For acknowledgements associated with these three brand-new fashion, beauty and style news images, click here-- and you'll see the acknowledgements come around to that instagram page of ours either at once or within a day or so.
THE yoga6d EcoNomy page has gone through many phases. With our present attention into a range of related pages,--check it all out by links from limit the quantity of articles here to one or some pr season. For installation of Linux, the best advice is: Go to the store with the most recent Ubuntu Desktop from put to a flashdisk according to their tutorials--follow them entirely strictly, for there are small adjustments in the beginning that must be correct to boot the newest PCs. Then, at a good store with many different PCs at good prices, pick out the brands etc that are most compatible with the important-in-the-future open source operating system as at and check each PC you are interested in buying for fifteen minutes--and check everything. There are things that might work in Linux for two minutes only (eg in some of the cheaper laptops), but accept this if you have simple acceptable workarounds (like using a USB mouse instead of inbuilt mouse pad), when the overall functionality is more broadly compatible. Then, when you have found something you want, get it, and then you could put a more daring Linux to it--going back to Ubuntu if this more daring Linux doesn't work. Our advice here is clear: The KDE Neon GNU/linux is the best, especially when used with the popular Wayland. If you haven't already done so: Get yourself a powerful SIP account--spend time on configuring it--see links at our to get a stable account and to get good software for it-- and so you can get your PC to do most of the job of a handy/mobile phone rather than using slippery time-stealing mini-hardware. (The rest of the job you'll figure out somehow.) FOR MORE INFO ABOUT THINKING ON ONE'S OWN AND MAKING PROGRESS IN LOGICAL CLARITY, SEE G15 PMN, WHICH WORKS EMINENTLY ALSO WITH NEON LINUX For info about this, see our G15 PMN programming language page: In G15 PMN, you also find the exclusively bright-green monochrome jewel of esthetics that we used to have so much of at this EcoNomy column, as part of a whole programming platform. Enjoy! [Note that this page has a mixture of new things and many things which are written a long time ago.]
Most recent essay here:
The world is full of proofread unwise texts. If there is any wisdom here, it isn't proofread. Just as any good painting isn't proofread either. SOME FEATURES OF WORLD ECONOMY PREDICTIONS FOR THE YEAR 2022 November 6, 2021 In 2022 I think it is likely that we will see, in the area of global business, economical growth areas and such--relevant to those who daytrade currencies successfully: * A general good business for most airplane companies [the waves associated with the now-dampened off covid issues will continue for a good while esp in specific regions but covid is now more considered a particularly vile type of flu most places] * A general decline in value of local currencies which are too wedded to specific forms of energy * A stability of world affairs that is in very broad statistical terms a bit better than before the covid phase due to the increased orientation towards digital interaction with the type of attitudes towards favouring stability of infrastructure that this may lead to as a general attitude * Very novel attempts at environmentally friendly product and service creations, some with powerful influence and enduring success * A technology in which small and knowledge- transparent units are favoured more than before S.R.Weber *** Reproduction of whole unedited text in educational settings and such is permitted. Contact info to author is in the link above as for reprint permissions. ****************** 2020 ******************* IN 2023 SOMETIME THE COVID19 IS A THING MOSTLY OF THE PAST Decenber 22, 2020 Those who wish to think clearly about the present political situations around the world where covid19 restrictions and other covid19 related themes are over-dominant, and who have a harmonious, intuitive, creative agenda, ought to be served something better than wishful thinking about when it will all lighten up. Obviously, any such vaguely flu-like thing is making itself somewhat less present in hot temperatures. Apart, therefore, from a light easing during summer times here and there, when will the covid19 restrictions really go away? That is about predicting a lot of factors including how politicians think and how their affects affect the spread and how their actions slow the building up of a herd immunity; and how digital platforms soak in loads of profit on having people sitting home; the very same digital platform whose top experts are advicing the politicians. This whole set of factors, including biological factors, such as variations of forms of covid19 and so on, must be considered in the various scenarios we look into. In one scenario, everything gets better month by month, vaccinations provide optimism. In another, they do get better but only after some months. In a third scenario, only in 2023 can people really look back on covid19 as a thing of the past, or mostly of the past. There are some more scenarios but I regard all these as possible and for reasons that are mostly intuitive I have come to stick to the third one. S.R.Weber *** Reproduction of whole unedited text in educational settings and such is permitted. Contact info to author is in the link above as for reprint permissions. COVID VACCINATIONS BETTER THAN LOCKDOWNS November 29, 2020 Politicians across the globe pin their hopes on vaccination programmes, hoping to get a majority of the population vaccinated against COVID-19 long before summer 2021. There are three things one might say about this: [1] Good luck with it, and glad you are focussing on vaccination rather than the way too heavy-handed approach of city lockdowns. [2] Most have had a passing mild cold that actually was COVID-19, is the opinion of some people; they will not need that vaccine. [3] Build a way to handle future diseases that has no more of the Orwellian approaches that we have seen with COVID-19; enough is enough. S.R.Weber *** Reproduction of whole unedited text in educational settings and such is permitted. Contact info to author is in the link above as for reprint permissions. BELOW IS PART OF THE ARCHIVED SECTION OF THE YOGA6D ECONOMY COLUMN.

Vogue Paris October 2017 Fashionmodel Ulrikke Hoyer Archive page 1. Archive page 10. ********************A BIT MORE PRIVACY? HERE YOU ARE:********************** As the first head of the Norwegian State's Data Protection Agency --a sort of "Ombudsman for Privacy"--pointed out: one can be a completely respectable and law-abiding citizen and nevertheless not want the State to know everything about oneself. Privacy is a matter of quality of living. This is not just about the State; it's a matter also of not letting one's life be altogether dominated by large tech corporations and their spamming of the Internet experience with unesthetical advertisements. One can be in favour of general ad campaigns and advertisements shown, beside quality articles and quality photos, in a way that has been human edited so as to provide a good reading experience, and not approving of the hyper-targeted ads that appear all over the place by scripts operated by these companies. A newspaper can provide ads in its digital forms without engaging in hyper-targeting: simply by showing images and texts in the classic manner, so that everyone sees the same images and texts, both editorial content and advertisements. By turning JavaScript off you are not turning such classical advertisements off. You are turning off some of the capacity of the PC to spy on you so as to give hypertargeted ads-- that's all. So, non-tracking advertisements we can welcome. The best would be to have a DECENTLY made browser of a type that is also wholly modern and up-to-date in all respects. No such browser exist. Firefox is half-decent because they keep on making it difficult to switch off cookies and switch javascript on and off, and other browsers are generally either even less decent, or they can't process the latest verisions of HTML and so on well enough. Firefox however tries to hold the banner of 'privacy' high, and, all things taken in consideration, it is probably the best of the lot: To improve privacy at least a little bit, whether in Linux or Windows, this is what many recommend: But only if you learn to configure it right for the right sites. The next solution is a good one in its simplicity: At the very least, every serious explorer of Internet ought to have a switch on the browser to turn javascript on and off--so that the pages that do have some meaningful content but which get horribly slow with javascript turned on can be browsed at speed. So, the minimum would be something like this: (You can search up other addons that does rather the same--be sure the present version of your browser does in fact work with each addon.) Combine this with intelligent adjustments of the Cookie preferences and of selecting Delete History quite often. You should combine the use of any such approach with an actual quitting of the browser and a cleansing of all flash cookie folders and other temporary internet files and such. In sum, this might just be a lot better than using 'privacy mode'. NoScript can also prevents some of the sometimes very cunning flash cookies to come into your system and track it (flash cookies escape the normal cookie settings and are features of the Adobe's Flash plugin). So you want something to COMPLETELY cleanse away flash cookies regularly--and most of the ways that worked five years ago aren't working anymore. As it seems: you must search in unusual ways on the net on flash cookie removal methods (the search engines here often give only obsolate or over-complicated answers--guess why), and you mustn't be too gullible. It SEEMS that the following is a pretty good link both for Windows and Linux (hint: try use the Software Center in your Linux). Such 'cleaning programs' are run IN BETWEEN your sessions on the internet, with focus on deleting the temporary files associated with your browsers, and in particular with focus on the Flash folders. HOWEVER SUCH A PROGRAM MUST BE MADE BY TRUSTWORTHY PEOPLE AND IT MUST BE UPDATED ALL THE TIME to be relevant here. To generate some more links to relevant program, put the same type of keywords you find here into Geek Forums and see what they say there (but only use information that are no more than months old as for Flash cookie cleaners if you wish to be reasonable certain you get it right). Bleachbit is a good program but it is also well known by those who make the plugins and the browsers and so there is always the question-mark of whether it can fully do the job it is set up to do. To repeat, I don't guarantee that this program do the work of cleansing flash cookies fully, but I think it is one of the best bets at present. In any case, it seems a good idea to find a program that seems trustworthy enough and that you learn well enough that it can actually locate and delete the stored flash cookies every time you want, after quitting the browser and before re-starting it. As for NoScript, it takes getting used to, but there is no doubt that you get a much more reliable, fast, interesting netsurf-time when handling it while going through vast number of sites for suitable images and so on. Be sure, as you go back and forth between public sites and log-in sites, to constantly go into the Cookies settings--Always, Never--and to press CTRL-SHIFT-DEL to get those away. Turn NoScript's JavaScript back on to 'globally' before any log-in or any site that has complicated content that you must view in full. Turn Cookies to Always also before logging in to places which have complicated log-in mechanisms. You can bookmark the position of the Privacy settings inside the newest version of Firefox by CTRL-D, so you can get to it faster. But what with all these measures, most operating systems are made so that any activity has lots of traces around on the disk. And even with a reformat of the disk, the disk physically usually has many remaining traces of the activity. You just have to learn to live with it all. ************************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ===========>Here you can YOGA6DORG SPARKLES PRODUCTION SUITE or certificates by getting the 7.5 GB .ova file we have prepared for you and start it within such as Oracle Virtualbox. Read on:==================== Here are 15 ca 500MB bundles for SPARKLES.OVA, which, when you have got it all, should combine to the exact size 7581443584 bytes. These are, in Linux, easily combined by a simple command as indicated here: readme.txt Further notes: installing_the_best_linux.txt Before you do this, note that this version of GNU/Linux of the Debian kind as our open source friendly and legal extension and modification of SparkyLinux to suit professional creative production purposes do require that the ground PC you run it on is lots and lots of times faster than a typical PC from the year it was made {we made this available Septemeber 18th 2015}. You should carefully read the installation document as for what to expect and what not to expect with this platform, which has an orientation more towards independent creative production than towards internet connectivity or such: it is a healthy desire to retain an 'imprint' of well-made programs before they are swept away by clumsy upgrades in the decades to come that led us to make it. sparkles.ova.001 sparkles.ova.002 sparkles.ova.003 sparkles.ova.004 sparkles.ova.005 sparkles.ova.006 sparkles.ova.007 sparkles.ova.008 sparkles.ova.009 sparkles.ova.010 sparkles.ova.011 sparkles.ova.012 sparkles.ova.013 sparkles.ova.014 sparkles.ova.015 The above installation info text also talks about this ca 1.5 GB LTFIRTH: ltfirth.ova Exact size: 1582907392 bytes. We appreciate that you make use of these links as an individual {ie, pls don't set up systems for massive loading of huge files, for we need to protect the servers against too much pressure}. For further extension of this platform you may also want to get the following OVA's, listed further on. The first, RH8, can be combined elegantly and fairly effortlessly with the Y6ALL.ZIP G15 PMN programming platform (linked to elsewhere in this page; the Y6ALL works in fullscreen mode in RH8) and which offer the possibility of running such as the 'toprinti' programs, the output of which you see the result of when you go to and select the 'Print weekplans' part. The Sparkles Linux works with the 'bnw' programs. Both of these are linked to at, the main location to get G15 PMN core works. NOTE: USEFUL WORKAROUNDS! SPARKLES, SPARKYLINUX AND SOME RELATED LINUX FORMS CAN MAKE USE OF SOME WORKAROUNDS--how to disband an annoying screensaver when it asks too much for updates, and more such. These workarounds are given a handful of screenfuls further on in this EcoNomy page. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ===========>Here you can get RH8. It has many features. It allows, if you wish, install of the Y6ALL.ZIP package for wholescreen G15 PMN performed elegantly and fast in a minimalistic linux. It can also run classic applets without signs or certificates. Do get the 2GB .ova file we have prepared for you and start it eg within Oracle Virtualbox. Read on:==================== YES TO RUNNING ALL CLASSIC JAVA APPLETS WITH GREAT EASE AND TO ALWAYS HAVING INTERNET OF THE HTTP NOT JUST HTTPS KIND The best of internet is free from meaninglessly overdone cryptisation efforts, certificates provided by conglomerates of companies, etc etc. Freedom is core to the internet. To this, http:// as prefix represents the best of the internet, with https:// as secondary class, but part of a whole package of securities which banks and such must provide. And free Java applets of the classic type, 1.1 and early 1.2 and so on,, unsigned and easy to write and without bother with certificates, is part of the natural anarchy of compassion of the internet. Is there a shortcut to running all the good ones of them without all the new cluttered arrangements, which is safe enough for people who have a good mind? There's a way to run all the world's unsigned Java applets as easy as in 2006 -- in fact, as easy as April 10, 2006 -- it's just to go back to that date. You have Virtualbox installed, then get this file (2GB) and select 'Import appliance', and you're up and running. {If you give this link to others, do it in a way that ensures moderate rather than massive use of this link to this giant file, spare our servers pressure. Tks.} So, what you fiind there, we've done, easily, by means of only free software, the RH8, the Konqueror, and such, from around that time, all GNU GPL and legal runtimes. Login-name and password and additional hints you'll find in the readme.txt for it. Note that we are in favour of meaningful security when using your PC. That meaningful security involves that you think through each step when you do these things, and not go to just any site with this type of "certification-less" approaches. Do use it with the attentiveness you should have when giving even an emulated part of your machine such freedom. By putting the Centos 5.5 into another virtual PC inside your PC you can get Firefox with javascript of the classic type, -- which constantly works, on all internet, and will do so, always. For this is the Web III. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ===========>Not enough with RH8? You can get C55DOS! Here are 8 parts of a 4GB .ova file we have prepared for you and start it within Virtualbox. Read on:==================== YES TO RUNNING CLASSIC MOZILLA WITH AN EASE OF TURNING JAVASCRIPT OFF, FREE FROM ANY TOO MUCH PLUGINS, AND FULLY IN SUPPORT OF http:// SITES NATURALLY The c55dos in the present form of VirtualBox offers only 800x600 window, not as big screen as the RH8 above, with the free open source CentOS 5.5 here included, and a library for DOS-enthusiasts as well. Read all about it before loading anything of this c55dos.ova here: readme.txt You have Virtualbox installed, and a program to merge these files into one -- example is given in readme.txt for a free such program for many linuxes -- and then get these 8 files each of 500 MB == made available this date: May 5, 2015: c55dos.ova.001 c55dos.ova.002 c55dos.ova.003 c55dos.ova.004 c55dos.ova.005 c55dos.ova.006 c55dos.ova.007 c55dos.ova.008 After you have got them, merge them, after that, select File->Import appliance in VirtualBox and you get a window where you can select between C55 and DOS. {As with the above link to rh8, if you provide links or info about these links to others, do it towards a moderate loading of these our files rather than a massive loading, to spare our servers pressure. Tks.} It is all legal free software, provided in a benefit-for-all sense, and to support good standards. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * OUR CURRENCY TRADING TUTORIAL MINI-ESSAY 1: STATISTICAL GRAPHING: If you're a norwegian-talking student who wants to acquire a greater capacity to think about numbers in terms of abstract patterns and plot these graphically e.g. in connection to a thesis, and who wants to get started with statistical programming, you may find the following educational notes useful: To acquire such a sense of numbers is useful also to get going with interactive PMN programming in the new G15 platform. There is a vague inspiration of some aspects of R to some aspects of PMN, of course. (PMN is open source part of the Firth and Linux G15, see links to this elsewhere on this EcoNomy page.) THE CASE FOR LONG-TERM LOW-LEVERAGED CURRENCY TRADING -- CT of a low leverage with some of your surplus money can be seen as a way of learning something about the planet and its economies A word of caution: pls read in the archive section, page 10, of this our EcoNomy texts, as for what you can expect in terms of prices -- how meaningful (or not) they are. The idea of 'leverage', as known by those already acqainted with eg currency trading -- here called CT -- is that of multiplying the sum you trade with, so that the fluctuations become more noticable. More gain, if you have done the right type of bet, and more loss, if not. I suppose all of us have heard of billionaires who have made gigantic gains on CT, but there are also stories about billionaires who have made gigantic losses on CT. A leverage of 1 means that the chances of gain are not bigger than the normal fluctuations between the currencies. From one year to the next, does it matter whether you store money say, in one or in another of the most robust currencies? It probably will matter a little bit -- some percent, on the average, in one or the other direction. Suppose you're able to bet right -- that XXX will increase relative to YYY by, let's say, four percent during the next twelve months. And so by a leverage of 1 you gain four percent on your surplus money. By a leverage of 10 you gain forty percent. By a leverage of 50, 200 percent. But if the bet is in the wrong direction, and you use a leverage of 50, the betting sum will decrease to zero and that surplus money, set aside for CT, will be permanently gone. But fluctuations of currencies are much like details of a coastline -- the closer you focus on the detail, all the way to the pebbles on the beach -- the longer the coastline gets. And so, if GBP raises four percent relative to USD during the next twelve month -- given, say, the currency value at noon today and at noon 365 days into the future -- it may perfectly well has swayed much more than that during some days and weeks. Like when you do sailing or windsurfing of some kind, you want there to be some wind, but if the wind is strong, and the waves are big, your boat must be more robust and the sail ought in general to be smaller relative to the size of the boat. The idea of a low leverage is that you can handle 'currency storms' without sleepless nights. Add to this the recommendation of only trading with surplus money, not with money that is vital to you, and your sleep won't be affected in the least by your CT bets. This is perhaps obvious to quite a few, but still it is a point that seems to be relatively rarely expressed among the many brokers that offer CT to individuals. Rather, they say: it's important to set a 'stop loss' factor when you do a trade. I don't think that's important at all -- not when you do a low leverage CT. On the contrary. The whole point of doing a low leverage CT is that the bet can go very much in the wrong direction without you having to call an automatic close on the bet. If, in addition, the CT concerns some of the most stable currencies on the planet, there's all the more reason why it will swing to a more positive result within, say, some weeks or months. Suppose, for instance, you have done a bet and it seems to go well for a week but when you next check it, it turns out to show a loss of some ten percent on your surplus savings put into the CT broker account. Had it been ten times as much leverage, it would have been nothing left in the account. But with adequately small leverage, bad weather is easy to handle. Your bet might still be right and still come out positive. You may have sensed something substantial about world economy, and, lo and behold, after maybe three weeks it is five or ten or fifteen percent into the positive. If you feel like it, you can close the bet then, not risking another bout of bad CT wheather. In the meantime, without doubt, your interest in the affairs of central banks and giant G8 economies' decision- making relative to debts, bonds, currency printing, import/export politics, as well as climate effects and all that, have naturally been perked up. If you sensed that the USD is going to go up relative to an european main currency like GBP, surely a lot of previously rather boring details about how the big nations interact and act in terms also of money policy will have a greater interest to you. If the leverage you have put on your CT is adequately low, and it is in fact surplus not vital money you're trading with, you won't have any fear as to how world economies are making out, but you surely will have increased, natural interest. Politics and economy news will be more personally interesting to you than it might otherwise have, if your area of work is not already directly tied up to these phenomena. Compare it to science, scientific research in the true spirit of enquiry and doubt, open-minded sceptisism -- the CT bet is to put forth a hypothesis. You are putting a theory of the developments to come into a mild money form. If the theory is confirmed, you can easily beat the normal interest rates that banks will pay you on this portion of your surplus money. If the theory isn't confirmed, but disconfirmed (to use the popperian or neopopperian language), well then, you have had a gain in insight, in having a period of fruitfully elevated interest in global affairs, and you have learned to go still more deeply into yourself before doing the next bet. Scientific research, in this impersonal, disinterested sense, is a win-win situation: there's a considerable gain if your hypothesis gets instances of confirmation, but there is also gain with instances of disconfirmation, for both results are, indeed, results. Results from which one can learn, and which have involved learning all the way. [[[Practical info: if you use something like MT4 -- a program often used by many brokers, and which can start in Windows and in some cases--for some versions of MT4 only--under Wine Windows emulator--you don't type in what leverage you are going to apply given a particular trade. Rather you type in how many "lots" you are going to trade with. There are typically three types of lots -- a standard lot, which is 100,000, a mini lot, which is 10,000, and a micro lot, which is 1,000. What size of the lot you have is dependent on the account type you have. The lot refers to the first in a currency pair, so in the case of one mini-lot of GBP/USD, we're talking of the value of 10,000 british pounds as seen from the perspective of US dollars. (So the idea of the 'lot' is usually independent of the ground currency of your account.) The smallest trading sum in MT4 is usually 0.01 of the lot type you have. If the CT account you have has $250 in it, then when the lot refers to dollars, and it is a standard lot, trading with 0.01 (a hundredth of 100,000), means multiplying that sum with four (so you get 1000). Imagine you have mini-lots in an account with $250 in it, and you're trading with a currency pair where the first one listed is either USD or a currency with a value fairly near it. If you then use MT4 to trade with 0.1 (which times the minilot size of 10,000 means 1,000), you are invoking more or less a leverage of four. The CT accounts in USA normally allow up to a leverage of 50, while most other places allow up to 500. Be sure, however, to check out the broker really well for there are three other factors involved: the distance between the buy and sell price (the 'spread'), the honesty of the currency value you get relative to official values (it may be a manipulated value, for the official values are not compulsory -- so prefer STP brokers), and finally the question of the up-time of the servers (they may not work at all for hours and the CT broker may be in praxis rather unavailable for any support of substance unless you're a millionaire or better -- the support channels may actually only go to a separate company whose only capacity is to tell how the MT4 program is supposed to work). So stick to virtual sum on virtual accounts so as to get a sense of what the company is up to, and start carefully, with small sums, before doing anything big with the company, and see how things work out. Intuition must be brought in and have its say, and you must see small results being real before going bigger with them.]]] A VARIETY OF LINKS This great work is constantly updated: G15 PMN programming language: THE EARLIER FIRTH: Existing since April 10 2006, and with occasional uses all over the world: (6-700 MB!) The sets forth how to install it. Requires technical expertise. Firth has been brought into PCs of all sorts, it has the Manhattan Transformation, or MT, scifi erotic texts spread around in it in .txt form, it has earlier forms of the new programming language G15 PMN in it (and a version of G15 PMN has been made so as to be compatible with it, the G15SP_F, and is available at the link above), a number of originally made programs and loads of docs. By its DOS-compatible Firth234 operating approach, containing a modified extremely powerfully expanded GNU GPL FreeDOS with open source versions of Perl, Pascal, Lisp, Forth, APL and you name it included, alongside various freeware games and editors and what not, it sets the whole standard for the classical IBM PC area and those who are technically expert and enthusiastic are able to get many portions of this to work with modern PCs directly--or via some of the virtual solutions. The WHOLE Firth experience is however only available at hardware of the Y2000 kind with a 1024x768 sized analog monitor and the typical hardware which existed at that time including SoundBlaster16. Note that the word "Firth" as defined in the context of G15 PMN programming works refer to any G15 PMN extension in terms of hardware such as robotics or networking, whether as Linux or as our own intraplates Avenuege G15 PC. SOME EXTRA WORKAROUNDS FOR THE SPARKLES LINUX The Sparkles Linux is a package that either works enormously well for you--or you have to get another package altogether, because it has now existed for such a long time that there is no automatic way to install packages (ie, its inbuilt 'Synaptic' no longer connects to an active pool of updated packages, so in case they have to be assembled manually and that's usually something to be avoided). However, workarounds do exist. The first is for Gftp (included) which doesn't handle some newer popular servers as well as e.g. Filezilla (not included). But Gftp can be modified to work just as well, so it no longer reports 'stalling' when uploading to servers in case FileZilla just rolls on and does it fast. Here's how to modify it: The next is about screensaver (not so much a workaround as how to get rid of it completely), the next is about the top menu line which may jump around, then about change of wallpaper, and finally a hint about linux printer use. The screensaver stuff found on most operating systems are typically displeasing to those of an advanced taste, because it's notoriously nerdy and if not nerdy, often made on the premise that it should satisfy everybody and that typically means it should look like plastic which is stretched or some obscene kind of seaanimal. The approach we take in G15 PMN is totally different and should be pleasing to those of an esthetically refined and girl-friendly taste in beauty. :) You see this eg in the Gem and B9edit startups, which can function as screensavers. Linux screensavers can usually be switched off somehow. When it's switched off within the screensaver program, then, in the case of 'xscreensaver', it may come up with a very annoying message when it isn't given regular updates. In Sparkles this is done via Synaptic. If you don't want to do this, you can remove the screensaver from the autostart. But then Xorg, which is the display driver, will blank the screen anyway after ten minutes or so. However we can still run G15 PMN continously, see next point after this. To remove xscreensaver from autostart: Move mouse pointer up to the top left and click on the menu button (there's a workaround if you have a screen-size with SparkyLinux/Sparkles where the top menu line jumps up and down on the screen, this is one of the workarounds after after the following): Select the following set of submenues: System Tools => Sparky Center => Defaults => Default applictions for LXSession => Autostart Click here on the "remove" to the right of xscreensaver, as shown on image, next: As said, when xscreensaver doesn't startup, then after 10 minutes or so, the linux main desktop will blacken. To show G15 PMN continuously such as with the Goodtime Clock or the G15 PMN Gem or B9edit screensavers, you first put in the following change in the startup file of the graphics of the Linux (this may or may not be significant, as some of the data in this are set by other files deep into the Linux during startup, but I always do it anyway): Start up Terminal, go into Administrator mode, by typing sudo -i and type your password. Then type cd /etc/X11/xinit ls And you see listed some files including one called xserverrc (the display server is called X, this is resource for it). Bring it up in your favourite .txt simple editor, eg gedit. But first you backup it, and everything else on the PC, as it only starts normally if you do this right: cp xserverrc xserverrc.bkp Then gedit xserverrc and VERY precisely change the line in it that says exec /usr/bin/X -nolisten tcp "$@" into this: exec /usr/bin/X v -p 9999999 -s 9999999 -nolisten tcp "$@" Reboot. (If by any chance you didn't get it to start the graphics just log in as normal, do the sudo -i thing and the cd thing and then type the opposite cp, namely cp xserverrc.bkp xserverrc and it will be back to normal. Try it, it should work, then do it again with more attention to detail.) Then you can start the y6 version in fullscreen and it will be on continously, and if you removed the xscreensaver first, it won't be any annoying message during startup, and so all is fine. But always restart G15 PMN more than once pr day when you work much with it. Hint: for quicker startup of G15 PMN you can put the startup command you usually use to a one-letter form, eg y (or some other letter not in use by the command line already, try typing it first!), and put this one letter to /usr/bin. For instance, cp -i /usr/bin/y should work, when ./ is the usual command to start it up. Then it'll be enough with command y, after the cd into the right folder (eg y6). More workarounds: On several