special kind of way, in that the person has been forced to accept deep immorality in order to survive and therefore the condition arises. What then? I suggest that as quickly as the situation is normal, safe, stable again and the specific threat to one's life is removed "forever", one should begin to perceive a healthy personal ethics that guide this person through the rest of the good life and this has to be exercised discipline, otherwise one climbs the ladder of Schizophrenia, I think. Typically, maybe, there's this stem of some assumed 3 identities, personalities and that depending on what forces and social anticipations that play on person XYZ, XYZ having 3 identities, personalities, XYZ plays out the relevant personality. For actual survival?
I can imagine that the personality that can be developed in "normal/ideal" circumstances is the "main" personality of the person, "inner" person. I'm not a skeptic in getting to know people, quite the other way around, but it's busy these days, you're supposed to work hard and earn money and so on.
Eating disorders, Anorexia/Bulimia. The two eating disorders, I think, can be separated into the two large groups of Depression/Schizophrenia with Anorexia belonging in Depression and Bulimia belonging in Schizophrenia.
General note: The heart of this theory is of course that I think that psychiatric disorders are largely caused by immorality in society. Victims of immorality becoming depressed and perpetrators becoming schizophrenic inluding psychopathic. I seek to confirm this by trying to find the most precise ways in examining mental illnesses.
In the smallest sense, immorality causes remorse that puts a load on your brain and works as an obstacle to your serius efforts. Your flow is disturbed by immorality. This is theory, but I bet it gets proven somewhere in the future. Sound moral gives you a better death, better health in life, sharper mind and better approach to problems. So if all this is caused by immorality, what about the mental health business itself? It's my perception that people generally find sound moral code to be boring and uninteresting and that this doesn't make it any better in the actual practice of those who work in mental health business who should be properly introduced to the importance of ethics, morals. Practitioners may find it illusionary meaningful to play political, society organisers and take part in the creation of very immoral stories of people's lives. I suspect detriment tendencies and the actual finding of these. I can only do this much, to the strongest of my belief, to encourage the fine moral approach as an intrinsic value in itself and for the benefit of all! Stay healthy!
There may be some concern that this represents pseudo-science and quackery. I detest having any views that can be categorised as pseudo-science and quackery. I will therefore make it perfectly clear:
My hypothesis: when people are blind to ethical/moral concerns of the type "it's important to follow the laws and be a morally decent person", they can fall victim to conditions that result in schizophrenia and that this path in life in self-reinforcing, f.x. inflicting violence become less and less a concern to you as a person. Consequently, the other side of it is the people who fall prey to these morally ignorant people.
The scientific procedure: I can confirm or defeat this by 2 possible ways. One is to be precise in getting knowledge about people's backgrounds and correlate this with their diagnosis, schizophrenia and depression being the interesting, correlation value of .5 being a total defeat.
The next possibility is this. One can study either societies that are strict on moral code and check with the insanity rate of schizophrenia and depression, these being the only factors of this or I can somehow urge and get people to behave more morally (extremely unlikely, but may be possible) and check for improvements on reported mental health statistics, again, schizophrenia and depression being the interesting.
Not only that, but you also deny future generations to get to know how great an ethical/moral life can be in avoiding schizophrenia/psychopathy. Is this really something you want? What if I'm right, proven by the research, wouldn't it be incredibly nice to know that this ethical/moral life by the general public can eradicate the insanity of schizophrenia and depression and possibly more? If one is to subdue by denial this possible confirmation, one might/may be unscientific in providing truth of the causes to schizophrenia and depression. I think my writing carries a deeply ethical/moral message and I have only the good intentions by coming forward with this.
The absurd privacy argument: the unserious mental health business seems to hide behind an alleged, rather dubiously, privacy vulnerability on behalf of the patients. I must say it's implausible given that they already store medical information, physically or digitally, that's incredibly sensitive and does represent a significant embarassment to the patient in case in gets into the wrong hands. There are also good examples of relatively (equal to all other standards, even the existing ones) safe storage and in digital network like the Police, banking, (health) insurance, communication businesses (telephone and internet companies) and other places that keep information people like to be private.
Obviously, the uneducated have little use in this, except as instilling good ethics/morals in their children and urging the society at large to also conduct according to good ethics/morals.
It's sincerely meant as a just that: the hypothesis/theory. One has to conduct more research into this and apply at the same time greater rigour to procedure, including great care of one's integrity to what one's doing.
It doesn't help you to research rape by raping someone and by raping someone you put yourself in an awkward position to other rape victims you're supposed to help and understand. This is just a notice regarding the practice.
It is enough to have the angle of immorality (by action and/or attitude) toward mental illness, especially schizophrenia. Besides, as schizophrenics "might" be the immoral group, you deny the group of depressed, mentally ill any right to know what is going on in case my hypothesis/theory turns out to be right.
The German flag, an impo-ortant lesson: It may occur funny to you that I write about the German flag on this page, but it has a natural and important cause. This cause is on the issue of the arrangement of the colours. The bottom line is yellow and it is yellow because the white that is supposed to be the bottom line is what makes the money. In earlier times, money, coins, has been yellow or gold, all how you want to see it. White in this regard, is considered a generally good ethics of behaviour to such degree that your being gives a super/subtle impression of white. Going up one level, one is at the red colour and red represents the super/subtle impression of your being when you're not only good, but particularly good, such that you excel in your goodness. Now, the last colour, black, is the colour of super/subtle impression of your being when you're even topping the red level. So in a sense, you're being super-good when you're black. Being black in my experience only happens in short bursts and it requires fine moments of highest intelligence. Above this, there can only be God! Suggesting the flag to be interpreted in its diabolical meaning, moving from the black colour down to the white, can also be done, but I don't want to bother with that now.
Cover: Black can also be a cover at every level. Black cover usually occurs when you're in danger or when something is at stake. It's also possible to "turn on" this black cover by tuning in on that particular emotion that yields a black cover impression. You'll have to test it for yourselves. I've found that "scizophrenics/psychopaths" feed on the good/white(soul impression) people because they have the desired energies of a certain quality. So the encouragement is this. Try to make use of this "black cover" that conceals your good person from being identified by the lunatics and thus being preyed upon. I don't know how good the lunatics are in using this kind of hiding, but I suspect they are less able than the good people.
This writing means that the German flag is a universal flag for all of us and should be celebrated accordingly.
I think there are blatant holes in procedures such as non-existence of watermarked logging files and lack of logging procedures.
There's a general lack of possibility for having one's therapy sessions properly documented by video, possibly making this a quality criterium.
The whole psychiatric practices should be certified by some kind of ISO-standard what concerns document flows and quality criteria of these, possibly also quality-certifying other aspects of the psychiatry.
There should be a possibility of having common spaces monitored by video in cases of rumbles and ensuring security for both staff and patients, possibly making any police work far easier.
It's assumed psychiatry complies with best practices, that it's strictly legal and that this is reflected in the psychiatric hospital departments and institutions. This should include qualified transparency and the possibility to retrace history of treatment.
There may be a good and fast solution as part of diagnostication in correlating with measuring metabolism (by blood sample).
A small remark on Sigmund Freud: I'd like to add by saying that I think there's NO coincidence that the Germans burnt his books after WW2, presumably after having applied Freud's theories on a grand scale! Truly Madness! Long live Humanity, it was indeed the victory of Good over Evil back then!
For ending the serious section of this webpage, I add two links that I think some people may come to appreciate:
Link 1 - Modern Signs in Modern Times
Link 2 - The Warts of Perversion. Taint of Corruption.
Link 3 - Tips and tricks for people who are involved in psychiatry, i.e., the patients.
Yet another link is coming. This one is for good advise that you can set into motion if or when you're in a difficult situation.
Later. I write on the above as I go along. (I will fill in this issue more closely once I get the information into sentences.)
The "categories" above are now reduced to only two, namely, Schizophrenia and Depression. All disorders now fall under these two categories. Please, take note of this. These 2 categories and the way to set up an analysis chart is an invention and result of _my work_ that started out in 2003, formally on the Internet! Good?
As for treatment strategy, psychiatric strategy, and given a few hidden assumptions/customs (by the schema of my suicide argument), I think it's fair to have the position that natural death is to prefer over other strategies that involve these hidden assumptions/customs! That is, if alcohol works (along with medication) then easily death too by that vector!
Please, be considerate over "easily", it's not that "easy", but it follows, possibly and well enough, intellectually to this particular strategy!