screenformats, the topline with the menu and volume control flaps here and there and there's a workaround for that. Open such as a Terminal window. Move this Terminal window nearly to the top. This will 'push' the topline to the top where it belongs so it is easy to access. Another workaround: You may find that Synaptic or other programs requiring password suddenly won't accept the correct password, that you know in fact does work. The workaround for this is: Open the Terminal window. Type sudo -i and answer with the password that you know works. Type passwd And type in the same password. After this, the Synaptic Software center should agree to this password. Another workaround, which I think has been mentioned before in one form or another, but it's no harm in repeating it: after changing wallpaper, eg by right-click on mouse on a place of the desktop, start up Terminal, type wbar-config and click on the RELOAD button there, then click ESC. This saves you the trouble of rebooting when you often change wallpaper. That'll update also the part of the wallpaper that's behind the bottom-most menu area on the typical Sparkles screen. Be very sure that you do this from the Terminal that's freshly started, and which therefore refers to your local username, rather than after the 'sudo -i' command. The wallpaper must be changed without being in the administrator mode or else the graphics gets funny. Finally, a workaround or hint as regards printer for Linux in general: the image viewer, which in many GNU/Linuxes can be started by command eog in Terminal, may or may not print an image correctly. Typically, if it doesn't work with a .jpg, then a .gif of the same will work. This you can achieve by typing, in Terminal, convert imagename.jpg imagename.gif then eog imagename.gif with CTR-P should work. If not, take it up in Gimp, which has a better worked-through print module in it: gimp imagename.jpg or whatever. Most browsers don't print correctly, and so to print from a website, the foolproof solution is to take up Gimp at the same time and use the option to File->Create Screenshot, or use some other method of screenimage-making, and crop the image and print it via Gimp to the printer. OUR CURRENCY TRADING TUTORIAL MINI-ESSAY 2: DOING MULTIPLE CT BETS -- Some high-leverage, some low-leverage, and how to think about it Each bet you put in -- when YOU put it in, not an algorithm -- has a meaning, a mental content about it -- we can call it the 'semantics' of the bet. As those who have tried to bet by means of program doing the decisions knows, these programs may work for a period then fail miserable -- especially when more people catch up on using the same programs. For it is so in betting over currencies as in every other form of betting, that it is the bet that few has put in which is nevertheless right that gives the best yield. Programs can detect patterns of the near or distant past, and have a certain rule-bound action connected to these patterns. But it takes something more beautiful than that, and greater than that, to put in a good currency bet, speaking in general terms. Just as one can understand programs running trains on a railway which has no crossing lines, no visiting trains from an alternate railway path or anything like that, it makes no sense to give control over cars running on complex road patterns with complex car and people movements to a program. When it comes to betting, it is more like driving a car than a train. If you're not willing to engage the whole of your intuitive apparatus, alongside your analytical intellect, you might as well go in for massage or start a cafe. Currency trading isn't for train-thinkers; it is not for algorithmically inclined betters. A single bet is an expression of an idea, an intent, it has a meaning -- each bet has a semantics, we can say -- the word 'semantics' meaning here 'mental content'. The semantics of a long-term bet using a relatively low leverage (what 'relatively low leverage' means must be seen as relative to the degree of fluctuations that are found at present in the currency pairs you are considering), is that of your sense of the substance of the economies and the biggest factors in the currencies, and how they are likely to move over a longer period of time -- anywhere from say a month to maybe many months, or a couple of seasons. The semantics of a short-term bet using a relatively high leverage is that of rolling in a bet on a wave that you trust enough to want to make a quick gain on, you trust it enough that you consider the risk of a similar- sized loss small and that, as a result, the risk is a 'smart' risk, not a stupid one. You put on a high leverage, say, ten times more than on your low leverage bets, and so in a matter of minutes may get a result that the other type of bet can only give over a considerable longer time. In these minutes, you watch how it goes, while you partipate -- it's like jumping into seawater, you gotto swim until you get up. So you watch the trade until you close it. You watch it, and you're watching the money of your own account increasing, with luck, or decreasing, if not so lucky. With luck, you can build up considerable money with these short-term high-leverage bets. And by the notion of the 'semantics' of each bet, you don't touch the long-term bet or bets. These have a different semantics, a different role. These are set to be possible sources of some moderate income given enough time to mature. There is nothing at all wrong in betting against oneself, in a sense, in that a long-term low-leverage bet may go in one direction, while a short-term high-leverage bet may go in the exact opposite direction. These have different semantics, and the semantics don't compete; rather they complement each other. *Added notes: * about long-term currency transactions: In some contexts, for a long-term currency bet there will usually be a gradually more noticable interest-like amount called 'swap' (which can be an income for long trades, an expense for short sales_, which one should learn to take into account; the pricing of this type of interest rate is one of the things you should consider when choosing a forex trader * is there a value in doing CT work on a surplus amount of money one has without doing it with a rigid intent to earn money? For anyone who has a deep sense of participation in the flux of the world through its resonances and synchronicities, the answer is a vast, resounding YES. Engaging in a bet which has a small leverage {ie, using only a small portion of the maximum trading amount} can be done in order to 'put in a vote' on what is sensed to be the 'true momentum' of a certain world q-field pattern, in contrast to trends that are mechanically easier to cash in on but which are driven by some type of temporary folly, so to speak. There is a connectedness and a listening in at a q-field level by having a long-term bet going more or less constantly. * the relationship between news about a country, such as statistical data on jobs and national income and all sorts of things like that, and the fluctuations as for the currency most identified with this country, is complex. It is also not fixed, for -- as Mr G Soros, a thinker and a pioneer in making fortunes on currency trading often has pointed out, people's expectations ALSO WHEN FALSE HAVE TRUE EFFECTS. If a lot of people expect a currency to gain value relative to some other currencies when the nation data are good, and these people also possess an adequate amount of means, as well as swift tools for doing currency transactions with a leverage, obviously this theory will seem to be true, at least in the short term. But there are also other theories, which concern how people stack up money in banks when a nation isn't doing terribly well economically. And so, wealthy investors may come to buy up a lot of a nation's currency just when this nation has bad data, leading to an appreciation instead of a depreciation of the currency. Yet again, when there are many more opportunities for investment, across the planet, for just these wealthy investors, they may behave differently than before. So ONE MUST ALWAYS APPLY INTUITION and one cannot blame the markets for not behaving according to theory. An honest person twists theories to match with reality rather than confusing the perception of reality to match with subjective theories. Such honesty is a foundation for appropriate intuitions. * design a process for how to do CT. If you do consistently short-term CT's, find an appropriately high factor -- high leverage -- to work with; decide on an approximate amount of standard duration allotted to each trade. During the period, you may find it valuable to disconnect from the graphs showing the development of the trade. This will also enhance the likelihood that you are not stressing the servers for the trading program (such as MT) that you are using, for these servers sometimes have an internal log which delays those who try to use them the most. You may also find it valuable to work with art and erotic photography and porn, also by means of our search engine, in just that period. In that way, you deliberately go into a mood of trust and playfulness, and allow sexuality to up your income potential.

The image is a rework of an classic fashion photo of Candice

Classic fashion photo of Hailey Clausson.

This is a sample from porn transformed to art.

Dlassic fashion photo of Miranda Kerr.

Original rendering by Aristo Tacoma of a classic
photo "Queen of Hip Hop" -- with
acknowledgement for the ground photo behind this is to
V Magazine, model Chrishell Stubbs in

Elsketch 'textual graphics' of an AM radio
pasted into this digital rework of a masterly cafe
photo of supermodel A. Stephens by B. Staub,
in this digital re-rendering done by A.T. for,
with acknowledgement to
for use of their scanned archive photo.
In these images, the original setting and particular
colors are consciously transcended so as to fathom,
and affirm, a variety of good images of beautiful
situations -- cafe situations, in this case.

Digital transformation (rendering) by Aristo of
photo of Swedish supermodel Julia Hafstrom,

This image (museface.jpg) is, by means of computer programs,
re-transformed or rendered into something suggestive rather
than something photo-affirmative. It is derived from
a classic fashion photo of Lindsay Ellingson.
Orig.comp.rend. by Aristo Tacoma.

A re-rendering (by ATwLAH) of an excerpt of a photo of asian supermodel Tian Yi, photo: William Lords, Fusion Models.

___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Image above has come about after a strong rerender by srw from an anonymous photo somewhere in the NSFW section (ie, the search engine section)
EcoNomy WINNING CHOICE VOCABULARY: 'realline': when you use a PC connected to the Internet, it can be said to be in the 'online' mode. When you use it creatively in independence form the net, it can be said to be in the REALLINE mode -- it is working relative to the reality around you and near you, instead of being hooked up into the virtual world of the net. We propose that the word 'offline' is not as suitable for this type of work with a PC: the word REALLINE is more to the point, and more positive. The word 'offline' still has a role: when a PC is sought to be connected to the net and this hasn't yet been achieved. 'permille', shortened into 'pmille' when natural: in all of 20th century, the idea of counting from one (or zero) to one hundred in terms also of what was called 'percentage' grew until it reached an absolute obsession with large swaths of the population in Europe and USA, and never more so than in those parts of the world dedicated to trying to increase their wealth by means of statistical manipulation of the masses also by means of computer-targeted advertisement. The idea of counting these little numbers carried into the obsession about grouping people into socalled age-groups, as if this could say anything significant about people. The materialistic faith of trying to conquer reality by means of modifying percentages and dividing people by income group and age group has to be abolished in favour of a more humane, more empathic, more real understanding both of people -- with all their infinities -- and of numbers. And numbers must be released from the trauma of percentage. In Europe, there has always been an alternative, but it was never entirely established in terms of a standard English convention -- but every dictionary with respect for itself will tell you that 'permille' -- the 'mille' the same root as in 'millenium', or a thousand years -- 'permille', these dictionaries say, means, 'per thousand', so that e.g. 500 permille means half, and 1500 permille means one and a half times as much. This is slightly more challenging for the human mind in just the right way. Abolish the reliance on percentage -- and age-groups --, and adopt permille -- and perception of the other person as she or he is --, and much good will happen! So, when we shorten the word 'permille', we can write 'pmille'. In both these cases, we avoid any confusion with an entirely different number word, namely, that of one million. The word 'permille' meaning 'pr one thousand' stands on its own without any association to 'million'. The abbrevation 'pmille' is natural. 500 pmille is a type of phrase that looks good in e.g. accounting.

/////Quote in the wind RECENTLY OVERHEARD There is an orientation towards thinness in the model industry. Quite apart from all the scientific research that indicates that being too thin is generally a more promising state of the body than being too fat, it stands to reason that thinness for many is associated with both pains and dangers. After all, it is only by accepting both pains and dangers that most people are able to get into touch with some elements of luxury and greatness in this world. If a model starts eating, and starts following the advices in the (generally left-wing) press, it's not as if she will be transported into a life of great beauty and happiness. Most likely, she'll become one of the millions on unemployment benefits who live by junk foods and whose main component in life is to watch TV. Because that's the type of world we have, and that's the type of thing that happens with the majority -- especially when they try to avoid pains and dangers. Also, there is no cure in drugs -- for or against eating, for or against fatness, for or against mental alertness, for or against trance-like dance and sex -- no cure in drugs, for drugs create twice the feature they were meant to cure when one has used them for a while, and three times more when one stops using them for maybe a very long time after. *** Rerender by srw of a stunning, classic photo by Yelena Yemchuk of danish model Josephine Skriver in utilizing scan in thefashionspot [[[Note: next articles permanent, and WEB III as well as first-hand economics and first-hand technologies are keywords that more or less bind them together.]]] THE WEB III: INTRODUCTION -- And a number of relatively optimistic predictions As of 2011::12::22 The Web III we are beginning, I would say, to get into -- and which I expect will come to full flourishing in 2012-2014 as a new permanent standard, more or less, is the ripe internet. It looks in som way a bit like Web 1.0 in that it is SMES-friendly. (SMES = Small and Medium-sized Enterprises.) What we saw with the Web 2.0 phase we have just been through (and which due to a massive amount of work by individuals but also by U.S. and european regulators and other regulators as well has been overcome), was a massive coercion of individuals on behalf of a few monopolistic companies doing a lot of secret database work. These companies had for a time the glory of being new -- now they are just as un-gloried as any other global chocolate or air plane engine conglomerate. They are also -- what with the recent public exposures of some social network websites, and all the court orders imposed on them, -- pretty much equally regulated as the rest of the world outside of internet. The war between Microsoft and Linux and Apple, put simply, which dominated Web 1.0, was subdued when the focus went over to some big companies, some big websites, to virus complexities, and to content on-screen rather than hardware due to increased standardisation of web-presentation standards in the form of the ripe Mozilla Firefox, the ripe Opera, and such. In Web 2.0, one saw a false emphasis on celebs. It has been sweetly messed up with greater focus again on those who deserve to get attention, rather than those who recursively get attention because they get attention. For instance, in the music industry, too much focus has been on being a celeb and having a cool video instead of coming with delightful new music that plays on deep meaning vibration strings inside young people. Vogue has begun to sway away from the temptation to put an old celeb who has had thirty face-lifts on the cover, and rather go for those who are less known but more deserving. The trouble with celebs is that by the time they are celebs, most are too old to deserve great attention. Further, the power associated with celeb status tend to corrupt the person so much as to make the radiance of that person boring. That is a realisation that the 'systematisation' of celeb presentation happening in the Web 2.0 phases now bygone made rather clear, I should say, to human consciousness. Web III has more honesty and more spirituality. In Web III, which in upcoming years will become more manifest, people have got bored with the too-big companies and their manipulative tricks and that's a thing we should all protect -- that creative dissatisfaction has put the various Linux versions in upper gear again, it has completely changed the landscape for what types of website and social network communication young adults and adults in general are choosing (despite immature parents still enlisting their kids into monopolistic networks in some parts of the world, this only settles the case for the kids that they are going to go into other, less-known-to-parents and less-known-to-grandparents type of networks before next summer or so). The Web III is also a place where new forms of connectivity are being discovered -- some would say re-discovered: * Connectivity, and the feeling of being together with others, with oneself, and friends with reality, by means not just of sending quasi-public messages to one another, but by means of discovering quality websites * And connectivity by means of healthy variation * And connectivity by means of being alert to virus and to too-targeted marketing and tech-savvy enough to be at least acqainted with one's own machine to the extent one can turn off javascript, also when searching porn * Connectivity also by means of stable routines, getting into good rhythms where Web III plays a healthy role As Web III, the SMES-friendly web, with genuine pluralism in how people can connect exist, email stands forth as a unique power that every enterprising individual must learn to harness with efficiency, expert at regulating one's own spam-filters and expert at using the freedom one has with email to give a valuable delay of some days before answering emails where thought is required. For it is so that in a world where it is possible to put in pauses, it is also more possible to give wisdom a chance to grow. And we have indeed seen wisdom grow in 2011 -- the freedom from fear even of death as has characterised the wise uprising against meaningless dictatorships in what has this year been labelled the Arab Spring, and all analogous movements. [..] The rest of the world with all its enormous political changes must constantly learn to harness technology nonviolently and healthily, and put limits on what we can accept of short-term-greed-motivated actions. Electric cars with big safe batteries and charge- stations all over the place not just in cities but also in the country, with each gasoline station, and with extremely flexible elcar-lease arrangements to make it possible for groups to use elcars when going far in their elcars and cannot wait for charging, such things must go along with a new realism that electricity is part of human well-being and must be made in abundance in safe ways. I have a number of eco-oriented points for societal technology in my archive section that is compatible with Web III. Pollution must be fought (not just CO2), water must be destilled, cleansed, forests protected, landrights for the many not just the few must be protected, and -- for the sake of the humaneness of our societies -- electricity should be extremely cheap. In the Web III world, the spirituality axis of most has non-systematised key components including, I should think, God, muses, reincarnation, karma. This is practised quietly, without going to gurus. Some dictatorships will try to prevent Web III from coming to their areas, and they will typically try to claim that they are leaders by divine ordainment. This has happened increasingly with socalled "communist" governments, even, despite what Marx wrote. But the sheer existence of Web III, not the existence of USA, UN or whatever, is what will eventually flow over and wash away dictatorships in decades to come. The Web III conceived in this way has already begun and it will stay on and on and renew itself. It is SMES-friendly, email-friendly, and it speaks of a world that will in many ways be the same for many decades to come, as I see it. It is the ripe web. Those who want to educate themselves for the world of web III should not waste time trying to get too much into algorithmic stuff. The algorithms that are needed to drive it is in place. The computer savvy people must abstain from stacking too many algorithms on top of each other so they completely loose oversight. They must learn to keep back the impulse of perfecting every platform by ever-more releases of new version numbers and rather look to stability and standardisation. The natural presence of computers in network in the free manner of Web III means that those who have an esthetical education where they know how to operate computers like Linux and Microsoft but creatively, beautifully so -- at the level of insightful design, tastefulness and respect also for human nudity (for that is, thank God, much more part of our awakened world of the Web III than the pre-web world had) -- people with such education will be needed -- ever-more. For the web is all about presentation possibilities, but one must make content esthetically to catch anyone's attention in the the world of so much delish competition. The SMES companies that are realistic about the enormous complexities facing some aspects of the 20th-century like world -- its economical monsters, badly wounded since 2008, and its science, now fragmented into a zillion sub-standard science journals with, interestingly, fewer 'pure' atheists around than ever before -- the SMES companies that realise that some parts of the world has changed for good and cannot be repaired back to the 20th-century model will be able to flourish. They must learn to live according to the science of synchronicity, which is intrinsic in the Web III as here conceptualised. Good luck! *Added note: part of Web III obviously involves ease of photo, text and program sharing -- for instance with beauty, fashion and dance photos, technology comments, cultural comments, reviews, and useful open source programs. Here, it is not the person but rather the action of the person that is given score numbers, if one chooses to include score numbers at all. When the person is listed as to how many is 'following' the person, the interaction becomes feverent on false premises, and involves a subtle or overt competitiveness that doesn't benefit anyone nor anything in society. Actions can get score numbers -- but it's always then important to bear in mind that often it is the most trivial of items in this world that triggers positive recognition in most; and so a photo of -- say -- a raggy bear eating a hamburger may reach skyhigh scores while the photo of a girl doing the ultimate yoga stretch in extremelly stylish clothes may get at most a hundredth of that score. But this is KNOWN. The score numbers mean little. But then there's all the more reason not to attach them in public to people, and there are always some social blog sites that are like this, and which also include NSFW sites, as well as an honoring of sources of images and such -- and these will be popular, occasionally so popular they get swallowed up by rich nonsense companies (such as by stock buying). But then others arrive on the scene, and these get the popularity, as a dance.. {Part of the Web III definition is also:} HOW THE STATISTICS OF CHANCE IS A NINETEENTH CENUTURY SCIENCE, AND THEREFORE ESSENTIALLY INCORRECT -- The chance of getting a seventh six after six sixes in a row, when casting dice, MAY be smaller -- just as any child, uneducated in the science of statistics, will tell you As of 1::A::2013::4::30 Say, you cast a die, and get six sixers in a row: then you are about to cast it for a seventh time. How likely is it that you'll get a seventh sixer? Is it any less likely than when you begun? Any child will tell you that it is less likely. And any mainstream teacher, it seems, at present, will tell the child that it is just as likely as before you got those six sixers, and say it with a self-satisfied smile and pride in her voice. So also at the universities, the mainstream ones, when you listen to a statistics course -- the professor will say that the chance of getting any number of the dice, no matter the past, is one-sixth. But the mainstream view of statistics right, or is it wedded to a particular metaphysical worldview that simply is wrong? Is the child right after all? "There has been so many with six, it just has got to be some other number soon." Or is it like Bond thinks in Ian Fleming's classic book Casino Royale, -- the cards have no memory, neither memory of success nor failure; each shuffle is fresh. The idea governing the statistics of chance, connected to such daily life events, and organic events in general, is that of mechanical fluctuations: these fluctuations are assumed to arise due to the interaction of myriads and yet more myrids of also very tiny factors of cause and effect, so that it makes sense to make a summary of their overall effect. Their overall effect, given these assumptions, would then distribute over the various optional outcome given the mechanical likelihood of each outcome (in the case of casting dice, the dice must be assumed to be perfectly even, and so on). In other words, there must be no other effects governing the outcome than the local forces, uncoordinated, acting independently and in so multiple manners that, as an aggregate effect, we get the effect of so-called 'chance'. So these are the assumptions that govern the science of the statistics of chance, and it should be quite obvious to any person with a knowledge of physics that this is pre-twentieth century physics thinking. It's newtonian physics. It's a picture of the world where no holistic forces exist, -- only forces of a local kind. And so we see that the statistics of chance is properly a nineteenth century science, in that it is wedded to this worldview, and must obviously partake in all the limitations of nineteenth century science. Let us be more concrete. While there is in mainstream twentieth and twenty-first century physics no agreed-upon understanding of how the nonlocal works in macroscopic areas, there is a common agreement, even amongst mainstream physicists, that nonlocality is a real factor in this world. Some may claim that nonlocality is only a technical attribute of some very particular and unusual circumstances: but there are plenty of applications of quantum coherence involving a real sense of quantum entanglement or nonlocality on a macroscopic level, such as in connection with superconductivity and its related form of magnetism. There is no clear-cut element of physics that stands on its own, in a well-researched and clearly logical way, that says conclusively that nonlocality cannot operate in between just about anything and anything in macroscopic reality. It is a limitation of the equations operated with in atomic realms that one cannot apply these with any precision to larger realms; and it is merely an OPINION, not a well-researched fact, that nonlocality is not properly part of the macroscopic worldview that modern physics must say is foundational. Having realised this, it should by now be clear that every event in the organic realm -- such as the casting of dice -- must be understood by means of something more than mere 'mechanical fluctuations'. In addition, we have the factor of organic fluctuations, synchronised in ways never understood by newtonian science. These factors may organise certain events to be more likely than other events. It is true that some form of statistics is then enabled in a certain sense in such as a quantum context; but this is an application that hasn't changed the overall idea of applying the nineteenth century style of statistics to all things human and beyond, more or less. In such a context of a metaphysical worldview where holistic events are organised, it should follow as a likely assumption that in such a situation as when it is the case that six series of sixes has occurred in a row, the same organising principles, whatever they are, may have in them a limitation for the prolongement of this particular situation. It may therefore be likely that the chance for the next cast of dice to be yet another six is somewhat smaller than normal. What is the exact situation, of course, is beyond mechanical tallying. The point of this little essay was merely to make it clear that there is no objectivity as such to the underlaying assumptions penetrating the mainstream statistics of chance -- rather, it is the case that these assumptions properly belong to the nineteenth century and that in a more enlightened understanding of reality, one cannot mechanically apply such mechanical statistics on daily life. For further reading, consult eg information about the collaboration between the legendary and ground-breaking quantum physicist Wolfgang Pauli and his friend the psychologist Carl Gustav Jung, in their common notes on the 'acausal'; further reading still connect to my own supermodel theory (plenty of references to it at, and {Part of the Web III definition is also:} FACTORS IN THE ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN SPECIES -- Reflections on what it takes to make human bodies from scratch, when one is a reflective computer programmer and scifi student As of 1::A::2013::4::28 Charles Darwin is noted for his proposal that a great deal of time, combined with a great deal of natural fluctuations or changes, lead to a natural selection such as by means of which offspring that survives so as to procreate more offspring. It takes but a sense of logic to see that natural selection is a factor in evolution, if we by the word "evolution" mean the changes that occur over large time spans so as to lead to changes in the living beings inhabiting such as a planet. One can elaborate on the natural selection principle such as on the level of genes, the level of bacteria, etc, and one can try and apply the notion in different fields as well (eg brain science). This is done by simple acts of logic. It would be unlogical to deny that natural selection, in various forms, is a factor in evolution. It is also easy to elaborate on natural selection by a number of other related concepts, such as interaction between inheritance and environment, interaction between the being shaped by genes and the situation in which the organism is growing up, and with whom one is growing up with, and so on. One can also, more abstractly perhaps, apply natural selection on larger configurations, such as groups to some extent. Would it be logical to equate (as some has been in the habit of doing) the notion of "evolution" with the concepts just mentioned? There is little doubt that Charles Darwin had a hope that something like that would be scientifically meaningful and that he himself would have had little against such a development. We are in a situation where, just like Albert Einstein have been wrongly ascribe to have the subconscious position of an Infallible God by many physicists, so has Charles Darwin equally had the subconscious position of an Infallible God by many biologists. And so it is not so strange that there are people who simply don't even consider it a worthwhile philosophical (let alone scientific) question whether "evolution" should or shouldn't be defined to be just the theory of such as natural selection. Somewhat confusingly, people whose main source of thinking has been such as the christian Bible, have quite often agreed in this, and thus the rather meaningless polarity of Evolutionists vs Creationists have arisen. A number of writers with a sympathy towards religion have pointed out that this particular polarity makes little sense. Let us just note that the word "evolve" is the verb root of the word "evolution" and especially the former, but also to some extent the latter, have had uses in the common English language before the use in connection with the theory of natural selection in the late 19th century. Let us also note that just as there is still a role to such as Newton's theory of physics even with centuries of further development where it is quite clear that this physics theory must be supplied with very different theories indeed, there may be a role of a theory in natural selection in which the theory of evolution has become very different indeed from what it has been -- biology is also a younger science than physics or 'natural philosophy'. In other words, having identified some patterns that can be confirmed, again and again, in a variety of contexts, can lead to an enthusiasm for these patterns so that one might prematurely assume that one has 'covered' an area with a 'complete' theory. So while it takes but a sense of logic to admit for a theory of natural selection as having a role in evolution, it takes something more than merely a sense of logic to evaluate whether there are other factors as well. The role of religion is often seen as at odds with that of science. Science claims to be wedded to empirics, but often is wedded to authorities who by human history writing have come to be called 'great scientists'. Religion claims to be wedded to the word of God, but often is, similarly, wedded to authorities who by human or local history or myth-weaving have come to represent 'channels of God's own words'. As Karl Popper pointed out, the ideal of checking relative to facts requires a great carefulness and there are many pitfalls; in particular, he voiced the opinion that a theory must be easy to see through, it must be transparent, and it must admit of the possibility of being rejected in one way or another, no matter how much it has been found to be right. In this sense, the ideal of science as an open-minded sceptisism or as a sceptical wonder (as also the philosopher Arne Naess called it) is something which often is found not to apply in the practise called "science" in humanity. Rather, what is often called "science" must be seen as a corruption of the ideal; and this is often the case where much is at stake emotionally or financially, and in terms of prestige; and so much bad or corrupt science has represented the side of "science" in the "creationism debates". One of the factors that have made it more complicated to have a calm-headed debate on the question of the origin of the human species is that many bible books operate with, or have been interpreted to imply, mere millenia, at most, as for the time allotted since the universe begun until we reach the present day, while apparently quite clear-minded studies of a variety of kinds in the areas of physics and physical geology and so forth indicate that even millions of years is not enough for the same; and by applying techniques of measurement with such as radioactive decay of a form of carbon -- with a range of assumptions added, we must say -- there has been a sense of mainstream pervasive view in amongst scientists that at any rate, the universe is much older than what the religious folks tend to say it is. Add to this the fact that these religious folks are often not at ease with such ideas as 'natural fluctuations' (in the sense of coincidence, chance or randomness of some kind), and we see how the polarities have been forming: on the one hand, those who speak of millions of years and factors involving fluctuations; and on the other hand, those who speak merely of such as millenia and of God's invisible hand steering all with absolute might and full determination. Now -- this has been pointed out by a number of philosophers with a kind leaning towards religions -- religious folks are not always as simple-minded as the most vocal of the lot. Let us for instance remember that, many centuries ago, Baruch de Spinoza offered a series of arguments why the experience of freedom (and quite possibly fluctuations and chance and such) in human beings may go along with a deep-structure of the universe which, when REALLY seen 'in the view of eternity', doesn't have any element of random fluctuation at all. Spinoza happened to be one of the influences of Einstein, who often wrote things to that extent: and Spinoza was very much a God-believer while Einstein very much a scientists and we see that both find it possible to accomodate a more nuanced view of the relationship of causality and chance -- necessity and freedom -- determinism and randomness. I merely mention this to indicate that while it should be fairly simple for all to agree that natural selection in some sense is obviously at work over time since some living beings have offspring that in some way make out better with reality than the rest and that the latter come to dominate in terms of genetic streaks, in a way that can be said to be an evolution, ALL OTHER QUESTIONS connected to evolution and such concepts as fluctuations, causality and the like require more than merely such a quick application of logic to penetrate. In other words, we must go to the realm of insight to see what else there can be about evolution than natural selection; but we should do this by agreeing on a moderate form of darwinism: not one that is megalomaniac and that claims to have a complete theory of everything, not even one that speaks of what durations of time are involved necessarily, but simply that in some sense, natural selection is at work, from day to day, right now. This is not much to start on, may some scientists feel, while some religioius folks may be at unease even with such a slight admission 'to the other side', and unsure of where it is leading. But by admitting to simple and rather observable facts of this non-megalomaniac kind, rather than sticking to a whole 'package of ideas', we have the advantage of being in contact with reality rather than with authorities of the past and conflicts in the present. So I submit that this is a good starting-point. Note that I didn't want to confine myself as to the time durations involved -- millenia or billions of years since creation begun, or has it always existed? For any research into the past has obvious challenges, whether done by means of words which may or may not be holy, or by the techniques available to empirical science. Fortunately, during the past decades, the notion of a program and of programming has become more part of mainstream human consciousness than ever before, due to a technological awareness of computers. There are all sorts of ways to create emulations and simulations by means of programs and these can be very advanced and have all the appearancies of 'causality' when seen from the user-perspective, but when seen from the programmer-perspective, a very different and much more nuanced description may arise. Indeed such notions are commonly used in computer games. So while there is little doubt that such as carbon dating is an empirical technique, it should be regarded as a question of interpretation what it says. One may drill holes in mountains and find that there are layers upon layers which seem to be made by millions of years of geological gradual change, and yet -- informed at a philosophical and meta-physical level by the notion of computer programs -- whether or not the experience of this is in some sense 'all inside a program', or whether it in some sense reflects 'actual fact', should be considered philosophically open. So, when we consider the ultimate questions, there are ways of re-interpreting the experienced reality so as to fit with myths that properly seem to belong to religions. The apparent irrationality of religion only becomes manifest irrationality when one tries to apply the notions of these myths in a simple-minded fashion to reality, in an attempt to override logic. What we need is the subtle mind, aware of the grander questions of metaphysics, -- aware, indeed, that these grander questions have never been concretely closed whether by science or by philosophy, nor by any bible-book. Having thus hopefully argued in favour of openness for other factors than natural selection in the theory of the origin of the human species, and having argued also for the temporary pushing aside of the question of the real interpretation of the appearance of a vast past, let us see more deeply at the notion of evolution of the various species, in particular the human body. Let us then be sure to note that as any well-informed honest scientists will admit, the construction of the whole human body and all its organs from scratch, without employing existing living materials and techniques of copying 'information elements' from some such material to other such material, is entirely and in a sense infinitely beyond what human laboratories can achieve. There is a possibility of replacing some bits -- a bone by some steel, say, or heart by a pump, or so -- and in so doing prolong the life or enhance the quality of life of a human being who has a problem here or there. But the human being as a construction is something altogether and entirely different than any machine that humanity is even slighty near being able to make. In that sense, therefore, there isn't a proper complete theory of the human being; and so any questions of digging into the question of the origins of the human species must by necessity be informed by such as philosophical intuition and a relaxed care with which we relate, also in awe, to grander questions. The absence of much of this attitude in what is called 'the medical profession' (although with important exceptions for some practioners in the field), makes me look with suspicion about the medical profession as a whole. I do not thereby run to astrology. I merely consider that the human body probably knows far more of itself and how to handle itself than any bit of mere human science. Before the advent of the personal computer, the understanding of fluctuations over a great period of time could mostly only take place by means of rough summaries of various kinds, such as that which is called 'statistics'. So, as a field, 'statistics' became full of heavily named algorithms for how to compute numbers summarising many factors -- numbers that nobody really could be sure really said much, but which were nonetheless complicated to compute and so the whole field of statistics became quite an important field of science for a while. With the presence of the personal computer, it is possible to introduce relatively free fluctuation generators (RFFG), that creates number sequencies that have some resemblance with the idea of 'chance' or 'a free sequence', while in actual fact they are made by means of such as the repeated application of an intentionally messy algorithm on the last number in the series. It is, then, given such an RFFG series, possible to try and apply such rather fluctuating numbers as input data for other programs. These programs are each 'causal', in that they act in a strict and defined manner, but they may call on such input data and more use of such 'RFFG' techniques so that the result is some kind of combination of a sense of chance with a sense of causality. What is startling about this, compared to such as the time of Spinoza, is that we can allow the computer to do many hundreds of thousands of such calculations while we lean back and study the result; then we can go back and do adjustments, and again lean back and compare the results. This, over time, gives to a normal human being doing such programming an entirely first-hand sense of understanding of fluctuations and of causality -- even at a philosophical level. And this is something, of course, that could be very strongly of value when speaking of evolution and of natural selection, in which just such interplays between fluctuations -- or, remembering Spinoza, what appears to be fluctuations -- interacts with more causal factors. For instance, it is possible to make the whole computer screen filled with pixels at intensities and positions chosen by such relatively free fluctuations. One of the perhaps surprising things is how messy and shapeless such screens then become. To go from such a shapeless mess of free fluctuations to such as a well-done photo of young girls in dancing movements seems to be requiring a transition of an infinite kind. To think of evolution in an abstract sense, beginning with just relatively free fluctuations and some causal factors, and coming onwards towards living beings, could learn from computer experiments of this kind, especially if one introduces the notion of some type of 'copulation' and some type of 'offspring-making' in the scheme. To introduce something that abstractly looks like this does indeed create more of a sense of shape and less of a sense of messiness. But how would one go from this to living human beings? We see, now, that we're in a region not as much of merely having a sense of logic, as asking for a sense of insight. Could there, amongst biologists of the type that has leaned towards the view that natural selection over fluctuations or some type of random mutations over a very long time can be the only factor in evolution, have been an overheated belief in what we in a programming context can call 'random generators' or RFFG (I prefer RFFG for it says 'relatively free' rather than random which is more exact what it is). Let us bear in mind that natural selection at the level of living organisms such as mammals requires transitions by means, not of miraculous changes of individual beings, but rather by means of the changes that occur from parent to child. This is a transition that, for mammals, occur relatively rarely compared to all the possible fluctuations, say, at the subatomic level, in reality. What is a mere million of years when it comes to parent-to- offspring fluctuations? If each mammal lives, say, five years, then we are having 200,000 such five-year-periods in a million years. Two hundred thousand fluctuations are the quantity of fluctuations that we as programmers can easily get the computer to exhibit for a range of patterns, -- depending on the program, it may take a minute. This type of instrument hasn't been available to scientists at large more than some decades. It is a unique new way of getting cool about quantities. And the coolness, the empirical sweat the programmer can easily get, will say: it is quite clear that a million years of natural selections are very, very little. Multiply it by a thousand, then. A billion years. Is that much? No, obviously not. That's also very, very little, if we speak of going from fluctuations amongst simple causal factors to dancing girls on a photo. I would submit that it takes tremendous luck and about a hundred trillion trillion trillion years to have the principle of natural selection operating on a soup of particules on a planet to come up with a human being. And by tremendous luck I mean that enormously more than 99 percent of all the activity of these hundred-tri-tri-tri would lead to no particular advanced life at all. Of course, given the range of vague facts and the necessity of making assumptions for which empirics can be rather scarce, it requires a sense of insight or philosophical intuition to ascertain the rightness or not of such a postulate as that which I came up with; but I'm not in doubt that clear-headed honest programmers have some to contribute with more than the ancient and somewhat forelorn branch of science called 'statistics'. Programmers know something for they have 'been there', in the area of permutations over fluctuations in vast quantities. Statistics is but an attempt to say something as by a form of imposed artificial intelligence over numbers. To summarise so far, I would say, then: It takes a sense of logic to see that natural selection is a factor in evolution, but it takes a sense of insight to see that natural selection cannot be the only factor in evolution. It is a sense of insight, then, that programmers can come up with more easily due to their first-hand contact with numbers undergoing regular changes in vast quantities. Agreeing on this, let's go then briefly into considering what useful questions can be asked so as to get more in contact with what other factors in evolution than natural selection there are. I would submit that there are two classes of additional factors -- one, the notion of more subtle types of causalities, touching perhaps on the nonlocal in physics; and two, the notion of a grander worldview in which the whole manifest universe is a 'package' that is 'delivered' then 'taken back and transformed' by a more subtle realm. An example of the first type approach comes when people are investigating whether what at first sight appears to be unrelated genetical mutations somehow can be connected by subtle factors, by analogy, at least, with how photons or electrons are connected in what sometimes has been called quantum entanglement and which is empirical fact in subatomic and atomic physics, although not empirically studied in mainstream biology. (The lack of study of nonlocality in mainstream biology has the support of some but not all physicists -- some physicists starting perhaps with Niels Bohr have tended to argue that such nonlocalities 'cancel out' in statistically large aggregates of particles such as those needed to compose a single chromosone; add to this the statistical nature of their equations and that these equations are not solvable for more than a handful of particles at a time if one desires exact results). The notion of the manifest universe as a wave upon a subtle universe, a wave that is transformed in each moment, has been expressed by a number of philosophers and thinkers in a variety of ways; the notion of 'Implicate Order' versus the universe as 'Explicate Order' by the greatest physicist I ever met, David Bohm, stands out as something which in abstract form is accepted by many even conventional physicists (also those who don't disagree with Bohr). It is also in a very dramatic way compatible with the views of the rather medieval-times philosopher bishop George Berkeley, who offered the point of view that all matter is composed of the mental substance of God; a viewpoint heard all around the globe for as long as there have been myths and religions -- and very explicitly in branches of yoga. The notion of the implicate order has a key point that what is 'near' in the implicate order may be far apart when this is unfolded into manifest reality; and so the nonlocality in manifest reality becomes a form of locality in the subtle reality. The interchange between the two forms of reality is then a key pulse, deeper than all other types of pulses and clocks. It follows that the time of carbon dating in the explicate reality need not match the time clicking in the implicate reality at all. This, the advanced programmer will know, is by analogy found in virtualisation: the PC which is emulated by a PC may have a clock time which hasn't got anything to with the the clock time of the PC that does the emulation. The grander PC, the implicate order, may have a clock that ticks in one way, while the emulated PC can be artificially rushed (or slowed down) compared to the 'real' clock. Metaphysically, therefore, such as carbon dating and study of geological sediments to get a sense of the millions of years of gradual change on a planet may make a certain narrow sense without providing conclusive proof of the duration in abstraction of anything at all. All the manifest reality, with all the clear-cut apparent evidences of very long-lasting duration, may be as an 'explicate package' which is unfolded 'sideways' from the implicate realm in one blink, and without any real past at all. Let me be a bit more personal about this also, just here: that was the point of view that, at the inception of the first public "Manhattan Transformation" scifi stories with a muse being I called there Athina Salinger, and her sisters Lisa and Helena Salinger, in the Firth platform in April 2006, I called the notion that 'past is a simulation', erected to give meaning to the present, amongst other things; this "Manhattan Transformation" I begun on in 1997 writings in notebooks and it has always gone on since, and this type of scifi is a kind of foundational meditation for all my more sober works. I would then suggest that not just computer programming and contact with such as Popper's views, or what I elsewhere called neopopperian science, are important to get a sense of what other factors there is in evolution than natural selection, but also a connection to philosophical grand views or metaphysical viewpoints (where the criticism of Kant's criticism of metaphysics is fairly easy and outlined also in writings at, coupled with the intellectual richness and stretch of perspectives that good scifi can give. One needs a well-honed mind to be able to penetrate the fallcies of sloppy views on evolution of life. It goes without saying that I regard some bits of religion as highly rational, then, and as inspirational sources for private investigations of both a logical and intuitive kind into the likely other factors in evolution than natural selection. {Part of the Web III definition is also:} ELEMENTS OF A THEORY OF DESIGN ACCORDING TO A FREE INTERPRETATION OF SUPERMODEL THEORY -- Beyond use, design (eg of computer content) must protect the wholeness of what is presented even at the risk of being somewhat disgusting to some As of 1::A::2013::4::19 BACKGROUND: NOTE ON SUPERMODEL THEORY (BY THIS AUTHOR, A.T.) What is supermodel theory? It is a complex -- but not needlessly complicated -- view of the possible underlaying processes of all energy in the universe, informed creatively by the most significant phenomena worked out by physicists but deliberately phrased in such informal terms as are not touched by the many inadequacies of physical mathematics. It is a theory which is -- compared to what mainstream journals announce to be 'physics' proper -- entirely a fringe notion; but it is faithful to the phenomena in a way that is not typical for 'fringe theories'. It presses the questions of what assumptions are natural, given exceptional freedom of thought, in order to account for the whole range of apparently conflicting results from the various branches of physics (including general relativity theory handling also gravitation, and quantum theory handling also the notion of the indivisible unit of energy transfer and its natural fluctuations). It leads to an understanding which is compatible with broad philosophies such as that of David Bohm (in his "Wholeness and the Implicate Order") and Alfred North Whitehead (in his "Process and Reality") to a certain extent, but it is far more concrete, yet not so concrete that it confines itself to equations. It is a theory deliberately phrased so as to be un-equation-able, if that is a word; this is a result that partially can be argued for by means of invoking the results of 'incompleteness' by Kurt Goedel, but more deeply by looking at the at-idea-level unresolved questions of infinite sets of finite numbers which underlies most of the forms of advanced calculus which is used in physics theories as of the 20th century and onwards. So the informality of supermodel theory is arguably a great asset, although it lends itself not so obviously to traditional 'popperian' criterions for being checked; and a reworking of the criterions by Karl Popper for good science has indeed led to a set of propositions for doing good science under the slogan of 'neopopperianism' -- again, we hastily add, something which must be regarded as 'fringe' compared to the present (dull) mainstream. BACKGROUND: TO WHAT EXTENT CAN THEORY OF DESIGN REALLY BE INFORMED BY MY SUPERMODEL THEORY? This is a theme that, while part of the whole praxis of this author, is a bit hard to argue for in strict terms. For in order to argue for the theory of design in strict terms, one would have to lay out the supermodel theory in equally strict terms, -- and in particular, in relation to how it is operational at the human level, not merely for more abstract energy transfers for minute particles and massive stars and so forth. I'm not saying I don't have thoughts on how to do this: far from it. But I value the statement of supermodel theory as a somewhat vague one, offering some open propositions, a free type of philosophy, and an open mode of checking. This understanding has evolved more and more since I published this theory some years ago in a private ISBN-listed book, and it is linked to at the front page and has been so for years. This book contains a number of notions that are better evolved in other writings, a huge part of them are also freely available on links found at various places at and with also. For let us be clear: biologists and to some extent chemicists have kept on relating to the energies of the human body more or less as in the 19th century as far as the underlaying concepts go, speaking now of the physics ideas; -- the 'magic' of modern physics is found in colliding galaxies and electrons leaping over space in nonlocal manners -- this 'magic' is not currently employed by mainstream biologists in looking at the operations of the human brain, the sensory organs, the muscles, the heart, the gut, the body as a whole, the organism as a whole. Nor, therefore, are those who study the psychological processes of the human body in mainstream terms much better prepared. They are all steeped in a mechanistic viewpoint which is entirely localist and their physical theory of why and how they can do so despite the fact that the body apparently is weaved out of the stuff that physics also talks about is -- in my opinion -- without any coherence at all. But one thing is to assert that the underlaying worldview is lacking in wholeness when biologists talk about life, or psychologists about the psyche, and another thing is to say: it ought to be so and so. And this I would prefer not to do, at any rate not too strong, at present. Rather, I would suggest that there are some notions that do make perhaps a lot more sense than what one is led to assume if one has merely read physics as according to mainstream physicists, and which speak directly into human psychology and design. SOME ELEMENTS OF A THEORY OF DESIGN In supermodel theory, while all reality is sought to be seen as an interwoven mesh of one and only one thing -- or process -- namely these 'models' which act on each other and organise each other -- thereby the word 'super', meaning that some stand above others and interact and organise and also rule them to some extent -- there is the attempt to summarise all, absolutely all movement (at any rate, that aspect or part of movement that isn't some kind of relatively free fluctuation, or RFFG), as dominated by one principle. This principles is called PMW, short for a Principle of a tendency of Movement towards Wholeness. Let us at once note that this wholeness isn't merely conformity; we're speaking of a creative wholeness, a wholeness of wholenesses, -- and with contrasts, not just similarities; and with a sense of rhythm and the arrythmic together. There is no doubt that some such experience of wholeness comes upon seeing a fresh young face on occasions -- and so while the notion of 'beauty' is typically more psychological and 'wholeness' is more wide and also physical, it must be brought into the mind of anyone who seeks to understand more of the PMW. These supermodels -- the active models -- the underlaying processes of all reality, also all space -- are 'super' relative to one another also in the sense that they perceive one another. So the theory of supermodels speak of all the universe as penetrated by some form of universal perception (this has been spoken about by several authors before the inception of supermodel theory, of course: indeed every element is found in one way or another somewhere in the history of ideas in humanity; it is merely the particular way they are fitted to each other, like notes in a symphony, that makes the unique whole called 'supermodel theory'). We see therefore that when we as creative human beings fashion anything which is presented to ourselves and in that sense call on a notion of design, we are engaging in shaping perceptive processes -- not as a human invention, but as something which is inherent in the very essence of how the universe unfolds. (In supermodel theory, this is suggested to happen at several levels, allowing also a 'multiverse' or several universes, all aligned in a grander cosmos or pre-universe, -- with the door open to religious interpretations along the lines of Berkeleyan worldviews.) It follows that when something is designed, it has to -- in one way or another, regardless of current trends in mainstream society and culture and such -- relate to the features of the supermodels, including the PMW fundamental principle. (This fundamental principle is by necessity an informal one, transcending all forms of equations, for it is nonmechanical and -- in accordance with supermodel theory -- in essence creative.) One may ask: why not simply break with any such universal principles, and do things as one likes? But the notion we here bring in then is: we are but such processes ourselves, and it affects our lives too deeply whether we like it or not, whether we try to disbelieve it or not; and so, we are led straight into ethics: what a design DOES to us. For instance, we must ask: does the design has wholeness? And we must be able to transfer this question to the particular domains. Let me now do the jumps I had in mind when starting this little essay, straight into the design of such as what happens on a computer monitor, or even of the computer monitor and its fundamental properties itself. A certain element of 'color theory' is then in place. For instance, if you surround a symbol, or a part of a machine, or any small object, or any visible item such as a text, by white light, you allow it to have maximal contrast and so to break with its boundaries the maximally. Give a strong color around the text, and it is a stronger whole: the text is packed in (or whatever it is that is packed in). Now somebody might say: but I don't simply like colors very much, I just want black and white, let white surround something clear-cut, that's a design that is useful, and simple, and less is more and other such things. But then we have to say: what you like or dislike, what you may be disgusted with or not -- it's really irrelevant, except possibly in some vital cases where nothing will work out without conforming to such likes. For this is a matter of ethics: unless what we produce has wholeness, it will tend to make 'as a mountain of sand' the activities of our lives, -- particles which go hither and tither (or as a mountain of sugar, sweet particles which go hither and tither) -- and this will disintegrate the lives of other people who confront this design. So even if they may like it, we must choose something else -- and this we must emphasize as right even if we find that popularity is decreased, and that people gets disgusted with the design. For the wholeness of the maker of the design is, by supermodel theory applied in a free way, tied up to the effects of what is done: does it actually spread beauty, enhance that essential flavour of wholeness that PMW speaks about? For this is then tied up to one's own essential sense of existence, one's authenticity. There are other aspects to this wholeness, of course. The 'packing' of content by having a background color must then relate to what types of effects various forms of color do have on us. The selection of spring-light green on the computer monitor is, in many circumstances, a necessity if we truly want to signal authentic wholeness; but some might have been conditioned to see such green light in ways not conducive to their immediate sense of harmony. However, according to supermodel theory we must suggest that this is miseducation, and that a self-re-education is called for; for these standards and norms are not subjective -- although subjectivity does exist as variations in intensity of likes and dislikes. Other ways of packing content in as presented on a computer is found e.g. in the search engine results at If you don't pack the content inside a mass of text, they are easier available: but at the price, again, of having less a whole package, and therefore less wholeness. There are various ethical principles which are suggested, before and after; there are various rules of caution that really ought to go with any use of net; and so forth. Leave these out and again we have a 'mountain of sand' or a 'mountain of sugar', rather than the whole jewel, the whole sun, the whole organic aspect to it. One may say that in terms of ethics, it's enough to know where the text is, it doesn't have to come every time: but that's not nearly enough. The supermodel theory wants each presentation to have as much of proper wholeness with itself as possible. A tendency to divide up things in terms of useful and likable elements is leading to a corresponding anti-beautiful effect on our lives, and must be avoided. Such a division can be called on when there is vital need, but not in general work. And so one can generalise from these points of views to a number of other questions, and find suitable answers to these, in design -- of ANYTHING, just about. {Part of the Web III definition is also:} ON THE RISE AND FALL OF OBJECT-ORIENTED PROGRAMMING -- After the collapse of the status of Java, there has been anarchy in the land of objected oriented programming; may it never clear up again! As of 1::A::2013::4::13 As little as a decade ago, programming had many flavours but one flavour was getting more and more to be almost synonymous with programming. As the core subject of higher eduction in programming, with a wide scope of books published on the language each season, and with steadily more fancied projects being proposed, Java by Sun Microsystems came to gather the paradigm of object-oriented programming into one 'government of unity'. If you didn't like Java -- tough -- you probably didn't like programming. I hated it, and learned it, and found it, after spending a considerable time with it, utterly unuseful for any of my purposes in the long run. But even with that attitude, the fact that as of today, Java is simply not having any status at all to speak of, went beyond my antipation. To me and, I know, for many others, it's a sure sign that there's hope for humanity that Java has now fallen and is lying bleeding on the ground, a monster whose had become inflicted with a deadly wound. For some, it's troublesome; and others pretend it's not so -- but it IS so. After the collapse of the proud company Sun Microsystems it was overtaken by a company with an almost even worse reputation -- if such a thing is possible -- than Microsoft, Inc, namely Oracle, Inc, whose main profession is to handle such as air ticket reservations in the Oracle database. Oracle did so probably because right before the collapse of Sun, Java had more and more become equipped with what they saw as a competitive database. Then, by a long series of fabulously