Put "enjoyed" in there, please! The text thus:
As for treatment strategy, psychiatric strategy, and given a few hidden assumptions/customs (by the schema of my suicide argument), I think it's fair to have the position that natural death is to prefer over other strategies that involve these hidden assumptions/customs! That is, if alcohol works (along with medication) then death can be enjoyed too by that vector! (Perhaps "enjoyed" is to go too far, but I think you get it.)
I've formerly written that I think that ADMB should file under the Schizophrenic category, although, unknown how far out from the "normal", separating the two categories of Schizophrenia and Depression!
I have been writing also that I place Psychopathy the furthest out in the Schizophrenia category, at least in lack of any "worse" diagnosis. However, schizophrenia itself can probably be placed in various places in its own category, possibly making this as ugly!
The "category" of "Other", not being a category, but a "category"/folder/registry for unplotted/uncertain illnesses in this "Other" category. Which these are, is basically for yourself to decide, but I think Autism is a good choice as a start. This "category" reflects uncertainty about the data sets and how a good description is supposed to relate to the above!
The above relates to The _Two_ Category System of Schizophrenia and Depression!
This is of course a part of my ongoing analysis and work for a more complete Philosophy of Psychiatry as I've been successful in the past on other projects! I also think the Somatist point is a fine one (emphasising careful personal behaviour and personal physical security)!
It may be, incredibly enough, that psychopaths, when on the "psycho path by primary inclination, unrestrained by observers or some or not", picks up a trait in the face or head that makes them appear different, like with a forehead extending from the usual image of the forehead of this person!
This may sound weird and out of place, but these people are "a special club" and "dangerous at that" and that there are _actually_ features, even today, in nature/reality that your little head doesn't know about just yet! Now, it may also be that these people are curiously inclined, because of the _hard_ nature of people they're with, toward "magic with people" and "experiments with people" and that sort, still VERY dangerous and not very known! For you to discover! Be careful!
I just like to insert here the notion of "Normative Research Methods of Psychiatry"! Psychiatry, at least by myself, isn't to be considered as some "trip into a jungle". No, there are probably strict guidelines in place for this and that and that psychiatry is usually guided, officially, by the primary councils, The Scientific Council and The Ethical Council. These two bodies are usually attached to the professional Guilds! For research standards, please see NESH! (More on NESH to follow!)
The NESH URLs:
http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Helsinki
http://www.codex.uu.se/en/forskningmedicin.shtml ! Good?
I'm sorry. NESH appears to be a specific Norwegian acronym that translates to The National (of Norway) Research Ethical Committee for the Political Sciences and the Humanities (Den nasjonale forskningsetiske komité for samfunnsfag og humaniora (NESH)), incl. at least psychology, if not psychiatry directly in this instance because they file under the medical conventions!
Cheers!
Further on Telepathy -> Ganzfeldraum and all the rest...
On telepathy: If telepathy, whatever way you see it, provides nothing, 0 results, _then_ you're justified in NOT believing in it, but if it gives you 10/100 then these 10 results may be worth something very special, on skill, almost the same as when jet-fighter pilots begin using their eyes on the sky and get better in it! Not only this, but what fantastic nature doesn't these 10 results hold? I'm telling you, START believing!!!
Further on the plotting: Megalomania sorts under Schizophrenia because of the inclinations to see oneself as a kind of God! That is, Schizophrenics has a tendency to overrate one's own capacity, even saying they're Gods who decide over life and death here and there in the World! Concl: Megalomania under the _category_ of Schizophrenia!
The manic depression, bipolar disorder as it's also named, should be placed under depression. It's really a misnomer to place it elsewhere, I think, because people may become depressed, but pushed upward to a kind of happy manic state by biological inclination toward life (and joy).
Those who have placed people with schizophrenic symptoms under the label of manic-depression are wrong by this system!!!
Manic-depression or Bipolar disorder have formerly been placed under Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). I disagree deeply with this because DID blurs up the diagnostic system and I can't see the definite use for the concept of DID in its current form!
Note: this is now transferred from Whatiswritten777 blog and the project is about 15 days of entering its 7th year, that is, 21.12.2011! Cheers!
Update: 04.07.2011. Written by Terje Lea / Terje L. F. Olsnes-Lea / Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea. 20.12.2005(?)-2011.
Psychiatric Views and Findings
Seriously,
Somatist: I regard the somatist psyciatry in combination with telepathy and telepathic effects, the only possible psychiatric position one can have for real.
Concerning telepathy, just laugh, ignorance has never solved anything, but if you're curious and mindful enough, you should know that experiments on telepathy have shown statistical significance and that in one experiment, perhaps in Scotland, two American couples have gotten 100% scores, perfect scores! I'd say a way to telepathy is hypersensitivity and the way to enhance those feelings is to be conscious about them. Not only that, but to make the necessary connection that if it's done correctly, puts you into the telepathic domain, is to analyse the feelings you have by lying on a bench, not being occupied with anything. Some of those feelings are clearly due to you lying on a bench, a comfortable place, preferably, but others are sensations coming from somewhere else, most likely people who are inclined, as the Moon's inclination to the Earth is a natural relationship, to engage with you emotionally or intellectually. There are, beside the telepathy of feelings, also visual, auditory and the combination of all three telepathy. The impressions vary from what you make in your own mind to more reasonable results of various. Telepathy can be very inexact and it can be troubling to discern it all. With telepathy, you may want to investigate "quantum entanglement", "contextualism" and "chaos theory". All of this is just assertions based on personal experience, but I've written it so now you can find out yourselves. Godspeed!
Additional message to Europe (and to the sceptics): Now, do you think they had a boatload of Americans to test? NO, God dammit! I think, by admission, the Americans, 4 of them, landed on the bank of Europe, Scotland, Edinburgh or Glasgow, and made their point! And what a Hell of a point! Are we in Europe dumb or something? I say no more!!!
Additional note: you may want to take notice of the word "truthiness" that has been named the word of the year in USA, 2004(?). I believe this word derives from a certain special relationship akin to a telepathic mechanism, either in relation to other people or aspects from nature itself in the instance of fx. quantum entanglement.
Efficiency in the private sector is known to be far better both in terms of quality (outcome of every consult) and on quantity (they treat more people per day and also perhaps, spend less time on the perverse).
Mental disorders:
The separation of issue. Example: I give here 2 examples of disadvantages, 1 disease and 1 genetic disorder. The first is Syphilis. It is caused by bacteria. The next is Down's Syndrome which is given pre-birth and represented by genetic disorder. These 2 examples are chosen because they were commonly known to be psychiatric illnesses in the past while they are NOT. They cause typical mental characteristics that differ from those found in normal people.
Then we find the proper categories:
Depression. Every depression is the result of a threat to the bond, your body and health. This has been said by an experienced psychologist/psychiatrist. If you suffer a loss of a person, you usually become sad, but in this sense, if the person has been critical to your physical security, you may enter depression. Depression is not a joke! Recently, it has been announced through media that depression may cause suicide at every severity. I have the sense that people who suffer depression are being held to the flames through some informal mechanism of society. It's assumed that this mechanism can be destroyed. I must also say that I see opportunities for Utopia in the future. I like to add this. It's better to die as a person, morality intact, than none at all. Keep yourself alert and have that focus on physical security!
Manic-depressive, bipolar.
Schizophrenia. Rebound of attitudes that the soul cannot carry without creating a personality fracture on the terms of moral in the type of experience. So all of these cases in this view have something to do with an outlook that breaches the natural moral of the inner mental life. When these breaches occur, the soul is suppressed by own negative view and replaced with externally founded personality from single or multiple people. Schizophrenia, I believe, is irreversible. If you go down that road, there's no turning back! I think it can be slowed down to some degree by alcohol or drugs, medicine and thereby be given a better functioning to the social connections, suppressing these tendencies of stupid, bizarre, deviant thoughts. More information on Schizophrenia here. I hope you can make good use of it.
Paranoia. The thought of being persecuted/stalked without being so. I believe, honestly, that few paranoid people haven't experienced something criminal either as a victim or as an offender. The following mistaken view is one of natural consequence, but not one for real. One is about to loose control because of stress due to spin of thoughts.