status-lowering actions -- such as making Java install spamware on any computer that has it, and trying to wrestle billions of dollars by a meaningless court battle with some other company who has used an open source rebuild of Java in their mobile phone platform -- it reached its climax when the virus defence of Java became so sloppy that no less agent than the White House asked people to switch off Java on their online PC's. So much for Sun and Java being the 'dot' in 'dot com', as their typical advertisement line run pre year 2000. Dot com is fine but Java ain't. And while C++ still exists and still can be used and, for some projects, indeed still are used, it isn't regarded as anything much but ordinary C with a lot of somewhat incoherently-thought additions to provide various forms of quick pathways into a quickly-thought form of classes of objects with inheritance and all that. Python, which was made on the premise of being more to the point with less cluttering around it, has come to be seen more or less like all the other object-oriented languages in use in various mobile phone, tablet computers and personal computers in general -- namely, as way to script menues in a pre-made graphical menu approach. For scripting -- in other words, for programming that aint programming, just a shaping of programs already made with new parameters for sizes and positions and texts and color tones and such, -- object-oriented class-thinking may have something to it. Why not? Though error-prone, and something that easily causes the computer to temporarily collapse due mostly to the fact that an object- oriented language tries to imagine that the computer has many parallell processes while it don't, it has proven to be a fine, okay, boring way to structure something. Indeed, Gnome as file menu handler, built through some such object-oriented script languages, -- and now working just fine in many dominant platforms -- was originally launched under the slogan, "A boring graphical menu system for the adult in you." But that's exactly what an operating system is: it's a mere platform for running the REAL thing, namely programs. It can never, despite the attempts of Microsoft and Apple to portray it as something else, have anything much to contribute with. It's but a protocol for programs to work together of a mere technical kind; and a kind of paint on top of the command lines which remain the only true way to start programs for those who know. And so, with the various object- oriented script languages belonging to such companies as Google, Microsoft, Apple and so on, and with a bundle of open and free object-oriented languages which portray themselves as script or more as the real thing of a programming language, we're back to an anarchy when it comes to what object-oriented programming is all about. Prior to C++, the influence behind it all, was a Norwegian language made in the mid-1960 as an extension to Algol called Simula then Simula-67 (in 1967). The word 'simulation' really says it all: it was made to make some simulations especially for research into behavioural and social sciences easier. The classes were more or less literally the classes we speak of in society, and indeed one of the two who made it also was a prominent labour party politician in Norway, who championed the idea that Norway should stay out of EU. That latter contribution seems at present to stand out as infinitely the best one. The trouble, then, with classes are that reality aint really organised in terms of classes; and the trouble with objects floating about in a parallell computer space is that no computer space is really parallell but rigid and sequential like hell. And unless the language, like C, actually allows the programmer to refer to this rigid sequential space as rigid and sequential, the control slips from the programmer and over to background routines or 'master control modules' built into the various object-oriented programming languages, and when these modules don't work, no mere programmer using that language can fix the problem except by a workaround. And so Java programming at an advanced level is mostly a question of doing advanced workarounds. One must fight with a scheme that was invented to make things easier, but which makes complex programs in praxis ten times more complex. The reason, then, is that the class and object-oriented languages are made without a true relationship to the computer idea. It's rather made out of some abstract vision where the notion of the computer is even more blurred than in the often-crashing 'cloud' ways of doing internet. This has had a certain fun effect: nobody in the big computing industries no longer knows more than a small portion of what goes on inside the computers. The popularity of the rediculous structures of object-oriented programs have made monsters out of the computer software content. So, when Microsoft releases a new version of its platform, it releases a new version of a vast package that is simply so vast that nobody on the planet, and certainly nobody in Microsoft, can anymore understand it all, except in specialised details as a result of spending much time on some modules. But while there are hundreds of thousands of programs that are supposed to work with that platform, they are not really daring to rewrite anything either. The best they can do is to do nothing -- but that's not a way to give bread and butter to their tens of thousands of employees. Instead, they mess it up a little bit and announce, once in a while, 'this is the biggest roll-out ever', hoping that the thin layer of paint will look good and that it won't fall off as quickly. This is the natural consequence of an orientation towards object-oriented programming when combined, as Apple championed by lending of all the ideas of the Xerox Palo Alto Research group, with the notion of providing a graphical platform for starting programs. This messy idea was in turn mimicked by Microsoft and it spread to become the paradigm of messiness that has become the status quo of the computing industry. Meanwhile, the making of programs by individuals and small companies and also bigger companies have gone on, of course. Those who do REAL good programming know that they must try and forget the mess that operating systems have become and stick to a real stable strong language which doesn't put objects in a virtual world without relationship to the genuine computer structure -- and, of course, the variety of algorithmic languages, and assembly machine language, then become their approach. The rest, who just want to modify a little bit of what's already in the computer, script it with or without object-orientation, but it's no longer confused with the notion of genuine programming. {Part of the Web III definition is also:} CAN CULTURE PERSIST WITHOUT THE TENDENCY TO LIVE BY QUOTES? -- To live by quotes -- whether they connect to clothing, music, fiction, art, or science -- is to live within a bubble; a bubble that is unnecessary As of 1::A::2013::4::7 I have nothing against quotes -- thrown in for the fun of it. But there's a tendency in some, connected to some areas, to clothe their experience in a series of quotes. The quoting need not be verbal. It can be in terms of how other people are dressing, how they dance, what types of stores are set up, how they make drawings, etc. Quoting, living by quotes -- in this extended sense of quoting -- may seem like a very advanced way to live, if one for the moment looks away from its two major disadvantages. But the disadvantages are so great as make any intelligent person, I feel, look for alternatives. The first of the two major disadvantages of living by quotes is that the mental energy it takes to think of who-said-what and who-did-what and to combine all this -- as if in a game -- is such as to make one too exhausted to think much of what of it makes sense, and what of it is plain illusion. The second of the two major disadvantages of living by quotes relates to the necessary illusions, or wrong-doings, which are in the first disadvantage. It is suggested by the notion of "living in a bubble". A bubble is something that will soon burst, and in the meantime it shields -- the person is simply not in touch with anything while it goes on, except the parameters of the game of the quoting. Looked at later, one will merely see it as a passing phase, where one didn't have the wisdom to go beyond an influence "of the times". But for every minute spent within the bubble of living by quotes, there are real and actual people and living nature and true deep possible experiences one turns away from; for one's mind is beset with the obsession of doing things right according to a scheme that has little to do with reality, and most to do only with its own little petty coherence. Real coherence means, for instance, that you can allow thought to have a pause at any moment, and reflect, go deeply, even if the person who triggered this moment's reflection was a little child, uneducated in the intricacies of the bubble, and innocent of the terror it is to break with the flock whose present little lives feed of the virus of the quoting industry. Real coherence means throwing the mind open to silence. It means asking questions and not look recklessly in the archive of what's good for the flock, what's good relative to one's memory of quotes, for the answer. It means, indeed, calling on intuition. It means calling, not on the little wholeness or petty coherence of the group sharing the quotes, but on the greater wholeness and coherence of life itself. Some might argue that it is too tough to work it out all by oneself, entirely freed from the tendency of living by quotes. But this might seem correct. The challenge is not to go to the opposite absolute of never touching quotes, of never relating to flocks at all. The challenge is to find the salient middle-ground between connecting to quotes and connecting to one's own sense of reality in this moment, in each moment. It's not an absolute quest -- let's be realistic and assert: people around in this world aren't gonna get absolute enlightened no matter their programme idea, to cease quoting or whatever. But surely, there's a great deal to be achieved by always maintaining a sense of the child's innocent outlook on life, even as one partakes in the best and most meaningful (and perhaps glamorous) parts of a culture of fashionable clothes, sayings and modes of entertaining one another. Will this not sometimes lead one into a situation of being seen as an outsider, a loner? Well, obviously, the question, or even the suggestion, will arise at times. But unless people live by drugs, there's a memory that keeps on affecting people long after any event: and the memory of somebody having the wisdom to listen a little more to reality and a little less to the group's mesmerising quotes will speak after the event. Later on, that person may shine with the power of having a deeper coherence within, while those most beset on living by a temporary form of hysterical quoting are -- if they are around at all -- at least marked by it. So, to answer the question in the heading of this little essay: surely it's possible for all to maintain some freedom from partaking in a climate of quotes, by realising the utter importance of doing so. In this way, we call in something meditative, something which goes beyond the shallow-minded materialism of the constantly chattering mind whose main energy is devoted to forcing things to fit within a human-made thought scheme. This meditative aspect, existing as it does in a way in all nature, may have its own startling ways of doing things; eventually, one may find that it is sometimes even much more 'effective' to go by it. Then one can relate to the available quotes in an eclectic sense: for instance, when it comes to clothing, to pick that which makes a sense that goes beyond any quasi-verification the quotes can bring. {Part of the Web III definition is also:} <<What Wodehouse writes is pure music. It matters not one whit that he writes endless variations on a theme of pig kidnappings, lofty butlers, and ludicrous impostures. He is the greatest musician of the English language. .. Shakespeare, when he wrote "A man may smile, and smile and be a villain" might have been at least as impressed by "Many a man may look respectable, and yet be able to hide at will behind a spiral staircase.">> -- comment on P.G.Wodehouse, the british comedy writer, once written by the author of "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" {Part of the Web III definition is also:} THE AIR HAS NOT ONLY GONE OUT OF THE HIGGS BOSON BALLOON, BUT -- SINCE GOEDEL'S WORK AROUND 1930 -- OUT OF THE WHOLE PROJECT OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS -- The snake oil of physics; and the new required neo-popperian form of science theorising to replace it in what I will call something like "the G15 Multiversity" As of 1::A::2013::3::19 Higgs boson has been called the 'missing' 'cornerstone' or 'foundation particle' in the 'scheme of physics'. To find something that appears to act in accordance with some number predictions amounts to 'having found the Higgs boson, or at least something very near it.' This is 'nothing less than a revolution, a milestone in physics.' The result is 'at least as foundational as that of Einstein's relativity.' (These, or similar quotes, are from the recent physics-quote happy uncritical journalists from some news stations such as the BBC who rarely try to argue against scientists although their principle is to check with alternative sources and argue against things on just about all other arenas). All a lot of hot air, and even the physicsts who have the most to gain financially from a positive public appraisal of their work doesn't seem to be able to muster up very much entusiasm for the Higgs Boson research work in places such as Cern, Switzerland. There is not one, but maybe ten thousand 'missing cornerstone' for physics to be anywhere 'foundational'; physics is a bundle of loosely knit equations with no coherent meaningful theory arguing for their presence. Einstein's point of view was that unless the human mind is prior to the mathematics, the mathematics may end up pointing to nothing at all. What Einstein did in his way (albeit it a narrow way) and what other physicists including Niels Bohr, Erwin Schroedinger, Louis de Broglie, Werner Heisenberg and so on did in their ways -- whith varied more and more as the decades went by (esp de Broglie broke off with Bohr's ways entirely), led to a number of equations. These equations depend on -- for their wholeness -- images of reality, to a lesser extent so with Niels Bohr's equations. These all are tied up to such ideas as have proven too narrow, such that time IS the fourth dimension, according to (some stage in) Einstein's work. But whereas no physicists have worked through what ideas are compatible and what ideas are not compatible, they have merely dismissed this, and tried -- like a factory -- to assemble units delivered by sub-factories that they haven't much understanding of. They try to put together a whole theory without even getting the parts right. And so, having settled on a bundle of equations -- some which still rely on time as a fourth dimension, and some which don't (in bits of the later forms of what first was called string theory) -- they work out a particle model (the Standard model) -- and in this they find that not all correspond to measured elements in reality; in particular, in the 1960s, a british physicist worked out that something -- now called Higgs boson -- has not yet been found. But you can't get a revolution or a milestone in a field that doesn't have a coherent thought about what it is doing, but which merely is into number crunching and feats of engineering in subground tunnels. This is like comparing flat top ten easy-going pop music of the least developed kind with pieces of such as Bach and say that this is just as great as Bach. It isn't. And, really, since about the 1930s -- in other words, since about the completion of the decade of the 1920s where both Einstein's works and the works of Bohr, de Broglie, Heisenberg and others had been contributed to -- at the THOUGHT level, in PHILOSOPHICAL discussions -- and never really elaborated on later, never advanced on in the late 20th century nor in the early 21st century by mainstream physicists and their mainstream journals, such as Nature and Science, nor detected by mainstream physics awards such as the Nobel Prize awarded in Sweden -- it ought to have been clear to these mathematical physicsts that mathematics lacks principles and so a coherent platform for physics cannot be found through reliance on equations and models, like the later forms of superstring theory and M-theory and such, built on mathematics more than the clarity of overriding ideas. The programme of mathematics was never more strongly nor more boldly set forth than in the pompously named Principia Mathematica by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead. It had in it the fullness of arithmetic, the whole notions of set theory which includes conceptual groupings of the infinite kind on which all of physics rely so sorely, and it had in it type theory, erected to block out self-reference, such self-reference as would implode mathematics from within. This, in short, was the Principles of Mathematics, the Principa Mathematics. And it was a penetrating assumption throughout this monumental work -- which spent a mere page or two of advanced logical deductions with potentially infinite sets to prove that 1 plus 1 equals 2 -- that one could prove just about anything which is true -- even, one day, they imagined, one could work out physics purely from number and set theory. In short, an assumption, not proven, but running through the work, was completion of the principles. Then, shortly thereafter, Kurt Goedel, around 1930, was able to show that -- in our crash course version -- 1. Assume that Mathematics Hath Principles. 2. Assumption 1 leads, using only its own principles, to 3. 3. Mathematics Hath No Principles. In other words, the assumption that mathematics had principles lead in a provable manner within the scheme to the opposite assumption. That is a self-contradiction, and in the realm of pure deduction a single self-contradiction is enough to implode the structure, leading everything (false or true) to be provable. But if Physics Hath Principles, and if Physics is founded on Mathematics, then it follows that we can use the foundation of mathematics to show, similarly, that Physics Hath No Principles. This can be shown in a very concrete manner as well (something I did long ago). Namely, you imagine that the universe is entirely governed by a finite set of principles of physics laid out in the form of a rulebook. Then inside this universe you put a computer that contains this entire rulebook as a program. This program can even contain the notion of probabilities, moulded wavelike probability densities as in quantum theory. But the universe as a whole will then be seen as a structure that not only contains physics, but it contains also within itself a complete mirroring of this physics. This is akin to what in set theory is called self-reference. Any element of such self-reference, Russell and Whitehead knew -- due to prior work, before beginning on the Principia Mathematics -- leads to self-contradictions. It follows that the type of trouble that Principia Mathematica ran into, also a Complete Mathematical Physics must run into. If now deduction -- not mathematics, which has been a programme, but deduction, pure thinking, pure reasoning -- had been driven in humanity by state funds which were even more absolute than today's often brittle states, and absolutely apart from any question of economical competition with other fields such as biology, geology, and chemistry -- then we would have had a thousand thinkers writing about what I just wrote about, daily, and these would have set the standards for science. Instead, what is the case is that people whose economy and careers are woven up into the fact of the presence of ill-founded physics models in their very job description are watching over these questions. They have ever interest in covering it up. They do cover it up. It follows that Einstein's notion of staying out of research institutions altogether in order to contribute to science still holds -- only infinitely more now, in the beginning of the 21st century, than when he did his initial contributions in the beginning of the 20th century, while working as a secretary in a state bureau. By the way, for completeness' sake: I have read, at some time, a very broad and deep selection of what what physicists have said about Goedel. They have said a lot. Some of it -- like bits and pieces of what Roger Penrose have said about it -- makes full sense and is in full accordance with what I say; but I have not seen a single physicist (except possibly David Bohm) with the guts to say that math ain't no good for physics, which is the REAL implication. Also, for completeness' sake: I do think that arithmetic and geometry is good for physics and for such important fields as physical chemistry and nuclear physics when applied to concrete fields. In this, deduction plays a role and that role is meaningful as long as everything can be translated into computer programs without any trace left of such things as 'infinite sets' or 'singularities' or 'entirely continous fields'. But physics must take off its papal clothing and step down from the podium when it comes to talking about the universe. The universe is infinitely more than, and different from, what physicists say it is. As David Bohm said, 'There's infinitely much about matter that physicists don't know.' To begin to get to know it, the first point is to admit that they haven't got any theory in the sense of early 20th century physics standards; that they are still running along with bits and pieces of that machinery just as the cars of Cuba are still made of bits and pieces of 1950s cars; and that the fundamental lack of understanding of nonlocality in both Einstein's theories and those of Niels Bohr ought to indicate that a new type of theorising -- along the lines of such as Louis de Broglie post-bohmian nonlocal pilot wave theory -- ought to be taken infinitely more seriously than their nonserious equations which incorporate infinite sets in such un-foundational and un-goedel-aware manners as today. This is what I propose as part of the foundation for what I call Neo-Popperian science, which is willing to consider empirics of a more metaphysical or intuitive kind alongside empirics of the conventional kind on an equally strict platform, demanding deduction and coherence. What is the real meaning of coherence? It is, of course, that it MAKES SENSE. Which is patently what bad theories woven into the infinity-ridden mathematics do not, and never will, not because the universe is beyond what can make sense but because these bad theories of modern physics are but snake oil. The universities we have around us are uniform- versities, uniformities, woven around the priesthood of budget committees and their quotations of each other in endless lists of unoriginal and deceptive acknowledgement lists. The universities we have around us no longer address the multiverse of existence in any true way, except in bits and pieces, here and there. The most coherent part of the universities are when they consciously admit that they are interested in engineering -- for instance, how to make plastics, or epoxy, or how to refine oil better, or how to make more safe nuclear power. As soon as one leaves the laboratory environment, when they begin to talk about what they call reality, they become uniformists. The socalled Advanced Research Institutes are no better. It is not a conscious conspiracy, it is merely a total stagnation, a glorified idiocy, a zillion forms of the Emperor's New Clothes in the form of pointless theories and pointless mathematics, tied up in boundless lack of understanding of such as Kurt Goedel and other essential works outlining a more sober alternative such as that begun by LED Brouwer. The presence of computers, when they are made through and through in a first-hand understandable way, with a low-level complexity and low resolution in patterns of data and monitor, without confusing over-abstract concepts riddling the programming languages, can be a purifying agent in academic thought. This is what the G15 project is all about. Around it, I will build neo-popperian science eventually in what I will call something like the G15 Multiversity. It will have a humility for greatness -- the greatness of reality, of truth -- and yet a daring to do holistic things, and work out what can be said to have some coherence. It will also do much work to get one's fingers dirty with real empirics, the humility of real empirics -- not the one that is depending on a combination of hundreds of engineers such as in the caves of Cern, but one that has the first-hand simplicity of early industrial-relevant science such as made USA blossom with fresh theories relevant for industries in mid 20th century. Let me add that I do consider that some patterns in this reality match up with some of the numerical patterns worked out in Cern and linked up to the Higgs Boson studies. There are bits of reality involved. But these bits of reality, like the bits of reality of electrons, must be thought through in an entirely fresh spectre of understanding which is coherent from the beginning, rather than like a patchwork of equations derived from different universe models upon which a quasi-understanding is imposed. Just as electrons are great part of industry, so can also other particles incl. the higgs boson patterns be part of some industry; that doesn't mean that there is any real understanding of these. And if there isn't real understanding of these, one cannot claim that they are part of so-and-so feature of the universe. Such big claims are hogwash. The universe -- the multiverse -- isn't captured in essence by any form of mathematics-based approach -- quite obviously, when you look at the fact that mathematics doesn't have principles, which is the only logical expression of the self-contradiction mentioned above. {Part of the Web III definition is also:} CAN THE TRUE CERTAINTY WAKE UP, PLEASE? -- The premise of a higher educational instutition must be to include doubt at more places in deductive thinking than before As of 1::A::2013::3::11 The word 'deduction' stormed into the worldwide fiction culture by the exalted use of the concept, in ways hard to replicate in real reality, by the imagined master detective, Mr Sherlock Holmes, late 19th century. Deduction plays a role not just in the fields which are called such as 'geometry' (confer Euclid's axioms and deductions in ancient Greece, and vedic sanskrit deductions on motions of stars probably going back to an even earlier date, and similar works in hieroglyphic language depictions in some Egyptian pyramids etc) -- but also in a broader range of human endavours. (The concept of 'mathematics' is to some extent a recent programme more than the name of a well-defined domain; and one that has in it some mainstream assumptions that I think not all would agree to.) Deductive thinking -- in contrast to the notion of a flash of intuition, and also in contrast to the notion of knowledge by acquaintance -- near experience -- and all of these in contrast to the quoting of other people's opinions -- has in it a core notion of the capacity of the mind to 'see' certain things which involves the mind looking inward. So if you encounter a text which says something like, 'let's assume that so and so, and that so and so also applies. Then WE SEE that so and so must also be the case', then we typically have to do with deductive thinking. Some forms of deductive thinking -- but crucially not all -- can be re-presented in the form of a computer program of a simple kind, and in that sense given a novel form of checking: does the program produce the same result that the text claims that 'we see'? Well, then, we have yet another instance of confirmation that the text is on to something. But this only works for deductive thinking where what is deduced over is finite. Once we're into the region of the infinite, the deduction cannot directly be re-presented to the computer, which of course only handles a finite number of steps dealing with a finite set of data. To use a computer in such a case, one must use what is sometimes called 'approximation techniques'. But these approximation techniques themselves rely on deductive thinking that cannot be checked directly on the computer. In other words, when we approximate a result in finite terms by using an idea of the infinite implicitly, we are doing something that is more uncertain than all other types of more consistently clear-cut type of finite deductions. All this is ignored in Euclid's famous axioms of geometry. Euclid happily speaks of a line which is stretched between two points and a plane which is laid out over three points and then extends both line and plane to infinity. It is important to note that Euclid didn't consider this a conceptual leap worthy of sentences of doubt, uncertainty and openness. As a result, more than two thousand years later, when a young student of philosophy and deduction, such as Bertrand Russell, finds himself having months of doubt about something done in the prolongation of Euclid's paradigma -- namely, in Russell's case, the work on the differences between infinite set of whole numbers and infinite sets of real numbers (by Georg Cantor), then he eventually come to regard this as his own weakness. Except for an autobiographical note many years later, Russell excludes uncertainties in his laying out of his deductions in his main text books. Uncertainties, which in some cases become clear-cut near-mistakes (cfr the attack by Kurt Goedel on the assumed completeness of Principia Mathematica of Russell & Whitehead), and in other cases becomes POSSIBLE mistakes. It is these possible mistakes that presently exists within many areas of deduction today, as I see it, whereever deduction touches questions of infinity, that must be again raised into conscious awareness. As long as deductive thinking is not allowed to express doubts about its own clarity, deductive thinking is not worth very much. Any university or academy or instuition of deep research worth its name must learn to honor doubt on essential forms of deduction whereever infinity is involved more, and any element of either redicule or of indifference relative to those who come along with doubt must be twarted. This is one of the things we can learn from the presence of computers. At some time, when I have gathered enough means to fund a scientific and artistic educational idealistic instuition of some size, one of the philosophical premises of it will be just this: to carefully look into questions of the finite and the infinite when we are doing deductions, and find out what the areas of meaningful doubt is. Until then, please consult one who begun (but only begun) some doubt along these lines in the 20th century (which, in other words, goes infinitely further than Kurt Goedel) was the famous mathematician LEJ Brouwer, with his 'intuitionists'. (Going much further than that, the and set of writings, and the G15 programming language enterprise, have much to offer as a starting-point.) {Part of the Web III definition is also:} WHY A CULTURE WITHOUT PORN IS CULTURELESS -- From time to time, without real scientific support, and driven by well-meant but ill-adviced reasons, do-gooders with legal power seek to outlaw porn As of 1::A::2013::3::9 The culture of an area -- be it country, or continent or defined by other terms -- is one of the things that makes peace, prosperity, harmony and meaningful living for a vast number of human beings possible. Culture is not merely a by-product of society, but in some sense the glue of society. When there are situations of utter sparsity of vital components in daily life, culture may not be enough of a glue to prevent atrocities. In nearly all other situations, culture is one of the topmost ways in which any society works at all. In addition to culture, there are patterns of interaction of rewards and punishments, institgated by money aspects and by laws and by police, and as a deeper extension of culture there is the vast field of religious faith. Every culture that does exist, and every culture known to have ever existed, has in it, or has had in it, parts which are more explicit and easily available for all in daily life, and aspects which are more hidden, and the culture of sharing images of usually both healthy, young and happy human beings in nude display or engaged in some form of intercourse usually belongs to the more hidden parts of culture. The extent to which this is hidden has varied. The extent to which violence has been part of culture -- even family culture -- has also varied; it is said by some, although I haven't checked the historical facts myself, that at the time of Caesar, the tearing apart of gladiators by hungry, wild biests was a common family entertainment (when viewed at safe distance in large stone theatres), for young and old, child as adult. In India, carved in stone in a famous tantric temple are divine beings engaging in their acts of creation by means of also divine sexuality. In some religious cultures, there are strict limitations as to the display of women. Typically, this type of religious culture is often rife with militant extremists. There is a simple way to understand the relationship: the human brain has to have a balanced, whole-meal, unrefined type of "muesli" of all influences, and if any one of these influences are severely denied, then extremist and hysterical factions arise that promise unusual satisfactions -- to make up for the severe lack of culture, the severe lack of meaning. The powerful presence of pornography in today's very much youth-driven world wide web has been there from its very inception. It is part of its honest, strong energy. It is a factor enhancing the capacity of active people in getting along to do their meaningful jobs, in full business mode, for they know that their thirst to see something of that which usually only summer holidays at their very best, in the peak of a person's adult youth, can experience, is regularly satisfied to a fair extent and without any price of significance put on it. The mere knowing of the presence of porn of this type is enough for many people to sustain harmonious lives, doing good things in society, acting as righteous citizens, and being models for others growing up. Science exploring the growth of children's brain and bodies for the last decades have confirmed the notion that some researchers into child psychology tried to explore -- for instance Sigmund Freud -- namely that the child's conception of adult affairs is intense; it is naturally intelligent in adult ways even though it has long been assumed in some western societies that children's 'innocence' is to be preserved against the 'baseness of the flesh'. Far from viewing sexuality as a 'baseness', it is commonly found that those who have a natural relationship to sexuality even as kids, in which there's a licentious attitude to their activity on this level from caretakers, have a far greater chance of growing up in mature psychological ways. As a leading Norwegian expert on child psychology and freudian psychiatry, Mr T Langfeldt said to the newspaper Dagbladet ( some years ago, "children have always engaged in sexual games [..] we all know how those who didn't engage in such games [..] became when they grew up. [..they became] hysterical [..]