Dissociative Identity Disorder. I'd say there's no doubt that suffering from DID puts one on the ladder of Schizophrenia, but the person is at the lowest level and there should be good possibility of reversing the condition. The person, presumably, has been living under conditions that have been life threatening, but in a special kind of way, in that the person has been forced to accept deep immorality in order to survive and therefore the condition arises. What then? I suggest that as quickly as the situation is normal, safe, stable again and the specific threat to one's life is removed "forever", one should begin to perceive a healthy personal ethics that guide this person through the rest of the good life and this has to be exercised discipline, otherwise one climbs the ladder of Schizophrenia, I think. Typically, maybe, there's this stem of some assumed 3 identities, personalities and that depending on what forces and social anticipations that play on person XYZ, XYZ having 3 identities, personalities, XYZ plays out the relevant personality. For actual survival?
I can imagine that the personality that can be developed in "normal/ideal" circumstances is the "main" personality of the person, "inner" person. I'm not a skeptic in getting to know people, quite the other way around, but it's busy these days, you're supposed to work hard and earn money and so on.
Eating disorders, Anorexia/Bulimia. The two eating disorders, I think, can be separated into the two large groups of Depression/Schizophrenia with Anorexia belonging in Depression and Bulimia belonging in Schizophrenia.
General note: The heart of this theory is of course that I think that psychiatric disorders are largely caused by immorality in society. Victims of immorality becoming depressed and perpetrators becoming schizophrenic inluding psychopathic. I seek to confirm this by trying to find the most precise ways in examining mental illnesses.
In the smallest sense, immorality causes remorse that puts a load on your brain and works as an obstacle to your serius efforts. Your flow is disturbed by immorality. This is theory, but I bet it gets proven somewhere in the future. Sound moral gives you a better death, better health in life, sharper mind and better approach to problems. So if all this is caused by immorality, what about the mental health business itself? It's my perception that people generally find sound moral code to be boring and uninteresting and that this doesn't make it any better in the actual practice of those who work in mental health business who should be properly introduced to the importance of ethics, morals. Practitioners may find it illusionary meaningful to play political, society organisers and take part in the creation of very immoral stories of people's lives. I suspect detriment tendencies and the actual finding of these. I can only do this much, to the strongest of my belief, to encourage the fine moral approach as an intrinsic value in itself and for the benefit of all! Stay healthy!
There may be some concern that this represents pseudo-science and quackery. I detest having any views that can be categorised as pseudo-science and quackery. I will therefore make it perfectly clear:
My hypothesis: when people are blind to ethical/moral concerns of the type "it's important to follow the laws and be a morally decent person", they can fall victim to conditions that result in schizophrenia and that this path in life in self-reinforcing, f.x. inflicting violence become less and less a concern to you as a person. Consequently, the other side of it is the people who fall prey to these morally ignorant people.
The scientific procedure: I can confirm or defeat this by 2 possible ways. One is to be precise in getting knowledge about people's backgrounds and correlate this with their diagnosis, schizophrenia and depression being the interesting, correlation value of .5 being a total defeat.
The next possibility is this. One can study either societies that are strict on moral code and check with the insanity rate of schizophrenia and depression, these being the only factors of this or I can somehow urge and get people to behave more morally (extremely unlikely, but may be possible) and check for improvements on reported mental health statistics, again, schizophrenia and depression being the interesting.
Not only that, but you also deny future generations to get to know how great an ethical/moral life can be in avoiding schizophrenia/psychopathy. Is this really something you want? What if I'm right, proven by the research, wouldn't it be incredibly nice to know that this ethical/moral life by the general public can eradicate the insanity of schizophrenia and depression and possibly more? If one is to subdue by denial this possible confirmation, one might/may be unscientific in providing truth of the causes to schizophrenia and depression. I think my writing carries a deeply ethical/moral message and I have only the good intentions by coming forward with this.
The absurd privacy argument: the unserious mental health business seems to hide behind an alleged, rather dubiously, privacy vulnerability on behalf of the patients. I must say it's implausible given that they already store medical information, physically or digitally, that's incredibly sensitive and does represent a significant embarassment to the patient in case in gets into the wrong hands. There are also good examples of relatively (equal to all other standards, even the existing ones) safe storage and in digital network like the Police, banking, (health) insurance, communication businesses (telephone and internet companies) and other places that keep information people like to be private.
Obviously, the uneducated have little use in this, except as instilling good ethics/morals in their children and urging the society at large to also conduct according to good ethics/morals.
It's sincerely meant as a just that: the hypothesis/theory. One has to conduct more research into this and apply at the same time greater rigour to procedure, including great care of one's integrity to what one's doing.
It doesn't help you to research rape by raping someone and by raping someone you put yourself in an awkward position to other rape victims you're supposed to help and understand. This is just a notice regarding the practice.
It is enough to have the angle of immorality (by action and/or attitude) toward mental illness, especially schizophrenia. Besides, as schizophrenics "might" be the immoral group, you deny the group of depressed, mentally ill any right to know what is going on in case my hypothesis/theory turns out to be right.
The German flag, an impo-ortant lesson: It may occur funny to you that I write about the German flag on this page, but it has a natural and important cause. This cause is on the issue of the arrangement of the colours. The bottom line is yellow and it is yellow because the white that is supposed to be the bottom line is what makes the money. In earlier times, money, coins, has been yellow or gold, all how you want to see it. White in this regard, is considered a generally good ethics of behaviour to such degree that your being gives a super/subtle impression of white. Going up one level, one is at the red colour and red represents the super/subtle impression of your being when you're not only good, but particularly good, such that you excel in your goodness. Now, the last colour, black, is the colour of super/subtle impression of your being when you're even topping the red level. So in a sense, you're being super-good when you're black. Being black in my experience only happens in short bursts and it requires fine moments of highest intelligence. Above this, there can only be God! Suggesting the flag to be interpreted in its diabolical meaning, moving from the black colour down to the white, can also be done, but I don't want to bother with that now.
Cover: Black can also be a cover at every level. Black cover usually occurs when you're in danger or when something is at stake. It's also possible to "turn on" this black cover by tuning in on that particular emotion that yields a black cover impression. You'll have to test it for yourselves. I've found that "scizophrenics/psychopaths" feed on the good/white(soul impression) people because they have the desired energies of a certain quality. So the encouragement is this. Try to make use of this "black cover" that conceals your good person from being identified by the lunatics and thus being preyed upon. I don't know how good the lunatics are in using this kind of hiding, but I suspect they are less able than the good people.
This writing means that the German flag is a universal flag for all of us and should be celebrated accordingly.
I think there are blatant holes in procedures such as non-existence of watermarked logging files and lack of logging procedures.
There's a general lack of possibility for having one's therapy sessions properly documented by video, possibly making this a quality criterium.
The whole psychiatric practices should be certified by some kind of ISO-standard what concerns document flows and quality criteria of these, possibly also quality-certifying other aspects of the psychiatry.
There should be a possibility of having common spaces monitored by video in cases of rumbles and ensuring security for both staff and patients, possibly making any police work far easier.
It's assumed psychiatry complies with best practices, that it's strictly legal and that this is reflected in the psychiatric hospital departments and institutions. This should include qualified transparency and the possibility to retrace history of treatment.
There may be a good and fast solution as part of diagnostication in correlating with measuring metabolism (by blood sample).
A small remark on Sigmund Freud: I'd like to add by saying that I think there's NO coincidence that the Germans burnt his books after WW2, presumably after having applied Freud's theories on a grand scale! Truly Madness! Long live Humanity, it was indeed the victory of Good over Evil back then!
For ending the serious section of this webpage, I add two links that I think some people may come to appreciate:
Link 1 - Modern Signs in Modern Times
Link 2 - The Warts of Perversion. Taint of Corruption.
Link 3 - Tips and tricks for people who are involved in psychiatry, i.e., the patients.
Yet another link is coming. This one is for good advise that you can set into motion if or when you're in a difficult situation.
Later. I write on the above as I go along. (I will fill in this issue more closely once I get the information into sentences.)
The "categories" above are now reduced to only two, namely, Schizophrenia and Depression. All disorders now fall under these two categories. Please, take note of this. These 2 categories and the way to set up an analysis chart is an invention and result of _my work_ that started out in 2003, formally on the Internet! Good?
As for treatment strategy, psychiatric strategy, and given a few hidden assumptions/customs (by the schema of my suicide argument), I think it's fair to have the position that natural death is to prefer over other strategies that involve these hidden assumptions/customs! That is, if alcohol works (along with medication) then easily death too by that vector!