." The notion of harmony coming through a balanced relationships to all things which belong also to the more hidden aspects of culture, and thinking it through, must not be prevented by immature law-makers. Rather, law-makers must contribute to ensuring the persistance of a new wisdom, a new free discourse over the reality of what it is to be a human being in its full freedom, in the new and enduring context of the presence of the world wide web. Seen in this way, porn or pornography is part of the fire of culture, while laws are parts of the stones of culture (cfr, if you like, a book by Mr N Hagger named about this, "The Fire and the Stones", referring to also spiritual aspects of culture). The stones must be laid out not so as to extinguish the fire, nor so that the fire spread recklessly elsewhere (extremism). Rather, the fire must be cultivated in a context that also allows for the presence of all other aspects of human culture, not so that there's a conflict between the two, but rather so that the openness and freedom of information sharing, and of honoring and respecting copyrights of artist's original contributions also, are all modulated in the context of a new form of widely awake and open-minded dialogue-as-child- education. This can be pushed one step further if we realise that the meaningfulness of culture is a key element in preventing reckless destruction of the last of the planet's resources. Such meaningfulness leads to a greater sense of gratefulness in the population towards the society at large, and this gratefulness, the laughter in the body, the smile in the body that good porn can be part of the source of -- alongside good dance, good painting, good music, good technology work (eg with first-hand programming or "coding"), good exercise etc -- all this can work to motivate both young and old to think in more grand terms about the future of humanity, and be less selfish. It is just the growth of unselfishness that comes from the experiences of intense beauty also in sex that is a key feature of that aspect of tantric religiosity (in a wide sense of 'tantric') that is found in branches of every major religion. Scientists could therefore, when scientists have an interest in questions of climate and planetary protection, enhance their work on the studies of the beneficial aspects of porn on people, and sort out the variables that makes for more human happiness. It is a particular challenge -- since we have mentioned activities in Rome at Ceasar's time already -- in the Italian branch of christianity to realise that too little good sensuality and too little good sexuality has been attributed to the teachings of Jesus Christ and too much of good sexuality has been alloted in the compartment of 'satan'. The strong, deep fascination that italians have for sexuality lends to a tendency for satanists to have an easier time selling their message; but satan -- as I see it -- is a misguided concept, a nonconcept, for it involves the proposal of a duality in this world which doesn't exist. No tomatoes are absolutely rotten, for then they are no longer tomatoes. The tomato may be rather fresh, very fresh, or hyper-fresh. So also with the force of life: existence depends on a goodness that is one with the natural deep order, and it can perfectly well be a God-order, but in any case it doesn't have a meaningful opposite. It is the fullness of understanding that any reference by Jesus to a 'devil' or the like is a mere manner of talking to make a point, rather than an understanding of a literal reference, that never quite came into the most dominating church fathers. And so one after another -- not Jesus, but mere human beings with their human errors, such as St Augustine and St Paul, put their words, not the words of God, into what became a dogma giving too much interesting features to the nonexisting element called 'the Devil', and removed many interesting sexual aspects from God, from Jesus. This is at the core of what the cardinals in Rome are struggling just these days. These cardinals, it appears, come in three brands: those who believe in the duality of God-Satan, those who only believe in God, and those who believe that Jesus was a nice socialist with enlightened views, a mere mortal with some interesting spiritual awakenings. The latter type is in favour of sexuality, the first type is absolutely against it but invite it in by the backdoor by their depiction of sex as belonging to satanism. So it is to be hoped that such as Catholic Christianity is able to say that sex belongs to God, all good sex belongs to God, and that duality is an illusion, and cast away the earlier dumb-mind understanding which has so many side-effects. So we see, the quest of getting porn right, also in child education, is a big quest. It has more potential now than anytime before in human history to be part of a truly enlightening new form of education, and a meaningful well- cultivated part of society. It is the responsibility of all thinking people to oppose, therefore, the reckless cutting away of porn whether from social medias or from wider medias; and it is also a challenge to refrain from the too-strong categorisation of porn into 'good' and 'perverse' kinds, and rather start waking up to the reality of what human life and good culture is all about. That good culture requires the fires of the bits of 'perversity' (if that's the word I want) that puts the mind to rest without having a sense of there being anything fundamentally wrong about it. It is part of the quest of a wholeness of culture. {Part of the Web III definition is also:} WHAT THE NEXT POPE MUST DO -- In the positive vacuum created by a spectrum of unresolved big challenges, the next leader of this big chunk of christanity have more freedom than before to move on As of 1::A::2013::2::19 As long as everything is as before, more or less, then it takes exceptional luck and courage for a leader to implement revolutionary changes. However, due to a range of factors, it can be said that things aren't as before as for the Catholic Church; and, seen in a positive light, this means that the next leader has considerably more room for novel types of action than what has lately been the case. The leader of a sect matters immensely to the members of this sect, but rarely much to other people. The leader of a church like the Vatican that encompasses something like -- depending on how one counts -- every fifth or every tenth person on the planet is also a factor in world politics, world economy, world health and in world thinking. The Catholic Church has encountered such a spectrum of challenges recently such that, while the church has not been split, it is a pervasive perception throughout its inner circles as well as outside of it that it is somewhat less than blessed with harmonious happiness. Still, it exists, it is powerful, and when in some weeks it has a new leader, that leader can, if young and vital enough in brain, body and guts, manage to steer it with a might not allotted to democratically elected presidents and for a considerably longer time. Since it is up in the clouds who is to be the next leader and what the main intents of this leader will be it makes sense to be idealistic on behalf of this event-to-be and, in the spirit of thinking aloud, spell out that which seems to suggest itself as most noble and worthwhile of areas of attention and ways and means of action. Areas of attention include, geologically, Africa and South America, because of the great quantity of catholics there combined with the fact of the severity of challenges also caused by deforestation, pollution and overpopulation, and accentuated by such as violent tribalism in some parts of Africa. Beyond geology, other areas of attention includes the role of the body in the life of a believer, and questions of what, if any, ideals that the church should hold up as for responsible relationship on the bodily and sensual level to other people; and with a realism as to what is suggested, so the narrative of the church is not so merely as to create a stream of self- condemnation amongst its priests and followers. Throughout the Western world, and as a logical outcome of the force of femininism as unleashed for decades since the 1960s and 1970s, the LGBT communities are getting stellar attention -- including, within the past six months, that of president Obama in U.S. and prime minister Cameron in U.K. This is an area of attention especially given the intense intolerance that the early church fathers gave pen to. Just like with every other religion, there are all sorts of factions as to opinions as to these and related matters. To pretend that all these issues do not exist, or merely to repeat the past non-answers of the last half millenium or so, will be taken as a token of senility not of coherent strong leadership. Attention must also be given to the fact that thanks to the pervasiveness of technology, the mechanist worldview that some (falsely) ascribes to science as such must be considered almost as an alternative religion, and in any case certainly a factor in world thinking of tremendous proportions. It would be just as meaningless to give in to it and relegate the role of everything religious to merely some permutations prior to a creation point or after the ending of life here on earth, or to simply and mindlessly state that all mechanical worldviews are 'wrong'. In the first case, the religious impulse isn't given a wide enough berth; in the second case, the 'hard core' of believers that will remain should such a stance be taken would be that of the least-thinking fanatics. A third path must be taken, and that leads us to the point about ways and means. As to the question of ways and means of implementing fruitful attention to such areas, this is an era that in general emphasises conversation, dialogue, open-minded thinking, sharing of viewpoints. It is an era in which statements about what to think resonate with fewer people than what a church leader might easily be tempted to think. It is not my own formulation, but I think it is particularly apt to adapt to the present case: the move must be from telling people what to think over to working together from a set of core direction as to how to think. How to think means also, naturally, how to meditate, how to ask questions of one's deeper nature (or of God), how to be sensitive to answers that come from one's conscience or from beyond oneself entirely, -- but also, how to think logically, holistically, how to incorporate teachings from experience into faith and so on. Let it be clear that it is not enough for the Vatican to gather its prime thinkers into one vast big thinking conference and then dole out the results to the presumably unthinking many. This would be to merely consider 'how to think' a means to get to a new structured set of statement as to 'what to think'. What is necessary is that the new leader is able to fine out what it takes for a human mind to engage in an exploration of reality that learns of all the most objective numerical findings of science, and of all the most objective elements of experience, and also apply logic -- and to complement this with an inner learning, an inner exploration, that is aided by theological writings without being cemented into the very human errors of the early church fathers. This should be in accordance with a spirit of moving from the indoctrinations of such poetic fluid writers as St Paul to the spirit of playful compassion and spirit of action and clear- mindedness as that of Jesus himself; and rather learn from St Paul about how to think than study the structures that he penned to his papers, often heavily influenced by his times. The structure of the Catholic church has proven wrong on many points; but it may be that within this Church there is adequate focus on conscience and the meditative communion between human being and higher beings that it can be said that it has a PROCESS that still works; and the next leader must get this process into the forefront and give it to its leaders at all levels. This means, for instance, that in any concrete area, it is not as wrong to be disagreeing in opinion for a priest with the pope, as to be disagreeing in connection to one's own conscience. The pope must teach strict adherence to own conscience in all matters -- and this adherence must be far stronger than yielding to mere political pressures of the times; but it must also be allowed to overrule the understanding that other people, even higher in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, has of what it means to relate to conscience in each matter. In other words, one excommunicates priests not if they disagree in structure but rather if they disagree in process: they must agree in how to think, but they must be free to adapt this process to their own hearts, their own minds, their own brains -- and their own bodies. In practise, this means that the understanding of what's right and best and proper in the PROCESS of thinking and meditating and exploring intuition, conscience and the will of the deepest must be implemented by concrete seminars which go on and on and on. This will allow also for mistakes, for the very human mistakes that always are made, regularly or irregularly; and this means that the next Pope must refrain from using the mode of Faultlessness as much as possible while affirming the importance of a participation in the type of processes where genuine rather than fake exploration into theological, political, scientific and moral themes takes place. In all the other religions, and in all the other branches of all the other religions, there are individuals if not also groups and organisations that have points of resonance with such a process. So it is a natural by-product, which cannot be decided from above, that there will be an increased chance of learning from other branches of the same religion and learning from other religions, by opening up for a stronger theological process at the conscious expense of a weaker theological doctrine. And as soon as such genuine learning takes place, naturally there will also be more interfaith dialogue, and as such it is a political contribution to peacefulness as well -- although as a church, the inner priority must always be to connect to Truth -- in humility. {Part of the Web III definition is also:} THE WIDE-IN-SCOPE, NON-SECTERIAN ARGUMENT FOR HAVING KARMA IN OUR WORLDVIEW -- And notes on what it takes to evoke genuine intuition As of 1::A::2013::2::1 I am no hindi, nor a buddhist. The word "karma", as it has been used, in those contexts, appear too rigid, too similar to western christiannity in how it speaks of rewards and punishments given to one body having one soul all the time. My view of the state of affairs is wide-in-scope, non-secterian and entirely pluralist: from my studies of physics, for instance, I see that the subtle energies of this world are at least as rich in structure as the world we can see with our eyes. I regard it as unlikely, also derived from my computer programming language knowledge, that any machine on its own, without any subtle energies, can meaningfully be said to possess a mind or feelings, no matter what. Hence I regard it as a kind of blasphemy against the integrity of the human being to give an operating system the name of 'Android' as the giant-sized company Google, Inc has done; especially when they tend to say and follow up with other actions that seems to intend to belittle the need for the presence of a human mind (e.g. car- driving robots). The intense interaction between Google, Inc and some universities I regard as a problem for these universities: they are unlikely to relate to all of reality in a meaningful manner, for they will be tainted by the always commercial perspective Google applies when it comes to technology (e.g. by getting more people to connect to their pay-for-high- up-in-list-presence search engine productions, so as to commercialise what should in academic contexts certainly be free objective knowledge not sorted by money). These subtle energies appear to me to give content to the experience of life. The brain, the body, stands in between, as a bridge, between subtle energies and the universe we see -- the "manifest" energies. All sorts of things may go on, in other words, between heaven and earth. All sorts of things, including the notion of something such as souls, but not one soul for one body, but just as likely one soul for many bodies, one body with many souls, and souls exchanged in one body daily. If you think about it, this freedom from identifying one soul to one body can then make it far more likely to imagine that there is a fairness to what each soul experiences. In this spirit of being interested more in truth than in dogma, more in reality than in any bible, and being reverent to our own intuitions rather than to the myths and supposed teachings of supposed masters, prophets, and so-called messiahs of the past, I am going to postulate that there is something about the notion of "karma" that solves a great problem for those who have got such a problem -- the handling of blame. As we will see, part of what I will say will imply that the handling of blame is a problem for most who haven't thought through something like karma. They may speak in nice ambigious words about 'universal values' or 'human rights' or 'social responsibility', but what do they do with their experience of the lack of such relative to others in daily life interaction? Lacking a grand worldview in which there is a notion of a let's say 'automatic' handling of these questions, the tendency can then easily be to get stuck into grudges. One may find that another person apparently, in some way, has done something worthy of blame. But in lacking a trust in a grander scheme of things, the only way to set things right appear then to be to resist forgetting this blame. This can be called the problem of 'objectifying one's personal grieviances'. One may grieve the action of another person, or group of person, but since one doesn't have something such as karma to deal with it, it seems that the only recourse is either to drop one's principles and drop one's notion of universal values or social responsibility and all that, or to stick to it, re-affirm it, and quietly plot to 'set things straight'. Since humanity is chock-full of blameful actions, it means that for most people, if not all, after a little while, one is building up a large registry of blames and grudges and grieviances. This creates a psychic tension. This tension may make the person less objective, more likely to slip into emotional peaks of a negative kind for which there is no quick respite. The judgement is likely to become more and more subjective, twisted, and twarted after a while, and still the notion of 'universal values' or 'the social duties of others' or what it is may be there, and urge the person on to store up a balance-sheet of grieviances to others. The grieviances, which gradually become more a question of highly biased interpretations of reality, then begin to take over the person. Few does anything anymore worthy of support, in the view of such a blame-laden person. In contrast, even generosity becomes misconstrued as attempts to do bad things, and certainly not as something worthy of reciprocal love or generosity. The Pope's christianity is not providing a solution to the universal question of suffering, nor providing a solution to the deep psychic need for an experience of fairness in this world (the Pope admitted as much when a child asked during a radio program how it can be fair that so many people perishes in such accidents and natural catastrophies that sometimes happen). The reason that neither the present Pope's christianity, not the islam faith, nor any other dominant form of christianity provides an answer to the questions we raised initially, is that their idea of acceptance by their particular imagination around Christ is, in general, reduced to such as 'to what extent do I believe in Christ', and 'am I following the ten commandments'. The trouble with this is that it means that their salvation ethics gets too removed from daily life. There is the notion of loving the other as much as oneself, true, but this notion is considered in the spirit of a 'commandment', not as a particular automatic 'budgeting' in this reality as to the rightness of certain deeds, and the wrongness of others. I do support christianity let's say in a metaphysical sense, but when a christian reduces private ethics to whether own 'salvation' is ensured, it becomes way too digital, too either-or, to handle the immensely rich nuances of daily life interaction. In particular, it doesn't ENOUGH address the question of blame, of grieviances and so on. And while those who pray almost all the time may be imagined to quench their sense of grudge and grief, it is not quite an impressive solution -- to pray incessantly would mean making religion into a drug, when it could be something enlightening, something enhancing reason, analysis, reality-contact and the intelligence of love in daily life affairs. The total immersion into praying-all-the- time seems to apply to variants of christians such as the Witnesses of Jahve, the Mormons, and also to pre-christian faiths such as Orthdox Hebrewism. While one can imagine that those who pray much of the day doesn't get time to do much ill in this world -- which is in abstraction true, but not truer than the fact that those who play computer games much of the day doesn't get time to do much ill in this world -- we certainly expect religion to be better than that, to solve problems at some deeper level than that. Religion, or religiosity, or spirituality, or whatever we call it, mustn't be a mere hypnosis keeping insight away; for we have seen more than once that repetitive use of computer games can lead to the growth of impulses of becoming a reckless mass-killer; and that repetitive use of prayers can lead to such stupidity in the head that one supports extremist violence, even support such as atomic bomb development as protection against non-believers or infidels. Returning then to the real not phoney notion of religion as something which involves a genuine motion towards rational awakening, we then perhaps see now, considering all the points just now raised together, that spiritual love and love in daily affairs and normal social interaction must melt together, and, furthermore, that if this is to happen intelligently, there must be an insight into whether this reality has something concrete to say about each and every action done by humans, so that one doesn't have to sort out the blames oneself. Let's first see that it is rational to imagine that with a pluralistic view of subtle energies, and a pluralistic, open-minded view of karma (and long ago I coined the word 'goyon' as a combination of 'goodness' and 'yoni', or the female tantric energies, to sum up this new notion), blame can be handled much more beautifully than done in such a case as those who doesn't have such a notion of karma handles it. We do this in a wide-in-scope way, without secterian attitudes. We are now doing it in a context of grouping together such as atheists, who refuse subtle energies and God and all that, with such simple-minded religions people of ANY faith who regard the notion of salvation as simple, a digital either-or thing. If we see that it is rational to imagine that blame is handled in a new way by such a refined, open, pluralistic concept of karma, we can then next begin further analysis, including intuitive enquiries, into whether this new feature as proposed in fact do exist in reality. But first, then, let's see whether it is rational. I propose that it is rational to combine a rich view of souls (and/or spirits) as constantly changed while a body is alive, in the sense that the real experiencer of any emotion, feeling or exalted insight is this soul (or spirit), or in plural, these souls (or spirits). Further, I propose that every action is neither totally good nor totally the opposite but it is on the scale of goodness somewhere. It can be high on the scale of goodness and then it will reap good goyon, ie, the souls responsible for the action will experience joy (not merely pleasure, for pleasure is smaller and joy can go together with some element of pain, for instance in BDSM). If a soul is ungenerous to somebody it ought to be generous to, it will lead to a potential for this soul to experience a corresponding pain. I also propose that if someone -- at a subtle level -- is denied something that is truly deserved, concerning joy, this person will get it, a little later, but a joy which is then doubled. If now we combine a soul to one body, it would mean that a person who does anything good one day, will the next day receive this goodness. This is obviously not true. But with an understanding of the reality of subtle energies, of a subtle or nonmanifest part of reality as vividly active, one doesn't slip into atheism merely by seeing that daily life from one day to the next doesn't repay good actions in any obvious manner. Rather, I think we can see how it is rational that the universe may be perfectly fair if the subtle energies are constantly moving about. Somebody about to experience something immensely good, and far better than what previous actions ascribed to that body indicate as 'deserved', will then experience that goodness by means of subtle energies -- a soul-level -- which is then moved from somewhere, someone else, just before that experience begins. And there is an analogy to how suffering is experienced. These 'travelling souls', doing what we can call a 'day-incarnation', can then in a perfectly harmonious way experience full fairness in how events unfold. It is only when we close our eyes to the subtle energies, the subtle aspect of the world that all numerical key developments in subatomic physics indicate are highly real and yet hard to map, that events appear to falsely favour some without any good reason for it. So I think anyone who spends a little time with this, and reflects over it while walking, having a bath, relaxing, meditating, dancing, etc, will see that there are rational alternatives to both traditional one-body-one-soul faiths,, and also to atheism (and near-atheist panteist non-solutions such as voodoo), which deserve great good attention, and which after all may be real. Having settled this, we must then next explore whether indeed it IS real. If it is real, it means that when experiencing something unjust, instead of putting it in the registry over blames, building up a heavy archive of personal grieviances, one must enter into a meditation that asks: number one, is this just a personal biased emotion, or did the person objectively do something wrong? Did oneself do something objectively wrong here? Is it rather oneself to blame? And instead of disregarding this question as pointless focus on blame, it becomes instead an objective enquiry into reality, albeit one that one should be too cocksure about. In relaxing, in intending objectivity and truth about something as subtle and hard-to-get-at as the ethics of social interactions, one will have to invoke some larger questions in addition to the social interplay. Here, the atheists propose that there isn't any ultimate meaning, other than that adopted by convention. A religious point of view would rather say: this reality is created, an active subtle rich and complex creation, a creation which is also an evolution (not as a theory of evolution with set mechanical or randomised criterions, but as an evolution of mind and heart, and of technology, etc), and there is a source, an origin, and this has a magnificent intent, an intent of a motion towards an ever-greater beauty, meaning, loveliness. And some events, and some beings, are nearer this intent than others and just those deserve more positive energy than the rest. And so this would be part of the rational scheme we would have to enquire into: we need it, or the scheme is too narrow. It is not enough with subtle energies, in other words, we also need a godhood, a personal God, that has organising intentions. Add to that assistants (muses), and it is not implausible that all the fantastic complexities and tremendous fine-tuning of the natural constants giving rise to this tremendous universe is indeed a construction, a highly self-concealing construction, a construction that pretends in part to come from a meaningless cascade of mechanical forces over a long time, but in fact a contruction by subtle beings and ultimately a personal God. In such a view, every action has a vast significance. It is unlikely that a mere human being will be able to sense more than a little bit of this significance. But it is likely that it would be part of the scheme of fairness that some real intrinsic sense of fairness, a sixth sense if you like, is in-built into the construction, the design, of the tremendously complex and beautiful human anatomy and psychological make-up. Again, is this merely a rational alternative, a worldview that makes sense, a worldview in which personal grieviances have less credibility, or is it also reality? Is it but a vision, or is it reality? Each time a person takes a heavy drug -- I have never used any heavy drug, not even tried once -- I have but tasted the smoke of hashish but a handful of times, and never done any drug at all -- but it is my sense of it that each time a person intoxicates the brain with a heavy drug, something is taken away from that brain; and in some cases, that which is taken away is something of the capacity to sense the feelings of others. The more drugs, then, the less is the experience of joy by giving joy, and the less is the experience pain when pain is given. This is exactly what some companies which indulge in reckless trading of stocks seek; and so it is not strange that, for a long time now, those who are young and aspiring in affluent societies and who have never tasted strong drugs have been in a tiny minority. Since strong drugs are generally also illegal, a lot of attachments to secrecy have arose between circles in these affluent societies, leading to a number of complex loyality patterns further removed from such meditative sensitivity as the enlightened individual of integrity would need than ever. The presence of strong drugs in society is a problem that is accentuated by the problem of vast capacities of technology to simulate and augment reality. I predict that humanity within some centuries has erected a total ban of an efficient kind on all technologies that mimick reality too much, as well as on all strong drugs and most milder as well. For both lead to less care for actual reality, in a pattern that becomes as a virus in the mind. (For an alternative approach to technology, consider writings by the undersigned on 'first-hand technology'). In order to find out whether subtle energies are real, one must then be realistic and ask whether one has a brain that's good enough to handle such an enquiry. If not, one could do oneself the favour of being humble about the issue, instead of getting stuck into hot-headed atheism or hot-headed simple-minded dogmatic bible-faith of some kind. If one do has a brain that hasn't got shaved of all the finer aspects of it due to the pollution of mood-adjusting chemicals, then I would propose a longer-term study of such as The Varieties of the Religious Experiences by William James (which, alongside P.G.Wodehouse texts, Alice in Wonderland by L.Carroll, and more such, are old enough that they can be encompassed by such relatively free copyright as that which spells out). This study would enhance the sense of a pluralistic stance and openness to various alternatives, each of which is capable to handle a scheme of fairness involving subtle energies. We might call it making the mind full of genuinely alternatives 'theories of reality', which would then make it easier to indulge into the actual perceiving of reality -- to talk along the lines of K.R.Popper and what I have christened into 'neo-popperianism'. A fine-tuning of intuition is possible also by exposing oneself to such as currency trading, where one feels the pain of making a bad trade, and experiences the joy of making a good trade, in an environment where one is connected to a good Straight-Through Processing (STP) broker (though be sure it's real) that conveys one's trade straight to the Interbank market and back. This is reality; this is about exactness -- numbers; this is about pain and pleasure, even sometimes joy; this is about action; this is about effect of action; and it is way too complex to yield to any simple analysis or simple algorithm in most cases, and so you will only win if you have got your intuition going. You can actually use a money-market intuition to evolve a scientific and professional intuition that you can also use in a spiritual domain, and in an artistic domain. Prior to the exploration of reality, I would also suggest relating to images of those most beauiful and most healthy of the young females that constitute the leading fashion models of this world. This is meditative and holistic to a far deeper extent than the yantras and mantras of buddism and the hindu religion. Beauty is cosmic, and it makes your capacity to sense what is harmonious, right and intuitively correct enhanced. I do this regularly, as you'll find if you look around in my own works and links from here. I find such activity excellent to combine with all sorts of other activities. It is a mental kind of exercise, just as important as intense stretching and muscle toning several times a week; but different, addressing a complementary aspect of one's existence. My intuitions after all my investigations are clear, of course; but what your own will be, after such a great deal of enquiry, you must leave open, regardless of what other people, appearantly learned or not, may mean. But let me state my own intuitions here as elsewhere, so as not to keep it secret: Yes, I intuit the reality of subtle energies; yes, I intuit the reality of day-incarnation and a pluralistic kind of buddhistic sense of souls; yes, I intuit the reality of scheme of fairness ruled over by a personal God and the trillions of trillions of assistants or muses existing at the subtle realm. {Part of the Web III definition is also:} A PERHAPS NEW AND PERHAPS UNIQUE THEORY OF MODERN CIVILISATION AFTER 1953 -- In 1953, the Second Foundation by I. Asimov was published; who has recovered from the mesmerising effects of the Foundation books, up to, and including this? As of 1::B::2012::11::6 After the Second World War, for a while, all seemed well with science and the West, from a certain perspective. The quantum physicist David Bohm, who worked under Robert Oppenheimer on the Manhattan Project during the war, told me as much: as he started out with physics, he said, there was such a tremendous optimism connected to science and rationality, and to the child of science, modern technology. I asked him [in his office at Birkbeck College, Univ. of London, I made three such visits, and then also assisted in arranging a psychologically oriented "dialogue" seminar with him once, later, in Oslo], what is now the role of science? He said, the question isn't clear: do you mean science as it is, or science as it can be? For it CAN be fruitful, constructive; but often isn't. In the early 1950s, there was, indeed, a tremendous growth of a sense of new potential -- even as the cold war between USA and the Soviet Union grew to steadily more intense dimensions because of the same. But now behold the 1960s, and all is different. People have taken to the streets, and in the 1970s -- to put the very well-known story in utterly few words -- people stopped clipping their hairs. Only to find that the comforts of economy calls people back to some degree of conformity, and we got the superficiality of the 1980s, the vague new hopes as the millenium shifts was approached in the 1990s, the surprise that no deep changed occurred except the fabulous dominance of the internet in the beginning of the new millenium, and then the complexities of economies that no longer seems to be able to get out a groove of debt. Why did it all change? One can find a number of apparently logical descriptions. One is that the technology, the convenience of toasters and smarter cars and more visual mass media and all sorts of things made people spoiled and bored with going on along the same lines as before. One wanted to recover lost contact with nature and sensuality, and with a mind- fulness and religiosity that came on top of increased wealth in Northern America, Europe, Australia, Japan and elsewhere. There was the dangers of the atomic bombs in the global stalemate between the Soviet Union and the West. There was the key liberation of women that brought traditional family structures into a new, less predictable state. And so on and so forth. And perhaps ALL these theories, repeated endlessly and part of the more or less global cultural hypnosis, are entirely off the mark. Perhaps there was one thing -- one book series, more precisely, -- which so shocked humanity to the core that all that happened after that has been taking place in the slavery of that shock and its information content. This is a thought that sounds perhaps like a particularly implausible conspiracy theory, but hold on for a sec. Give it a slight chance, please. I have seen it said that the Foundation scifi book series, up to, at least, the Second Foundation, published in 1953, written by the russian-american scientist Isaac Asimov, is regarded as perhaps the greatest science fiction ever written. But if you know anything of this book series, has it occurred to you how little it is credited for being behind all sorts of developments since? It has the mutants of the X-Men in it; it has the imperial galactic civilisation clashing of the Star Wars in it; it has the miniatyrisation of modern microelectronics in it -- all the way up to, and infinitely beyond, the iPhone -- it has the power of capitalism in it, and much of the shakiness of capitalism as well, -- so much so that Chinese history of the past decade is more or less nothing but a chapter in one of his Foundation books. It has every form of conspiracy theory, even, in core form, epically expanded into a brilliant novel. It shakes quantum theory to pieces and puts its startships through a warping hyperspace; and the fact that the book misses badly on the reality of our manifest universe which has so very, very, very many galaxies than just one matters not at all -- it is just charming of a novel this size, like forgetting to to put a full stop somewhere, in an novel which otherwise can claim pretty much pure excellence. Still, nothing of what I said can justify the claim that it has mesmerized all humanity. Much go against this claim -- for instance, comparatively few people on the street, if they are asked, have read them, or even heard of them. Many books have had predictive elements in them without hypnotising all humanity -- Arthur C Clarke's books, for instance, typically have a very large predictive value, but I make no such claims for his books. In order to see if there is anything to the idea I am putting forth, forgive me if you know the books well, but I must repeat some of its overall structure. The beginning of the Foundation book series starts with a civilisation that has developed and spread through all the galaxy, a human civilisation, with people like us, but a technology greatly beyond ours. It has existed in a stable form for dozens of millenia, and in the very core of that Galactic civilisation, indeed in the core of this universe's single galaxy itself, there is one planet, Trantor, which is practically devoid of Nature. It is the administrative center of the galaxy. In it, a scientist named Hari Seldon works out a certain type of science that predicts the irreversible fall of the whole galactic empire pretty soon, compared to its fabulously long past. In book after book, as the centuries roll on, the rational but somewhat incomprehensibly constructed science of the dead hand of Seldon seems to compell the galactic history as it then develops, often against great odds; but in a way that always looks perfectly logical when later on reflected upon. This is supposed to engender a Second Empire, and the germ of that new empire is the Foundation, a planet at the edges of the galaxy. Seldon mentions, before he dies, that the Foundation folks should not forget that there is another foundation, a Second Foundation, which is -- "At Star's End, at, let's say, the other end of the galaxy". This enigmatic phrase is used as the Foundation grows in strength and as various people, for various reasons, also grow in fear of this always unseen quiet force, emanating from this place nobody knows where is -- but which has a name, the Second Foundation. The Second Foundation, it appears, is a science meshed with psychology to a perfection that lends it features of what one might call telepathy; and it more and more emerges that the whole unfoldment of world history in the rational, technological, scientific and also sociological way predicted so clearly and rationally ONLY occurred because of the invisible hand not just of the long-dead Hari Seldon, but but of the invisible hands of highly living people who practise arts which over-rule all other arts of rulership. The young, brilliant author Isaac Asimov works towards this climax in several books, pulling, as it were, all sorts of people with him -- both marxist-oriented people, who looks to the force of history to overthrow the capitalists, and who wants history to have its own logic, and technological rationalists who hopes to see science as the salvation of humankind -- the latter being an attitude my late physicist friend Bohm hinted on as predominant when Bohm was young. The prophet-like status of Hari Seldon also echoes romantic spiritual inclinations in many people who want to see reality as coming together towards some spiritual wholeness not as yet found in the past. I choose now, in the completion of this argument that I am putting forward, to ignore the last productions from Asimov after the Second Foundation had come forward in the war against the Mule, and then again come forward in the war waged by the First Foundation against the Second Foundation. The later ramblings from Asimov was on the level of infinitely many other low-quality scifi novels that the world has seen too many of. Do not let them disturb the picture, please, if I may point it out, of the Foundation trilogy up to and including these two galactic wars with the Second Foundation involved. The rational, scientifically educated, politically astute Asimov pulls people along who have just about ANY inclination, gives them trust in a certain approach to rationality, and -- gradually, but with an absolute firm hand -- shows them that there is a meta-science, in the people who manipulate mind, and who makes them match certain developments AS IF THESE WERE SCIENTIFIC. Those who at the beginning were already disposed to believe in direct mind-contact were perhaps the least shocked by this, but even they might be surprised after going through the galactic centuries, hand-in-hand with Asimov as he explains the wonders of the as-yet unmade Seldon science. They might be forgiven if they temporarily forget their normal worldview. But all the others, who are not disposed to handle themes of telepathy, were snared into it, and at no point was there ever a clear-cut conversion point stating: you have gotta believe in telepathy to read the next chapter. The Second Foundationers do their stuff by eye- contact, they do not read minds at a distance. That said, they do absolutely everything -- elegantly, surely, and with galactic, millenia- strong confidence in what they are doing, although there are questions they have to ponder over once in a while. But even their uncertainties they have calculated over, all the way to several decimal dots. Wedge the power of the mind of the young Asimov (again, please, ignore the contributions by Asimov that seeked to prolong the series beyond its natural point -- he was obsessed with writing and must be forgiven for not always producing such top quality, especially when the quality of what he first did was such that it perhaps could not be superceded) -- well, anyway, try and wedge the power of Asimov's mind against that of the rest of humanity, from World War II days up until the mid-1950s. In just those days, I dare say there was no influence stronger, speaking of deep-cultural influences. 1960s is an altogether different arena. Pre-WWII absolutely different also. Only Asimov smiled, spiritually; and folks like Tolkien, who went into purer realms of magic. But Asimov stayed with one foot in science, and let the other foot touch the stars; he had one foot in science, and let the other touch a mysticism he never expressed in those books -- but let everybody into. Everybody, because there was no alternative influence at that time to match the scope of Asimov. There was no scifi movies other than outragously silly ones. There was no epic-sized scifi novels doing anything comparative, though there were many much shorter scifi stories and some of them had potential or even hints of greatness; and even true literary greatness, but not greatness in terms of prolonged galactic scope and capacity to both embrace science AND negate it, seamlessly, and over many years of writing novels in sequel. The shock of Asimov must have worked its way through the minds of all the influential people who read these books, into a myriad technological and cultural developments as we saw the 1960s. Suddenly, with enhanced technology, mass media, women's liberation, all that, what he had worked out in the privacy of his psyche could be thrown around between people at large, and expanded upon, wildly, in all sorts of directions. And indeed, that is exactly what the 1960s are about, and in some sense, also the 1970s. Then, the weariness of this, not getting it right; and there is still weariness -- and, I propose, and submit, that to this day, the hypnosis has lasted. It had to be spelled out to be dis- spelled, no? For something new to come, we have got to go further, and we can only come further, but totally embracing the reality of the greatness of what he did. In the most non-humble opinion of this writer. Time to go on! And so, if I am right, there is ONLY one way to go beyond Isaac Asimov's absolutely brilliant and mesmerising Foundation books -- to read them again and again, marvel over them, and reflect over how important it is not to be in their grip, considering that perhaps humanity for more than half a century has been absolutely a slave to every comma in these books. As I see it, it is not an exaggeration. The ripe and permanent web, beyond further stages, as we define as 'Web III', is indicated above in a series of loosely related mini-articles. The notion of eco-nomy is greater than mere economy (see next mini-article) also fits nicely with this. *** ONE DEFINITION OF (PART OF THE MEANING OF) FIRST-HAND ECONOMICS, WHICH CAN ALSO BE SPELLED ECO-NOMY (pronunciation: eco then a pause, then nomy, or eco-dash-nomy) -- LAWS OF SOCIETAL HOUSEHOLD Related concepts: analogous first-hand fields, incl. first-hand computing, first-hand electronics, first-hand chemistry, first-hand physics, and first- hand mechanics incl car mechanics. When I first defined the notion of first-hand 'relationship to data' in the area of computer programming, which then became part of a more general notion of 'first-hand programming', it was -- during the 1997-2006 development of the concepts and implementations of the Firth platform and that which eventually became the Lisa GJ2 Fic3 programming language -- all concerned with seeing the data rather than treating them by means of vague abstract ideas. I realised that much of what is taught as theory at the universities was not very much theory in the greek sense of the root of the word, theatre or 'theorein', meaning viewing, -- and that what Sherlock Holmes was made to say in the writings of Mr A C Doyle was not really taken any much seriously. 'It is a capital mistake,' said Holmes, 'to theorize before one has enough data. That leads one to twist data to fit theories, instead of theories to fit data.' -- or about those words, quoted by memory, from one of the audio recordings in excellent English found free from copyright at Instead, to prepare for university exams -- and this concerns exams in computing also -- theories with sparse support, at best, from real facts, real data in other words, are given funny abstract shapes and diagrams in order to faciliate memory. So much energy, in fact, goes into this funny- making over theories that data are all but lost in the efforts to memorise theories prior to exams. This also affects language strongly: the individual words and phrases and sentences become a means to enhance memory before exams, rather than part of a perceptive process over what we sense as clearly as possible. As a result thereof, few has the preparation to relate to ANY data first-hand, when all their background is the 20th century type of academic upbringing. In computer programming, this means that the numbers and matrices of numbers become mysterious 'objects', which have 'features' and even possibly, one imagines, 'behaviours'. This distance from what is computed over becomes accellerated when whole language structures, such as Python, is erected in honor of pure abstractions. In contrast, in order to connect to what is referred to of data, one must put strong boundaries on the allowed quantities of data, and on the allowed ways data can be formatted, and always preserve a sense in which free, meaningful viewing of the data can occur. This is realised throughout in the 32-bit Lisa GJ2 Fic3 programming language. A 32-bit approach to computing allows for a cultivation of meaning, whereas 64-bit or higher means that only a statistical distant relationship is possible to the computer's interior. (The hardware can be 64-bit such as when one runs Ubuntu 64-bit in order to have compatibility of various kinds.) What came out of these personal enquiries, where I had nothing to go on except some very loose remarks in the direction of meaning and away from meaningless abstractions in the talk by the author of Perl, Larry Wall, where he describes his education in chemistry, music and greek (from the 1990s or earlier, I think), was that MEANINGFULNESS is a suitable criterion for first-handedness in programming. I then extended this to what I had already been working on for much much longer in the area of physics, and eventually also shaped concepts such as first-hand mechanics -- with a car engine that makes sense in the sense also that you can work on its component first-hand -- rather as in Mr R M Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance -- which is really honoring just the same principle -- and, eventually, also in economics. In the branch of economics or interactivity economy (as I prefer to call it, after I coined the term in MYWEBOOK.TXT, see link in frontpage and in Firth platform, Firth is at if you click at the image there) -- I first applied it with currency day-trading. You find on this page, the page, a description of something of what it means to look at the currency data in a first-hand and also intuitive sense, aided by analysis but not limited to any analysis, so as to make decisions that properly come from a good hot feeling in the gut area -- reflecting the intelligence of the whole of the brain's and mind's perceptive processes as revealed through the harmonious, stamash- trained (a kind of yoga) body. Then visual curves can be of help, and certainly much concrete knowledge about the arithmetics of the numbers. In number theory, the meaningfulness criterion I had of course applied in order to look at the idea -- the coherence or lack thereof, of the idea -- of the collection of all whole positive numbers. The notion of the so-called 'limit', which aims to justify the existence of a finite set with a flexible type of limit, was found to be sneaking in the infinity notion without admitting to it -- in the very notion of 'arbitrary number' as necessarily applied when the limit notion is called for. In short, I realised that 20th century mathematics is NOT and CANNOT BE, seen as a whole, any first-hand enterprise at all! And this tied very nicely up with the apparent paradoxes that had been shown to arise with infinities due to the normalisation practises in conventional bohrian quantum theory when extended to become a more general physics theory. As a result, a proper physics of a first-hand kind, must, I realised, primarely be informal -- just as Mr K R Popper had maintained but on entirely different grounds. Then it can call on something formal but this must be honoring first-handedness and so the Lisa Gj2 Fic3, or F3 (also called F3V since F3V is the proper command to start up Firth F3) is proper as algorithm for some features of this -- for instance electronics. As for first-hand electronics and first-hand chemistry, or ATOMLITE.TXT, as we call it, see links to Stamash Educational CenterS, or S.E.C.S., from the F3 resource center page ( Here there are also texts indicating why the theories of electronics from the 20th century are not proper neither for the data of the physical hardware nor according to the larger context of a quantum-relevant understanding of e.g. transistors, -- so I summarise the most important phenomena of quantum and relativity kinds, both general and special, in what I informally has called, and published as part of the 2004 book in my pen name Stein von Reusch as found at Norwegian National Library cfr, as super-model theory. This has been part of the Firth platform since its release in 2006, where a metaphorical statement or theory of a very playful kind, connected to the beginnings of the universe, was published as part of the consciousness-stream Manhattan Transformation scifi writings, in which 'the author' of the writings were 'interviewed' by an 'interviewer' -- in some of the background .TXTs there -- as to whether it is seriously true that the past of the universe, up to a point, was a kind of simulation, erected to give meaning to just these unfolding processes and scifi babes, including Lisa, Athina and Helena Salinger, as there introduced as world-muses. This Firth platform was distributed in March 2006 to a number of friends in CD format, at the same time as it was uploaded to the Internet and has been available continously since then. Anyway, my unique and original idea of the past as a form of simulation was instantly recognised as interesting also by artists, and compared with other more general notions of simulation and of such as implicate generation according to the Implicate Order idea of Mr D Bohm from the 1970s; cfr also notes from 2008 about it at front cover. However, a key point -- not always realised well in those who picked this up or who tried to compare it to earlier notions -- was that the point of the word 'simulation' is to imply something actual which then is a more real time process, now taking place, always. And so a change- over from simulation time to actuality time, or from simulation space to actuality space, or from a simulation universe to an actuality universe, is an absolute key point to understand this my original contribution (as also some of my friends elaborated on). Actuality is a question of meaning, a meaning that flows on and is never fully dechipered by any human technology NOR by any human being in full. A relative understanding of what is going on is however an appreciable goal, in each particular domain. Going then into the domain of interactivity economy, or economics, put more briefly, we find that first-hand economics means * Emphasizing meaningful, humane-verifiable transactions in a meaningful quantity * De-emphasizing any element of loan or any reliance of any instrument such as 'credit card' * Responsiveness. If an order is placed, there is a receipt that an order is placed, and no orders -- in the ultimate situation, where a 1-st hand economy is realised fully -- are placed automatically, with any automatic renewal. In this way, there is not the temptation to misuse a renewal option so as to pretend that sales were going on when they were not going on. * If an order is cancelled, then if the society allows for it and the type of transaction is such that it is called for, an instant and automatic receipt for the order cancellation is transmitted. Otherwise, a swift honest dignified generous response by the company to the customer person or customer company is given in due time. * If an order is placed, and there are reasons for delivery before payment, this is done on a meaningful trust-bond relationship between customer and company (or selling person), and this is done only when the selling company is at ease with the fact that not all delivered items will be paid for. In such cases, one must have the righteous approach to this, and regard the items sent out in this way as gifts, instead of sold items, and refrain from calling on distasteful approaches for getting one's payment. It is so that one will thereby have a component of spiritual faith in that what is fair is ultimately what happens in each case; and also, practically, psychologically, one will give energy to building up splendid customer-relations -- with objective messages that are given as early as one can, with politeness and as much completeness as is called for -- honoring good messaging principles -- and have a radiance that implies that one is entirely beyond running after lost goods or coming along with any petty threats to unpaying customers. Instead, one will strengthen the good customers, and those who turn out to be not worthy of trust at present, one will simply, gently, avoid. * In first-hand economy, we recognise that each human being can have a meaningful first-hand pride in work done, in feeling that one has a function in providing as much quality as one wants to, even if this quality is not dictated by a statistical investigation into what customers 'demand'. In this way, the first-hand entrepeneur engages in a sense of meaningful livelihood which goes beyond any such question as 'the bottom line' of the budget in monetary arithmetic terms. Original computer rendering by Aristo Tacoma (photo on top) of classical fashion photo (beneath this paragraph) of the italian model Vanessa Hessler, using the personal computer to modify an otherwise more static photo (however excellent, as in this case), into something which suggests a richer spectre of healthy movement along the lines which classical oil paintings inspire The point, then, is to contribute to healthy stimulation of the mind in a way which by deliberate impressionistic-like 'clutterings' of an otherwise pixel-perfect image of something nice, enforces the mind/brain of the observer the recreate a wide range of interesting possibilities both of postures and movements -- an approach which can also inspire a form of paintings quickly made along the lines indicated by spring/BI or BI Spring in the dictionary, and developed by this author since 2003 at the yoga4d and yoga6d dot org sites (earlier, dot com). Mind experts advice such approaches rather than attempts to recreate by technological means an imitation/simulation of real life 3D, because it is more healthy for the mind to do more work. Vanessa Hessler by Aristo Tacoma By Aristo Tacoma, derived from Lincoln '74 The first-hand elcars of the 21st century, simple to fix, with safe huge batteries, can be made, with ample sound generators, along the squarish symmetry lines -- such as in this original computer rendering of an image of a Lincoln Continental Mark IV from 1974, by Aristo Tacoma. These articles are made in the spirit of accomodating what is sensed to be a quest for first-hand eco-economy also. Original computer rendering of classic HM fashion photo, by Aristo Tacoma Original computer rendering of classic Vogue photo (November '08) with Natalia Vodianova, by Aristo Tacoma A TIP ON HOW TO PAY SAFELY ACROSS INTERNET: Use cash cards -- with impersonal data -- that you buy for each buy or round of buys, when the sum is moderate; and Swift bank transfer or another type of suitable bank transfer for higher sums and/or when cash cards aren't suitable. Use cash whenever possible for 1st hand connection to the transaction, and use personal credit or debet (debit) cards only when required. See also: HOW TO CHOOSE BETWEEN LINXUXES [[[Note: the linux world has changed at several points and the updated information you find at, or linked to from,]]] How to choose between linuxes such as Ubuntu, Xubuntu, CentOS, and OpenSuse: First, Ubuntu is usually the one that works on the most PCs, more so than derivatives of Ubuntu. Xubuntu is more easy to configure but slightly more requiring of technical skills than Ubuntu. OpenSuse is a different branch altogether -- especially if you choose the socalled KDE option during installation -- and has a tendency to work on very many machines like Ubuntu, but it requires a lot more technical skill & patience to do any such thing as getting mp3 music play (we'll explain how here, in next paragrap). CentOS is the choice when you know everything about Linux from inside out and back and upside down and from bottom up -- it ASSUMES that you know a lot lot and the docs are more sparse with CentOS than with OpenSUSE, whereas information that applies to Ubuntu will in many cases also apply to Xubuntu and Ubuntu is really well documented. NOTES ABOUT OPENSUSE, FROM OPENSUSE.ORG, A POWERFUL, LARGE LINUX ALTERNATIVE: Opensuse mp3 playing: First, get the Opensuse to work. It will typically say various things that indicate that something is wrong but usually these messages can be ignored -- that's part of the approach you must take with much of OpenSuse. Then with the browser go to and click on the KDE Codecs (or another one if you didn't choose KDE as the variant of your OpenSuse). Allow installation to begin, answer with password and so on. It will then come with one of the error messages again. In this case, it will offer a list, [1] fix it by doing so and so, and you should go through that list and click in front of the [1] option for all that comes up. Any OTHER type error message, just click skip or ignore. Eventually, it should say Installation is Successful. Then you open Terminal. There, type cnf xmms and it will tell you what to type to install xmms, which is a very tiny and very powerful little mp3 player which has existed for as long as linux has existed. It will draw on the Codecs you installed, as will some other programs. When you type in the thing it asks you to type in, and password and so on, it will probably again give some kind of error message and ask whether it's okay to ignore, and that you confirm. Then, having installed it, type xmms and by clicking on the tiny little thingy you should be able to play mp3 on the computer, if OpenSuse made sense of that computer! ;-) After you have done some installations of software through the (in browser) or looked at answers to questions in and THEN installed, and also done the Codecs above, then usually you can get software if you know the exact name by the cnf xxxxx trick. There is a set of packages that will make things work more smoothly, such as allowing editors to be open from the adminitrator su mode, and allowing new pathways to new programs to be more neatly installed. So you should probably do a lot with the before you do a lot with cnf on the command line to install things. If you on a rather 'bare' OpenSUSE do something like cnf kedit you will get a command for how to install it. But to run it, you may have to either type /opt/kde3/bin/kedit instead of just kedit unless you have a properly expanded OpenSUSE by means of the graphical ways of installing things; and it will only open in the local user mode, not in administrator mode. But in administrator mode, you can make it easier by typing e.g. cp /opt/kde3/bin/kedit /usr/bin -i so that next time you can type just kedit to start it. In short, this is for people who like using screwdrivers and decarbonising the plugs themselves. Don't expect that the behaves anything like the Software Center in Ubuntu or Xubuntu. Installing software by means of is like hunting after wild animals in a big forest. Software Center in Ubuntu is, in contrast, to shoot tame animals while hovering over a zoo containing them all, in a helicopter -- if you accept the metaphor. In other words, most installations from are unlikely to work out entirely on their own. For instance, you may there find an 'audacious' package that's able to play .wav but not necessarily .mp3 without additional tweaking which for sure is stated somewhere around in the forums. But the benefit of knowing OpenSuse is that once you get something to work in it, it is splendidly built, and both solid and configurable. When you plug in a flashdisk, by the way, and let file manager open it, it will be /var/run/media/USERNAME/ rather than just /media/USERNAME if you wish to find the files via terminal (at least that's one way). You should also be aware that there are things that cannot be done with 'sudo -i' but which CAN be done using the command 'su'. In other words, the 'sudo -i' inside Ubuntu and Xubuntu matches the command 'su' in OpenSuse a bit more than it matches the command 'sudo -i' in OpenSuse. UBUNTU: A GOOD STANDARD UNIVERSAL PLATFORM FOR LINUX ON YOUR PC, PC LAPTOP, PC NOTEBOOK, AND OTHER DEVICES AS WELL Ubuntu comes in a range of 'flavours'. I emphasize the standard platform because of the wide compatibility with hardware and software all over the place (for concrete links, see also norskesites/fic3 when it comes to listing which laptops etc have been especially tested with it). Of the official flavours, appeals in many ways, cfr for notes about how to fine-tune a mouse in such an X Windows platform so as to be optimal for art sketching. The notes that are at that link should be considered carefully in addition to what is next said, because it has valuable updated information on pendisks and boot options and such. Be aware that on some PCs, there are hardware differences between the USB plugin-ports, so that not all may be equally well suited for an installation procedure. You have to be willing to spend some time and have the good gumption of doing some intuitive variation when you install various platforms on various PCs, though sometimes it works smoothly without any hitch at once. Some