Please, be considerate over "easily", it's not that "easy", but it follows, possibly and well enough, intellectually to this particular strategy!
Put "enjoyed" in there, please! The text thus:
As for treatment strategy, psychiatric strategy, and given a few hidden assumptions/customs (by the schema of my suicide argument), I think it's fair to have the position that natural death is to prefer over other strategies that involve these hidden assumptions/customs! That is, if alcohol works (along with medication) then death can be enjoyed too by that vector! (Perhaps "enjoyed" is to go too far, but I think you get it.)
I've formerly written that I think that ADMB should file under the Schizophrenic category, although, unknown how far out from the "normal", separating the two categories of Schizophrenia and Depression!
I have been writing also that I place Psychopathy the furthest out in the Schizophrenia category, at least in lack of any "worse" diagnosis. However, schizophrenia itself can probably be placed in various places in its own category, possibly making this as ugly!
The "category" of "Other", not being a category, but a "category"/folder/registry for unplotted/uncertain illnesses in this "Other" category. Which these are, is basically for yourself to decide, but I think Autism is a good choice as a start. This "category" reflects uncertainty about the data sets and how a good description is supposed to relate to the above!
The above relates to The _Two_ Category System of Schizophrenia and Depression!
This is of course a part of my ongoing analysis and work for a more complete Philosophy of Psychiatry as I've been successful in the past on other projects! I also think the Somatist point is a fine one (emphasising careful personal behaviour and personal physical security)!
It may be, incredibly enough, that psychopaths, when on the "psycho path by primary inclination, unrestrained by observers or some or not", picks up a trait in the face or head that makes them appear different, like with a forehead extending from the usual image of the forehead of this person!
This may sound weird and out of place, but these people are "a special club" and "dangerous at that" and that there are _actually_ features, even today, in nature/reality that your little head doesn't know about just yet! Now, it may also be that these people are curiously inclined, because of the _hard_ nature of people they're with, toward "magic with people" and "experiments with people" and that sort, still VERY dangerous and not very known! For you to discover! Be careful!
I just like to insert here the notion of "Normative Research Methods of Psychiatry"! Psychiatry, at least by myself, isn't to be considered as some "trip into a jungle". No, there are probably strict guidelines in place for this and that and that psychiatry is usually guided, officially, by the primary councils, The Scientific Council and The Ethical Council. These two bodies are usually attached to the professional Guilds! For research standards, please see NESH! (More on NESH to follow!)
The NESH URLs:
http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Helsinki
http://www.codex.uu.se/en/forskningmedicin.shtml ! Good?
I'm sorry. NESH appears to be a specific Norwegian acronym that translates to The National (of Norway) Research Ethical Committee for the Political Sciences and the Humanities (Den nasjonale forskningsetiske komité for samfunnsfag og humaniora (NESH)), incl. at least psychology, if not psychiatry directly in this instance because they file under the medical conventions!
Cheers!
Further on Telepathy -> Ganzfeldraum and all the rest...
On telepathy: If telepathy, whatever way you see it, provides nothing, 0 results, _then_ you're justified in NOT believing in it, but if it gives you 10/100 then these 10 results may be worth something very special, on skill, almost the same as when jet-fighter pilots begin using their eyes on the sky and get better in it! Not only this, but what fantastic nature doesn't these 10 results hold? I'm telling you, START believing!!!
Further on the plotting: Megalomania sorts under Schizophrenia because of the inclinations to see oneself as a kind of God! That is, Schizophrenics has a tendency to overrate one's own capacity, even saying they're Gods who decide over life and death here and there in the World! Concl: Megalomania under the _category_ of Schizophrenia!
The manic depression, bipolar disorder as it's also named, should be placed under depression. It's really a misnomer to place it elsewhere, I think, because people may become depressed, but pushed upward to a kind of happy manic state by biological inclination toward life (and joy).
Those who have placed people with schizophrenic symptoms under the label of manic-depression are wrong by this system!!!
Manic-depression or Bipolar disorder have formerly been placed under Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). I disagree deeply with this because DID blurs up the diagnostic system and I can't see the definite use for the concept of DID in its current form!
Note: this is now transferred from Whatiswritten777 blog and the project is about 15 days of entering its 7th year, that is, 21.12.2011! Cheers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)