notes which may be useful: To install it, go to the standard version (not beta, unless you're particular interested as a developer) as indicated on front page Have a pen disk ready if you are going to do the 'install from pen disk' option. Follow notes also given at the install page at for this. I advice you to regularly install a totally fresh operating system on any machine that you use regularly, rather than merely selecting upgrades. But do get all the security updates so you have some degree of protection against data viruses. Select 64-bit Ubuntu for the widest hardware compatibility when it comes to machines of 2013 make and later, and 32-bit Ubuntu for mostly all earlier machines and for a selection of also newer machines if they are dedicated in hardware to open standards. When you buy a PC that already has Ubuntu in it, it makes things simpler; but when you buy one with the sponsored commercial messy platform MsWindows in it, you have to tweak it a little bit -- and consult frontpage as for the alternative that we use much, and various questions concerning how to install, also some updated after this list was written! Press ESC continuously or repeatedly at the moment you push the power-on button, or (next time, if it didn't work), F1, F2, Del, Ins or even such as Ctr-Alt-Ins to get Setup before you install. To call off a reboot in process, hold the power button in for ca 10 seconds, so you can try again. When you are at the setup, for the normal independent PC user with normal security requirements (or consult security experts in your company) enable Legacy Boot and Legacy this and that the most and disable such as EFI and UEFI; have a look at Boot and see if USB Pen disk appears there. On some, it will appear a boot menu if you power-on with the pen disk inserted, and at the same time click ESC during power-on, so that you use arrows to select the pen disk from the Boot menu. THE MOST STABLE WAY TO INSTALL UBUNTU OR XUBUNTU * I find that, on many computers, it works the best to select the option of Trying Ubuntu first, rather than Install at once. And also, some of the USB sockets on your computer may be more adapted to working both with high-speed cameras and with USB boot-pendisks than others, so you have to be a bit in the experimentative mood sometimes to get these things working out neatly. * I also find that the computer tends to run the best with the greatest variety of software if it has the U.S. English keyboard and the New York time zone -- because this is the standard values in the hardware. This is the standard if you boot Ubuntu .iso install without having Internet connected. I find that this is usually the way to do it. If you choose to use the UNetbootin package to make USB disks -- see also or for how to erase a USB disk previoiusly used with such USB-boot programs -- it may offer a version number that isn't matching the version you're going to work with. Try then to fiind a version number most similar to the product you have, and choose the most normal standard harddisk .iso options you can find in usual cases. * So you try Ubuntu, see that it seems to work on your machine, and then you select from the icon menu Install Ubuntu. It will then install on a broader range of computers than if you go straight ahead to select install. This has to do with tiny but significant variations in how an operating system ought to initialise the hardware. If you install something like Xubuntu, you get a wider range of possibilities to adjust the desktop, but along with these possibilities come extra responsibility, for it is easy to make the platform come into a state where the best way to fix it is to reinstall it. Also, Ubuntu in its standard form may perform better on some PCs because it has been tested on more PCs than some of its flavours or derivatives. In general, the newest of the new PCs, unless specifically announced to cohere with classical standards, perform best with the newest of the new and best-financed linxues. As soon as a PC is about two or three years old, the spectre of distributions that can be used with it widen, and in a certain sense, then, the value of this PC actually increases, like a good currency bet. * The cleanest feeling, as said elsewhere also, is in maintaining a full set of backup of files on pendisks, and actually erasing everything on harddisk and install a clean new version. This is also a way of ensuring far more than any other method that you aren't peddling computer viruses around, especially if you have had good control over the pendrive used and the .iso of the new operating system. * Interesting lightweight laptops such as somewhat more expensive Asus have in them in the Setup menu the option to run Turbo. Only do this if you also fit a fan under and/or beside the computer (and have air under it), and this might be interesting to do esp. when installing, so installation will go really fast. But check the heat of a computer: if it once overheats enormously, it is like a car, it can do something to the core of it. FORMATTING A PENDISK THAT WON'T FORMAT IN THE UTILITY THAT COMES UP WHEN YOU WRITE 'DISK' AT UBUNTU DASH: ***Improved: SEE, where a link to a place shows the solution -- to use the program 'fdisk' prior to the use of mkfs, where all the partitions of the pendisk is deleted by using its command d, followed by the command w for write; it seems then that the umount command will be effective and mkfs will consistently work! *** If you have trouble with formatting the pendisk, and you have an Ubuntu (earlier version, perhaps) already running, do this: [1] click CTR-ALT-F3 to switch to a text mode linux. Type your user name, and your normal password. Then type sudo -i and again give your normal password. Be sure you have an empty directory named such as the letter a in the disk. If not, type mkdir /a [2] insert the pendisk that you wish to totally erase and prepare for being a startup pendisk. Be sure you really have backup of absolutely everything on this pendisk. If you are sure, note which letter series that comes up, such as sdb. It can be sdc etc. We need a number after this letter series. It may be 1, such as sdb1, or sdc1. We need this to be right so we erase the right disk. So try type mount /dev/sdb1 /a or whatever that comes up of letter sequence. Use number 2 or 3 if 1 doesn't work. Then type l /a (lowercase letter l) and you should get up a list of present content on the disk. If this is the pendisk, do the format, if not, try more or do umount /a and unplug the pendisk, then type exit and exit and press CTR-ALT-F7 to return to your normal graphics. When you know which letter sequence xxxx is the pendisk for sure (and not your harddisk!) then type umount /a unplug the pendisk, wait half a minute, insert it again, and type mkfs -t vfat xxxx where you substitute the letter sequence for xxxx so you format the right thing. Then unplug the pendisk, type exit and press lineshift, exit again, and press CTR-ALT-F7 to go back to main graphics screen. Some pendisks don't allow so easily the STARTUP DISK CREATOR (as the program is called if you search for it in the Dash in Ubuntu) to implant its startup .iso on it, when you have got the newest .iso from such as You may have to try it a bit back and forth, and see what happens: a trick can be to use an earlier version of the platform for some pendisks, or a different PC with the same version of the platform. ADJUSTING BIOS SETTINGS The easiest use of such as a laptop, maybe an ultra- light laptop (or notebook), is to clear away any residue of a commercial platform in it, and assert as much as possible of 'Legacy' book and legacy install and such in the System Setup that usually are available the first half-second after power-on by clicking ESC, F1, F2, DEL, INS or the like (it usually will say, very briefly at least). For good use of laptops and notebooks and ultralight PC's, you may want to ensure that the functionkeys have real F1..F12 functions, where that is possible. At the moment you have switched it on (click many times at ESC or F1 or F10 or F12 or DEL or INS to open BIOS) and inside BIOS SETUP you can select something about functionkeys ('Disable Action Keys' I think the phrase sometimes is). In this way, you will be able to get the functionkeys to function normally, while when you need to adjust e.g. screen intensity you will THEN use the Fn key. This is more pleasing for anyone who uses the computer in a naturally advanced way, where functionkeys can be actively used by a program. USING THE TEXT TERMINAL IN ADMINISTRATOR MODE * When you often need the sudo -i command typed, you can open the menu Edit -> Profile Preferences on top of the screen (moving mouse pointer there will show the menu line, usually). In there, select 'Title and Command', click on 'Run a custom command instead of my shell', and type the sudo -i in the line that is to right of 'Custom command.' * I suggest you use the sudo -i version also for the next work, but be aware that you should keep watch over how many licenses you are giving to programs to access your disk and your laptop and internet when you use the sudo -i a lot. On Fedora-like approaches, one must avoid this phrase sudo -i before one has typed su. When one types su, one will be prompted for root password. Then one types sudo -i to get the proper Terminal for it. *****SOME PLATFORMS OFFER A LOT POSSIBILITIES OF TURNING OFF AND ON VARIOUS UPDATES AND SUCH: ONLY THAT MOST OF THESE BUTTONS MAY HAVE VARIOUS ISSUES WITH THEM. For instance, in Ubuntu 13 for 64-bit, if you turn off all updates of all kinds, and then re-activate them -- using the Settings menu -- this re-activation doesn't automatically propagate into the software center. As a result, it will prompt again and again, and do so while taking many pauses while it is not clear what the computer is doing, for access to the updates. It will come with numerous panels which says 'Extra downloads necessary. [OK] [Repair]' which have to be clicked on again and again. This will probably improve in later Ubuntu's, but, in any case, installing even such as the MP3 extras in Ubuntu Extras may be almost impossible after turning off and then on again what sources the platform is to get its software from. But without these extras there may be all sorts of things from Flash to CD burner that won't properly work if installed later. As a result, it may be best to let some machines be installed without any barriers, so to speak -- letting all net be open to all updates to to a point, at least, where you have got all software in place, and where the only settings you changed where the important things -- the things about recording all your documents and so on in 'Security and Privacy' settings. But machines which have been installed in such a massively nonfiltered way are likely to be heavy with software you have no insight into, there's likely going to be all sorts of things about the platform you don't get info into, even if it is priniciple open source. Besides, these updates don't always come along with source and they don't always come along with a guarantee that the source is matching one-to-one any binary that comes with it. So that's where lighter-weight platforms come in -- where you installed the barest minimum in order to get exactly what you want to run. This is an 'afterthought', with some repetitions relative to what is said just above and just beneath here, in this section of Yoga6d EcoNomy column that deals with Ubuntu. Some of it may apply for later versions; some of it concers other products such as Firefox: HOW TO ERASE A USB-FLASHDISK, PUT NEWEST UBUNTU 15.05 TO IT, AND HOW TO FIX THE FONTS-ISSUE WITH THE NEWEST WINE WINDOWS-COMPATIBILITY INSIDE UBUNTU; and some words on what new PC's to buy in the shop, and why not to use wireless connections; and some notes on browsers and privacy First, congratulations to Canonical, Inc, for their work with GNU/Linux of the Debian branch to elevate it into something that affects the world more deeply than any other Linux -- in a combination of fierce idealism by the founder of Canonical, Mark Shutterworth, with the business attitudes that make things professional to the core. Ubuntu is extremely compatible. When you select 'install all extras' during installation, it comes with Mozilla that runs flash at once; you can then go to the program called 'Ubuntu Software Center' and install Audacious, which is an excellent easy-to-use no-nonsense music player for mp3 and wav and all that. There are literally millions of features to GNU/Linux Ubuntu and to the various ways setting it all up. We must hope that this standard XWindows Linux always comes in this high-standard way and able to run in the classical 32-bit standard always (I do not regard any Linux that only comes in 64-bit as serious; 64-bit is rife with privacy issues and clutterings which stop classical programs from running smoothly, because 64-bit CPU's are elephants which do nothing elegant inside them.). So, again, congratulations to Canonical for Ubuntu, and keep on the good work. For those who want to get some dirt under their nails, and who are not afraid of typing in lines which have technical words, I have some suggestions in the follows; and close this little note by some general comments about PC choice, and everybody should prefer cables to wireless solutions, and such: So, I have just tried the new versions of Linux from in their standard flavour -- there are other flavours, fancy in different ways -- but there is something rugged and robust about the standard that the main Ubuntu is setting across the world, and with its flavours, including Xubuntu, Ubuntu shores up interest in all other forms of Linux as well, such as OpenSuse. I will tell how to erase a used Flashdisk and put in the newest large Ubuntu .iso using the excellently made freeware for Linux and Windows called UNETBOOTIN in this paragraph -- though there are many other ways of getting Ubuntu into a machine, this has become one that those who want to have extra know-how should have a grip on. I link to UNETBOOTIN source-site and have other comments there at the G15 PMN programming language source location, at, and, by the way, the G15 PMN programming language works fine with 32-bit Ubuntu in the newest form, and it also has a 64-bit version that works for the newest Ubuntu. The very same versions also work with most Linuxes of the past decade including such as Xubuntu, OpenSuse and CentOS, one can even get it to run perfectly on CentOS 5.5; and there is a high-compatible version for Firth, FreeDOS and DOSBox provided as a 'service pack' of the G15 PMN programming language -- so this new and elegant novel stack-based language can be used in a variety of ways. But first, a comment for those who already have Ubuntu in their PC, and want to run some Windows programs on it as well, by the Wine package: One would have thought that the producers of the Wine Windows-compatibility package, in how they tweak it for the world's largest Linux, could have solved an issue that has been with it for a good while: how to get the fonts properly installed. I thought I had solved it, put an answer to about it, only to see that the more complete solution was already given on the same page, but without perhaps the little extra words that makes one try it. So I put the correct solution here. First, go to Ubuntu Software Center and select the installation of Wine (choose the one that says something about Wine .. Meta-package). This will work, and at least in many countries, maybe everyone, the Ubuntu Software Center will gray out and stop and after some hours, you'll quit it, reboot the machine, and do something like the following to repair it. You can copy and paste each line into a Terminal which opens by Ctrl-Alt-T in Ubuntu, but you must use right-click of the mouse to paste into the Terminal each time, rather than Ctrl-C. The second line is not necessary if you already have a backup folder (you can use any temporary folder) and in such a case you change the cd /backup1 to whatever you like: sudo -i mkdir /backup1 cd /backup1 apt-get update --fix-missing dpkg --configure -a wget wine andale32 After the first line, you type your password. You wait while the Wine installation completes itself. After the final line just above, you confirm that you want to install these fonts. Next, go to Mozilla, and open up this source place: In that page, click on 'msttcorefonts', and in that new page, click on the newest package at bottom of the page, which presently is the one which ends with "..3.6_all.deb". Mozilla will ask you what to do with it, and suggest that it is to be opened with Ubuntu Software Center, do accept that. Acknowledgements for the link is in (where I tried to edit in these extra comments about the above solution from, after I realised that my initial text I put in there wasn't fully curing all aspects of the issue; but I don't do logins with passwords because I hate logins except when absolutely necessary and so I'm not sure my qualification of my own first answer there was accepted -- that's how it is when one doesn't do logins! ;-) ). It may still be that some irritating error message will arise after this point, though -- this seems to be a feature with every platform all across the planet, and Ubuntu has its share still. Still an issue with the fonts? The best bet then is to repeat some part of the above after first doing apt-get remove --purge ttf-mscorefonts-installer In any case! Let us hope that this way of getting the fonts into Wine becomes automatic inside the Ubuntu Wine package before too long. It will increase the popularity of Ubuntu further. Java has become even more irrelevant than ever lately as most banks etc have moved away from relying on Java for particular logins. To rinse a USB-flash-disk. Say, you have a 16 GB pendisk or something like that (shouldn't normally be bigger than 32 GB for these purposes, due to how it is supposed to be formatted!), and you have already downloaded the newest 32-bit (or, if you absolutely think it is necessary, 64-bit, but 64-bit is always more problematic in subtle ways and should be avoided unless there are strong reasons to use it -- in my own highly personal opinion!) .iso file, named ubuntu-something-something.iso You have also installed UNETBOOTIN eg from Ubuntu Software Center in a previous Ubuntu. This program was created by Geza Kovacs, released as open source under GNU GPL. You have a flashdisk, and you want it to be a tabula rasa, a blank open space, to be formatted by UNETBOOTIN. So, you plug it in, start up a terminal, type the sudo -i to get into Administrator mode, and type fdisk -l then it will probably show up on the list as having its code-name as /dev/sdb1. This you can test by unplugging it again (selecting eject of it), and doing a new fdisk -l. If /dev/sdb1 (or /dev/sdc1, or /dev/sdb2, or whatever it tells) then has vanished, and you are absolutely confident without the slightest doubt that this does indeed refer to that pendisk, then -- and don't do the next step unless you are sure, and only on your own responsiblity, you type, erasing all on the specified domain without any possibility of retrieving it back fdisk /dev/xxxx where instead of xxxx you type that code you just worked out with such certainty. Here, you delete all its partitions. Normally, for any flashdisk previously formatted by Unetbootin (e.g, last year), it will require these letter-commands and lineshift after each: d4 d3 d2 d w Then type, with equal care, as this does irreversible formatting of the disk specified umount /dev/xxxx mkfs -t vfat /dev/xxxx And unplug it, and reboot. Then you plug it in, and exit the window to it that automatically opens. Start up UNETBOOTIN. It took me a long time to discover that the word 'or' is in the toptext there. UNETBOOTIN says, then, that either you select which version you want to select, OR you specify that you have the iso already. So you go straight to selecting the iso that you have downloaded. Mozilla probably tucked it to /home/YOUR-USER-NAME/downloads and you have to click a little bit to find it in UNETBOOTIN. Also, specify 500MB (probably ten times too much, but that's fine) in the line that says something about 'Ubuntu only'. Check that UNETBOOTIN has recognised the existence of the /dev/sdb1 or whatever the name was of your pendisk. Then click ok and it will produce a workable pendisk which you next can boot a PC with, when you click e.g. ESC or something and select that it is to be booted with it. (If UNETBOOTIN gives mysterious messages, repeat the process but with greater attention to the fdisk and the mkfs process; and be again sure that you DO NOT answer the first question that UNETBOOTIN asks, namely which Linux and which version you wish to install -- ONLY specify your .iso file and you should be fine!) Exit the Terminal's administrator mode by typing exit and repeat by typing exit once more. If you are uncertain about the security of doing things this way with Ubuntu, type 'sudo' before each line instead, there will be some more password prompts then. (In some other Linux types you can log in as root instead or use the command su which works when the Linux is set up in a different way; this concerns eg OpenSuse and Fedora.) WHICH PC'S CAN RUN LINUX? Microsoft is constantly trying to prevent Linux, in their ignoble agenda to make computing less fun in the world. So DO NOT BUY A PC IN THE SHOP WITHOUT TAKING SUCH A PENDISK WITH YOU AND SEE THAT YOU CAN BOOT IT. In particular, you must check that you can, the moment after boot, e.g. by clicking ESC or something, get into the systems settings for the machine and switch on LEGACY BOOT. If you cannot, the machine is dirt, and go for a more well-made machine, perhaps a somewhat more expensive one. Ask for a PC with Ubuntu preinstalled, why not? More and more people prefer it and such magazines as PC World are recommending it, and the main alternative to Microsoft. However, if you have a dirty PC which cannot do legacy boot, and which has Windows on it, UBUNTU MAY BE ABLE TO RUN ON IT EVEN SO -- then one must use the 64-bit version, and perhaps install it by going via Windows, using an Ubuntu installer which you fetch via a Windows net browser. This is all due to intense work by Ubuntu, Debian and other folks in the Linux communities, so that hardware remains hardware and software remains software, despite the attempts, for narrow-minded self-centered commercial reasons by some companies to blur the distinction in such as the misnamed 'secure boot' element put into place on some PC's. If you very carefully consult all the links from Ubuntu's frontpage, you'll find ways to search up which laptops and such that give the best results. If you buy a laptop, buy a mouse and a keyboard inexpensively made, perhaps, for plugging into the machine via standard USB, so that you get real function key functionality and can do speed typing and have an easy time doing artistic and also technically precise use of a mouse. Tablets are not serious products in many people's opinions. As for mobile phone mini-mini-PC's, these are approaching normal PC standards and so serious people should program PC's and handle PC's because in the future, any mobile phone will be just a tiny PC without a proper screen and keyboard, with a phone-electronics device added to it. It is not worth learning Android/Java-nonsense or other such temporary approaches unless your job today is tied up to today's phone-computers, if you want to be in good control of the technology of tomorrow. That's all going to be PC and all going to be Linux, with a sprinkling of the jails-made-stylish called Apple (not my phrase). Both Apple and Android are forms of the very same platform Unix-style stuff, it is just that the coating is different, and there are more commercial parameters which make things less fun. By the way, laptops are typically very good choices when it comes to PC desktop solutions, when equipped with keyboard and mouse -- but remember that despite the name, they end their life if they are put on cozy places like sofa's or bed's, out of a heat that the CPU cannot stand. I always have something like an usused ashtrey or a stone or the like underneath the laptop to allow air to pass better through it, and try to avoid putting it on anything soft -- a hard table or at the floor (if you do futon-like zen programming ;), or something; and in some cases, the laptops have had it and can only keep on functioning, if at all, with a fan placed BESIDE (or under, in a laptop-fan-plate) them, while they are also raised up a little from the table. Take care of the heat issue, it is no joke: plenty of money to save in that way! WIRELESS OR CABLE? Always avoid wireless in every form unless you absolutely have to use it. It is insecure, doesn't have privacy, and, like any use of nano-technology and microfiber in clothing and cleanliness products, we need half a century more research on the actual effects on the health of human beings and on the environment before engaging in it. Always switch off Bluetooth on these machines; always use cables; refuse to approve of use of wireless in work situations; and build mobile as well as internet free zones in every house in order to have less distractions and more good work there. BROWSERS AND PRIVACY SETTINGS. By the way, good idea to at once go into Settings of Ubuntu and select Privacy. I don't want unplanned transmissions between my PC and the net, and so I turn off all automatic crash reports, and naturally I do not want logging of file use stored on the PC. Also, Mozilla Firefox is kind enough to offer privacy solutions by means of extra plug-ins, as indicated on the front-page which not only links to the G15 PMN 'free hashing' search engine I've made, but which also links to the two top privacy plugins there, at By going into the settings of the Firefox by the right-hand button on the screen with the horisontal lines, you can assert that Firefox isn't going to store cookies after exit, and that cookies are 'Never' going to be accepted from third-parties, and that Mozilla, while it should prevent automatic installations and warn about these things, it shouldn't itself censor which websites that should come up, in my opinion. It can only censor it if somebody has an absolutely objective list of which websites to block, and when this list comes from such agencies in the world as the Google behemoth, it isn't objective and that's that; beside I don't want to have Mozilla consult a list each time I go into the net. So I turn some of the settings there off, although in some connections, it may be of value to have them on. Mozilla is a REAL browser, and will continue to be so, as long as they don't disable more of the possibilities of turning javascript off. They have catered to pressures from commercial groups by making it impossible without pressing Ctrl-U to fetch images when certain settings are given, such as on the copyright-infringing Google Books pages, where fetching Google's stolen pages of other people's books isn't in any way easy (the moral of that: we're google, we don't care). Ubuntu's own upcoming browser is also real, but in 15.05 it isn't a full browser yet. Opera used to be a real alternative, but the core is now Google Chrome, and as long as the source for the core is as complex as it is, it isn't in any true sense 'open' anymore, even though technically the source code is open. Opera, and the new Vivaldi browsers, are, then, as far as I can tell, merely shells around Google's productions -- and they may be well-made shells, but like search engines which merely re-portray Google's or Bing's result in other frames, they aren't real search engines. Midori is a light-weight browser that has something about it that makes it its own thing. But it isn't making most of the things that Mozilla makes complicated more easy. Last time I tested Midori, I found that I had to spend more time with it to do simple natural things which any creative person does when exploring the net. Still, it is to be honored as an alternative which is not just a shell around a cluttered product from a corporate behemoth. There are more browsers as well, and are good at avoiding the c.b.'s and it's worth noting what they come up with in this regard. Let me add that Mozilla Firefox has an idealistic enterprise aspect to them, favouring privacy. Recently, they urged U.S. citizens to sign up for less mass surveillance. Great! But we need to realise that we must consciously talk about WORLD CITIZENSHIP when it comes to privacy issues. If we do not specify this, the old laws will still apply -- that 'foreigners' do not have privacy rights. And those old laws do not make sense in an internet era. Mozilla-folks, do you hear? You must make global worldwide privacy rights a concern also for U.S. citizens, not just U.S. privacy rights a concern for U.S. citizens -- this is important for the future of the Internet, as USA is the founding father element of the core layout of the Internet. GETTING XUBUNTU TO WORK ON PC'S THAT DON'T QUITE SUPPORT IT -- Some well-known tricks, explained {next is a little essay we had in our column above, which aimed, and -- we think, successfully -- to give the attention to xubuntu a boost; it also explained how one can make the bootup more smooth where xubuntu don't quite boot rightly, and this is an important thing to know about, as xubuntu don't boot quite as many pc's as ubuntu does.} Xubuntu -- from -- has got it all. It has got the coolest name of the ..ubuntu lot. It is the DANGEROUS Ubuntu, x-rated. It is small and exotic. You can make it look what you want, except that it won't imitate plastic and bubbles apple-style, but who really, in their most fully awakened self, can honestly say that they think Apple computers are really well-designed? They are FANCY. That's something else. They have a certain level of kid- appeal. That's also something else. But well-designed? Artistically well-done? No. Fancy. Xubuntu is not only cool, but it also has the full support of the Ubuntu community with the Ubuntu Software Center. Now that's something else than merely making it more or less compatible with this software center. Xubuntu is actually a form of Ubuntu -- yet radically different, and not at all wedded to any orientation towards the Mir that again is oriented towards phone mini-pc's and, as far as I can tell, phone mini-pc's might be commercially important and all that, but they are very rarely COOL. They are practical, for some, economical, for some, but not cool. Come on. Xubuntu can be your cool slave. You can configure it far more than it can survive. You can configure it to pieces. You can make of it a non-performable Linux. This means that the responsibility is your own. Where Ubuntu leads you by the hand, Xubuntu says: your merest whisper is my absolute law! Where Microsoft and Google platforms resembles a stalinist soviet union with forms in quadruplicate and nothing taken for granted -- one must negotiate, even plead with the platform to change -- Xubuntu simply obeys. Like a tractor. Or a Formula One car. It also has niceties like the pavucontrol advanced volume interceptor needed by Audacity audio editing already as part of its neat light package -- as well as SDL. However, where Ubuntu works on just about anything, Xubuntu is sometimes more tricky to get to work. For instance, Ubuntu can overtake a mini-PC, the tinest notebook PCs, and do so quite well, where Xubuntu simply won't get anywhere near even a test-install. If it's that serious, then there aren't all that many tricks I know of, not simple ones anyhow. But sometimes, on the newest laptops, even the more expensive ones, there are some messing-about with things due to the infernal monstrous company Microsoft and their secret contracts with the hardware makers, aiming at preventing the computer being used as a computer, rather than as a slave to their mainframe clouds, -- and this might strike most Linux down, and leave Ubuntu the sole winner, if even Ubuntu can master it. Usually, Ubuntu gets it going first, then others gradually pick up the idea of how to rule over these Microsoft-infested beasts. Xubuntu might not work in a test-install, but it might appear to install well -- if you choose, e.g. in Unetbootin, the option of Installing Without Testing First. On powerful laptops a year or, better, three years old, it will usually give a sure feeling of success at once. But on some PCs, it may not work at all, even if you start it with Internet cable connected and assert that you want it to bring all the extra software along with it at once. Number one trick: see if it works if you choose Advanced Options --> Recover mode, and it may indeed work with correct 1366 x 768 on a widescreen laptop, for instance, even if higher resolution is gone. For those who are interested in Deep and True Coolness, they don't want higher resolution than that, however. Number two trick: supposing it does start up that way, get all the updates you can, and Xubuntu extensions, and try again. Number three trick: if you have to make the Rescue Mode the standard option there's a really bad, but fully good working way, to do that. Get the gedit editor into it from the Ubuntu Software Center. Open a terminal. Do this nonsense, and don't tell anybody, after you type sudo -i and type your password. And, by the way, be sure you have backup for the PC is only moderately likely to boot at all after this neat change: cd /boot/grub cp *.cfg original-config.txt gedit *.cfg Here you get up a big file called DO NOT EDIT. You begin, arrogantly, by taking out that line. It is now editable. Next, somewhere it says ...default="0"... on a line. This number is the number of the menu that is the standard startup option, if you don't press on lineshift. 0 means the first item, 1 the second, and so on. If you have nothing but Xubuntu on a machine, you will have four lines and we're gonna make a fifth, and that corresponds to number 4. So put it to 4 instead of 0. If you have, as you should, Firth prior installed, then this will stand there as the option number 5. It may be called something different {if so, now you have the opportunity to get the menu text for Firth right, it is right in this file}, but it will, at any rate as version 14.04 of Xubuntu goes, 32-bit, which is the best, always performing more fluidly than 64-bit in ANY platform type, in our opinion -- it will stand there as the fifth. Now we're going to add then in case a sixth option, which means that you can set default="5". You work it out. Then you find the texts, quoted in 'single quotes' for the first two menu options -- these we ditch, put in 'aaa' and 'aaaaa' there. Next we're gonna trash that submenu and make it go straight to the Recovery mode option. This is the trashy way of trashing it: Copy the line that begins with sth like this: menuentry 'Ubuntu .. -generic (recovery mode)' and the next dozen lines until you see something like this initrd /boot/.. and be sure to get the completing } also. All those dozen lines you copy -- ctr-c will do. Move onwards in the list, which I'm sure includes your Firth partition, all the way until you see this stuff -- talking now of version 14.04 of Xubuntu: set timeout_style=menu and simply paste it right before that line. Fix on the text so it says menuentry 'Xubuntu' instead. Save it if you have as much spunk as I think you have. This is such a lovely bad of messing about with the code -- replete with neat errormessages during pre-startup -- that either the PC won't start anything at all before you reformat the disk, or it will start beautifully -- just two simple lineshifts are required after you switch it on and let it get into its new standard option, and the Xubuntu is working. Could it be easier? It could. That's why Xubuntu has the Wow!-factor resident in itself. It is what it is, damn it. P.S. Did it work? If so, you can improve it, by ditching the rest of the Recover menu which requires the two extra lineshifts this way: cd /lib/recovery-mode gedit recovery-menu These two commands (as before within text terminal after the normal sudo -i which gives you administrator rights in a relaxed way) gives you option to change the recovery menu. Here's how to change it: At line two in the menu, put in the word exit and there won't be any recovery menu. It will continue straight away resuming full boot, but with the feature of loading a more generally compatible video driver approach rather than any specialised video drive attempt. *****The open source Gimp program was good in Red Hat 8.0, it is different, better in some ways, worse in some ways, in Centos 5.5 -- both these free versions of early Linuxes are still freely available at our Yoga6dOrg set of sites -- but after this, Gimp got the good stuff cleansed more and more out of it. Why? Probably because they got too greedy, they wanted to outmaneuver commercial alternatives like the shoddy Photoshop. As a result, Gimp's file conversion capacities became degenerated, and things which ought to have become simpler was made sometimes even more complicated. While in the earliest forms of Gimp, we have had much use of Gimp, we have had to stop any much use of it and stop advising people to use it except as a stepstone away from Photoshop; and when we use it, we try to go for only the earliest versions. Fortunately, unlike the case for browsers, there can be no hotheaded argument in favour of only using the latest versions. The G15 Gem for small-size monochrome images should do. *****The Wine Windows program performer package is having inside it packages to log all activity that goes on. As often has been pointed out by R Stallmann and others, open source can be tailor-made to provide a viewing of what people is doing. Google's open source is often like this also. The main reason is, of course, that open source, like any thick book, may be full of things that aren't easily decoded. They are decodable, for sure, but they may be too opaque that this is done in praxis by most. CONVERTING .WMA TO .MP3 AND STARTING USING WINE * When you have .wma or other MsWindows audio files (or stuff like that) to be converted into the far more standard audio types like .wav or .mp3, then you can in Ubuntu go to Software Center (on the launchpad), type Wine and install the Microsoft Windows Compatibility Layer -- it takes time so have a good internet line -- and then you go to e.g. if it is .wma => .mp3 conversion you seek, or some other software like that at e.g. or at which is for (a not too recent version of) Windows. You then open up Terminal, type wine whatever.exe where 'whatever' is replaced with the proper program name. The conversion program will then install, with a lot of waiting and a lot of messages that you can ignore from the Wine background package. You can then convert the files, also expect a lot of waiting and a lot of background messages that can be ignored. When you did this by sudo -i you will find that /root has the resulting .mp3 files if you didn't change the storing location, and that the program itself is stored at, so you can start the properly installed version, around here: cd /root/.wine l cd drive_c l cd P* This gives you Program Files directory in 32-bit Linux. If you have 64-bit Linux there are two Program Files folders, one for the classical 32-bit, marked (x86), and another. You will have to type dir or ll and work it out. In order to quickly switch to a directory with x86 inside its name, you can type something like cd *86* For the NCH program switch.exe, you will then type something like this to start it later on: cd NCH* cd Switch wine switch.exe * Important, as for Wine: make a note of what folder you have a program in, and check whether it has an uninstall option -- like 'uninst.exe' or the like, because some Windows programs get confused by being performed within Wine, and they may have to be uninstalled and reinstalled in order to clear up their stuff and get'em working again. This might be the case for MetaTrader4.exe. It might, in some cases, not be enough to uninstall the program, if it stores some cache data in other places than that which is uninstalled. Be sure, after uninstall, to delete the correct program folder if it is not already deleted; then try reinstall and be tolerant of Wine, tks!!! PRINTERS IN LINUX * As for printers, Brother printers -- but I think some HP printers are getting on well, also -- have always had maximum Linux compatibility. With luck, you don't even have to do any install of extra drivers, as Ubuntu folks have done good works -- just plug it in, look for messages. E.g. HL5250DN from Brother is like this. Note that the most cheap printers may be the least cross-platform compatible, sometimes. * Plugging in such as USB pendisks usually gives you the option of accessing them by text terminal, if you type l /media/USERNAME you may find there the disk name of the USB pendisk. On some Linux you drop the /USERNAME thing. This really refers to another more peculiar-named part of Linux, such as /dev/sda1 or /dev/sdb1. But suppose the /media/USERNAME thingy works, and that the first letter of your pendisk of it is P, and that nothing else is plugged in. Then you can e.g. look into the files of a subfolder named newest_updates by such a command as this, and then you can safely un-mount the pendrive by the following command -- here, username is patricia: l /media/patricia/P*/newest_updates umount /media/patricia/P* Be sure you don't use umount together with an asterix if you have more things plugged into the machine, unless you are sure that you specify an unambigious reference to just the device you seek to unmount -- so you don't get more unplugged than that which you want to. * Most webcams can be activated by Webcam programs such as -- a particularly compatible one at present -- "Cheese"; explore this in the shopping-bag like icon which is the Ubuntu Software Center for also free programs. * On many touchpads as part of laptop keyboards, go a.f.a.p. into the Settings menu and select to get away the option of 'switching off touchpad while typing', as this switching off may lead some laptops not to get the touchpad reactivated again. * On Mini-PC's go into Settings and ensure that "Workspaces" or what it is called is enabled; this allows access to the bottom part of the screen when the screen is too short to reach the "OK" button and similar important stuff in some contexts, by means of a four-screen selection icon in the left-side menu bar. * The program Audacious and also Rhythmbox make sense after you have installed the Ubuntu mp3 extra stuff, to give playing of such as .mp3 files. (There are various ways of getting the mp3 extras; the way that involves the least IcedTea Java, so as to preserve compatibilities for some bank account login sites with Oracle Java when Oracle Java has been installed -- elsewhere on this page -- is to go to a page which plays mp3 with Mozilla and let Mozilla install that single plugin.) * The program Audacity enables recording of what takes place in your loadspeaker at your Linux computer. Go to the Terminal (also ctr-altgr-T) and type pavucontrol and get that extra sound-preferences panel going. If it is not installed, and you have something like an up-to-date Xubuntu or a flavour of it, up will come a text you can type to get it installed. When run together with the Audacity installed by the Ubuntu Software Center, you can eg record house or chill out at played by Mozilla to mp3 and also edit sound files with great ease (honor copyrights when you do). Start recording (or activate monitor of input by clicking once on the volume control for input at Audacity and adjust the pavucontrol so that it allows 'monitor of pc speakers' (note that there is a similar-named option that doesn't provide input for Audacity, so you sometimes have to experiment a little with pavucontrol to get it right). Then start recording and export it as .mp3 or what you want. Do a test, first, though, to check quality. If there isn't proper recording all of a sudden, but a crappy sound, you can reset Audacity by this trick when in Terminal in administrator mode: cd /home/your-user-name rm .audacity-data -fr Then reboot. Next time you start up Audacity it will usually be as first time install; but be sure that microphones are not active in the recording as we want no interference from them when recording straight from the pc speaker into sth like Audacity. Sound editing is after all complex for any PC because it must handle things relative to milliseconds clock all the time, and it isn't always easy for the software and the sound chips to collaborate. Be sure that you start each recording only after doing several tests. Be sure also that you switch off microphone input -- volume of microphone input to zero, for instance -- and that you don't have too many programs open at one time. Be ready to reboot in order to refresh soundcards and software properly before each recording effort, and adjust carefully the available volume controls and such. Sometimes there are a bit hidden errors in some parts of the software relative to the hardware of the PC or relative to the platform, whether it's a commercial or a free platform, and you must experiment with getting it right. * You can start a blending of sound file playing by typing audacious & at Terminal. Such blending is mind-stimulating when done well. However doing this may easily, after several hours at least, cause the computer to slow maybe stop with over-loaded things, esp if you also run e.g. Mozilla at the same time. To reboot: CTR-ALT-F3 and hold then CTR-ALT-DEL in for a good good while (or log in there and type reboot or type shutdown -h now and it will reboot nicely). Or else, press on-off button for 10 seconds or more, but that's not leading to a full clean-up of partially saved files. Theorem (cfr MYWEBOOK.TXT linked to at frontpage by this author created in 2003 and formally delievered then, discussed also in News Archive pages and in several other publications; MYWEBOOK.TXT is printed verbatim and published, also for sales, in 2011): The collection of all numbers beginning with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and continuing indefinitely has a quantity shown by the vertical size of this diagram next, and each member has a size shown by the horisontal size of each line in this diagram as it grows -- in a symmetry which is perfectly aligned. This is the diagram: . . . ****** ***** **** *** ** * The members of this group -- once you grant that this group is entirely and clearly and in a key important sense infinite in its quantity, and that you also realise the full and undimished extent of the above-mentioned fact of symmetry between the two aspects of the horisontal and the vertical -- includes, in a way which cannot be excluded though in a way which has to be looked at, infinite members. This group, in particular those infinite members, was named by this writer in 2003 as "the essence numbers". (In addition to my MYWEBOOK, consult also text about essence numbers inside one of the booklets linked to at, from before 2010.) This is stated here because though apparently simple, it bears repetition for this proof and its implications have so much beautiful subtlety in it (one of those things are indeed the whole Lisa GJ2 FIC3 language; another involves the physics of super- model theory, both by this writer. Cfr the sites mentioned at ../updated.htm). Everything clear so far? ;) -- A.T.
THE FUTURE OF CURRENCY TRADING -- An attempt to teach it to beginners, and to make a worthwhile prediction [[[Note: While these notes are written at a later stage than the front page CT notes, and so are founded on more real experience with real money, there is an important addition labelled 'important addition' after the two parts of this intro to CT.]]] In healthy economical circumstances, if you swap something like one hundred aussie dollars, AUD$100 into e.g. swiss franc, also denoted CHF, and then swap it back, you get approximately the same amount back, minus the exchange fees -- which are big percentages when it comes to paper cash. Let us imagine a situation where you have hardly any exchange fees to speak of. That is realistic -- you get it with most currency trading (CT, as I call it) institutions for popular currencies. There is a little bit difference in price each time which means that a fraction of a percentage goes to the broker, or bank, or whatever the institution is called. A bank is more heavily regulated and must live up to a number of state-set criterions. Banks are sometimes offering CT but brokers are typically the way in today's world. So, in any case, if we disregard that minimalistic fee a good CT broker charges you, by going AUD => CHF => AUD you get, if you start with $100, either a little more or little less than $100 after this piece of work, which we broadly can call a 'CT transaction'. In healthy economical circumstances, it is typically so that after a couple of minutes, the changes are quite minute. After a couple of days, however, it may be that the changes are starting to get a bit bigger. Imagine that you start with $1000 and that after some days you have either $984.2 or $1015.8. Okay, that's maybe not so much of increase of your prosperity, but if you were able to get a AVERAGE PROFIT of $15.8 out of your $1000 on the average something like 20 weeks pr year (this average meaning that we calculate in losses so as to nullify a certain amount of the profit CTs), we are talking 20 times 15.8 or $316 in increase, meaning that by this simplest, purest currency trading transaction entirely without any much "leverage" (which is to get a temporary loan from the broker to scale up the income or scale up the loss -- remember it can go both ways) -- by this very simple, pure CT action, we are talking of possibilities of getting an increase of $1000 to $1316 during 12 months. This is to say, above 30 percent gain. This 30 percent gain would also be 30 percent if you traded with $10,000 or $100,000. Take into consideration that intuitive action is not a matter of hours of contemplation and hard work. Doing a CT can take very much less than five minutes. It is zen. You log in, click it, look at the sum -- that it fits with what you intuitively worked out, and with the analysis of how much of your account you should trade with these days, and that the pair selected is the right one and that you are doing the 'buy' or 'sell' that you wanted and not the other way around -- and then you click the accept button. Then you check once in a while the prices in the upcoming days. When it is time to reap in the cash to your account, or cut the losses, you log in and click on the completion of the trade button. Then your CT account will EITHER have more money in it OR less, and this is the whole CT transaction completed. If you like, you can then order a motion of some of the money to a regular bank account, from which you can cash it out. This is perhaps done professionally though only seasonwise, and then only after you have had some seasons doing the a bit of clumsy stuff before you straightened the dance steps out. I'd say a week gets more fun for KNOWING that you are doing CT in it. It is an enhanced state of awareness and I'm not kidding. Now, the first thing any earthian 20-century bound stock trader would rush to tell you is that it is simply no way to tell whatever way a currency goes, relative to another. But a safe bet as for stocks is that they ain't gonna go much up except in some phases -- just look at the averages over the past couple of years -- and that it may be preferrable to stick to gigantic curves dominating the foundation of the world's trade -- namely the very value of money units relative to one another -- rather than trying to bet on largerly gossip-driven stock values. Also, I would say that it is an item of good luck to engage in trading which is consistently nondestructive. All the time the world's exchange of money between the main money units the world has is vastly greater, in sum, than the sums you are trading with, you are ethically like a swimmer relative to the ocean. However an affluent person can easily wreck a company by buying most of it, if that person is wrong for the company. So stock trading is something a wise world will do fantastically well without. Those who work in a company are its natural owners, nobody else. However, trading -- day-trading, week-trading, minute-trading, or a bit longer -- month-trading -- with currencies is a fun option for everyone. Done with surplus money only, one might loose but one might gain, and it is a way to test one's intuition and a very pure way at that. If you have leverage 50 set on a CT account, trade with a fiftieth part of the sum you have put into it, in order to nullify the effect of the leverage, if you want that. However much you trade with, the quest is to find a balance between how much is in your account and how much of it you trade with so that you can handle fluctuations. Perhaps your intuition that such and such going to happen entirely right -- say, on the scale of five days. You may be so right it would do your CT account good to go for the bet. If you bet that CHF is going up as seen from the foundation of AUD dollars, then you are doing a kind of AUD=>CHF movement, which is called 'doing a buy or a long bet on CHFAUD pair' or 'doing a sell or a short bet on AUDCHF pair'. For many practical CT purposes you can treat them as symmetrical. You have to remember that "buy"="long" whereas "sell"= "short" and essentially regard them as mere conventions (whereas in stock trading, they aren't as symmetrical). When you see CHFAUD you see the price of CHF written in terms of AUD. If CHFAUD goes up, then buy it. If CHFAUD goes the other way, then sell it. So, put simply, the digital question, you must put to your intuition, is whether the ideal thing is to go such as CHF => AUD or AUD => CHF. One or the other way. There is a slight extra margin (called 'swap') which is noticable when trade positions are kept open for a good while and which relates to the swinging of the currency graphs. To memorise such peculiar economical jargon is only possible by staring it it, playing with it, writing it backwards and forwards and making your own mnemonics, you way of dramatising it, perhaps by sexual metaphors. This is best done in connection with an actual trading program that uses imagined, or virtual money, a so-called 'praxis account' or 'game account'. This account may however use actual prices. These prices take a holiday when banks have a holiday. Learning all this may seem to some to be boring. But attempt to realise it is the start of a journey to be able to magically create movement in the direction of profit out of nothing but a pure sum as foundation money. Now, back to the intuition aspect, and fluctuations. Think of flirting with strangers at a cafe or flirting with an aim to sexual seduction direct at a fiest. You do something and it has an intent towards, say, a beauty profit, a social profit, a sexual profit. If you have any stamina and self-confidence at all, you pick up the signs but you are not getting at once all goomy and desolate even if it doesn't look like working at all. Rather, you have the smile and dance within and remember that anything that comes too easily, may not come as well when it does come. It is about mutuality, and timing -- duration -- and also, naturally, teasing. To indicate one thing while intending, maybe, another thing. If you have made what you are comfortable about as a good bet, then in healthy economical circumstances and with a scaling of the trade sum relative to how much you have and how much leverage, if any, which is set on your CT account, then you can allow the curves to sway. Here, graphical curves are very helpful indeed. Also, instead of trying to memorise the exact price you were trading on, look for the first four digits of where you want, in rounded figures, the price of the trading pair to go. For one combination of currencies you may want it to 'go nearer to, or even above, 1500'. Perhaps eg you did a trading of the 'buy' type on a pair which had a price something like 1.419. Then you want to cash it in, submit a completition on the trade, when it is nearer 1.5 and less near 1.3. But 1.5 sounds so petty. Let us rather say nearer 1500. There are other ways of speaking about it -- points, pips, and such, but these are not entirely orderly, as they look like percentages while being something entirely different and they tell not the full story of the price development in terms of percentages at all. (For instance, the difference between 1.100 and 1.000 is 'one hundred points' but so is the difference between 8.100 and 8.000 but these 'points' in this case are vastly different in terms of percentage. {ercentage is what matters when it comes to making a profit on your account with currency trading. So never indulge in talking about such 'points' connected to CT.) Just how much you can trade with is of great importance. There may be a rule set by state or the broker as to automatically closing your trade if it has an overall loss of more than n (5?) percent. But if you are about to earn by waiting out a negative fluctuation, you certainly don't want to have it autoclosed on a bad price! And so you must scale the amount you trade with so that you can handle TYPICAL fluctuations really well. But what, indeed, is a typical fluctuation? That is where 'healthy economical circumstances' come in -- that the fluctuations from one week to the next have a bit of smoothness about them, and that the maximum differences between prices from one trading minute to the next and from one week, or so, to the next, are very stable indeed. In fact, this is the case only when we are talking currencies that are big and handled by a kind of dancing dynamics. In an economical environment where the distinction from one week to the next as to even the major currencies are so minute that the $1000 wouldn't change more than, say, a quarter of a dollar after a week, then you would naturally ask the broker to do leverage: which is to say, you are willing to risk that the loss is n times as high, because the profit also gets n times as high -- typically one shouldn't go higher than 50 and even that is very much -- and because the fluctuations from one week to the next are so extremely minute compared to the full hundred percent of money on your account that even with a multiplication factor, you will still easilly handle negative fluctuations (e.g., those that go in the 'long' direction when you have just done a 'short trade' or those that go in the 'short' direction when you have just done a 'long trade'). So leverage is to increase profit-potential but also risk-possibility. The wise person is willing to earn one percent during a week instead of ten percent during the same week because one doesn't want to risk an auto-close of the trade at a negative temporary five percent. Then, the prediction. I have already hinted at it. I write this in an economical climate where all the financial news agencies are regularly reporting turmoil, turmoil, turmoil, and every single CT for week after week after week I have done in the same period has been profit. The prediction is this: in every millenia in the future there will be CT, there will be currency pairs involving some four richly beautiful, greatly used currencies -- used in all senses, for all sorts of private enterprises, private buying, and so on, with all sorts of normal transactions for the purpose of buying and selling wares and services. These currencies will IN ADDITION be used for the benefit of individuals doing a moderate CT trading also as a fine-tuning of their intuitive capacities. CT also teaches human beings that their intuition is relative: that their understanding is never absolute. No human being can do CT without having a regular amount of loss-CTs. The challenge, which is entirely realistic, is to have a greater amount of gain-CTs than loss-CTs, and that the sizes of these gain-CTs are comparative to the less-CTs so that the overall account will show a gain, from month to month. It is EXACTLY the fact that intuition is so superbly and clearly called for in the land of lovely CT work that makes it such a laboratory for, indeed, also enlightenment, and freedom from overly much identification with the results of one's action. The very participation in the world of monetary energies is itself a peak of natural being. This, then, belongs to ALL the future. CT, certainly, is what any righteous person must consider as much blessed as wild beaches and dancing and flirting and sex and other things involving rich fluctuations. GOOD LUCK WITH CT!!! Note added ca. one month later: What we can define as "rapid CT" is the principle above engaged on a real strong leverage like 50 and on the premise of trading within something like half an hour. This is only advisable to those who have a particularly well-tuned intuition and then only with the most intense care and pre-meditation possible, knowing what one is doing and being already expert at this. When I did this on the above sum, the increases were, indeed, some thirty or fifty times bigger. Remember that when you get an income to your account, the next time you trade, the percentage earned will be a percentage of this new sum, meaning that in a sense it is not entirely impossible with exponential income. A small sum to begin with -- after a period of learning over some seasons, all the time with small sums, can then in principle give vast wealth -- whatever that means, within the context and regulations of our present society. This and the similar matrix higher above are actual account summaries, unredacted, from Aristo Tacoma's experimentative CT account with a broker. To select a proper broker, you must find one that is intuitive- intellectually satisfying for your effortless needs in honest realtime price-flows: be aware that conscious or unintended 'noise' may creep into a broker's approach to currency day- and hour-trading in a variety of ways, -- some are very cunning. You have got to sleep on it, and see the statistics over how you are doing it -- not just with a practise account, but also with real money, where the prices do matter (that the prices are the same in the practise and real account is only a bit of the required proof to say of a broker that the broker represents an entirely honest business corporation as for CT). IMPORTANT ADDITION to the above currency trading info ===================================================== With yet more experience -- fortunately, consistently positive -- with CT or what some call FX or FOREX -- day-trading with fluctuations of currency pairs in order to increase the amount of money you have -- I have some important additions. These are founded on a combination of analysis and intuition as well as on coherent luck, earning on the average quite significantly, month by month: [1] In the above, not all types of programs and trading approaches were taken into consideration when speaking of leverage relative to what you trade with. In a typical approach (similar to the MT4 program, which runs well in linux Wine if you install it as indicated elsewhere on the page), which I have got much more experience with now, the relationship between leverage and what you trade with is simply this: the leverage multiplied by the amount dollars on your account sets the upper limit for what you can trade with. Since MT4 has an orientation towards "lots", where 1 standard lot (in the biggest account) is 100.000 of the first of the two in a currency pair XXXYYY, and its smallest size for trading is 0.01, it means that with leverage 50, you should have around $250 as a minimum to trade with a XXXYYY pair with the XXX circa equal to US dollars (but better start with $10.000 when you know your way around and have consistently had luck with demonstration account and small sum account also), in order to be free not only to put in a trade bet, but also have some extra on the account when it is done. You MUST have enough extra on the account that you can stand some sligthly stormy winds without having the account tip too much towards zero or anything like that. [2] After experience, my absolutely clear recommendation is that you use no app and no applet and no script-oriented approach but ONLY an installed application -- a real program -- on your own computer. This is enormously important and critical for your own intuition to have a chance to build up resonance with the whole. It can be MT performed under Wine. Wine is merely an access port from Linux to Windows programs, not really any emulator. And so the programs run in a very clean way, -- suitable for intuition also. [3] If possible to adjust colors, set it to green curves ('candelight' type or any type that shows broader lines when the ask/bid price difference is big) against black as this gives a peak of luck. [4] If possible to adjust positions of graphs, align all of the pairs that play on the currencies of your choice so that the program shows all of them at the same time rather than one by one, as soon as you start up the program -- but not necessarily strictly ordered, for you want to have a sense of the arrythmic into it perhaps. If you have good security on your computer, let the program store the user id and the password, so it goes straight in. This enables resonance- building for your intuition. Remember that there is always a necessary component of luck in any good trading and stay out from using copyist strategies. [5] Do the rapid CT like horse race betting: You plug in your bet and sixty minutes, plus minus one minute, you close the bet. You only do this on days when your intuition and analysis indicate that there is not stormy weather as for the graphs, but you do it from within, not really looking at the graphs while making up your mind -- this you do before you even start up the program, looking only at the abstract relationships eg on paper. You do this without any auto-adjustment of the trade. [6] Put in one or at most two trades each day within the three hour period that is most active as for currency trading on the planet, and only on days with normal full business activity. [7] Don't sneak-look at the trade. Don't even look at the value before you close it. Your intuition needs a fixed parameter -- a fixed method of trading -- in order to help you. [8] Trade with about four times the amount on your account. If you have 50000 then four times that is 2 lots. This presupposes what we can call a normal currency trading fluctuation level. If the fluctuations are bigger, use a smaller size. And learn to relish in the joy when you have done a bet that worked out right, and be relaxed and cool about it when it didn't work out -- looking then to the month's average instead. This joy, this self-congratulation, acts as a magnet for doing right decisions where you can have as it were a premonition of the joy you come into. And, one more thing: BEGIN the session by a meditation and prayer where you not only affirm noble generous deeds you want to spend the earnings on, but also that you clearly to yourself affirm the attention of big ct profits, blessing rapid ct. Psychologically, you will then be able to gather your intuitive powers connected to the relevant end-goal, rather than be frustrated or focussed too much on the pathway to the relevant end-goal. The pathway involves the dance of proper action in a good mood. If you wander in your mind and find that the meditation is not able to come up with its usual strength and coherence you will take that as a sign that the curves are too fluctuating (or too little fluctuating) to allow suitable trading just then. Not doing a trade is also part of trading, when it is a decision that comes from within, as instinct or hypnosis GOOD LUCK!!!! ! FINDING THE RIGHT CURRENCY TRADING BROKER FOR YOU AND AVOIDING COMPANIES THAT ARE FRAUDULENT Some people of a criminal bent can engage in any type of business, obviously, and they can be very clever, up to a point, as to concealing what they are up to. It is your own responsibility that you make the decisions that are right for you. Some points along the lines of 'rules of thumb' that we offer here are these: * Is the company saying that they have been offered medals, first prices and awards by prestigious institutions and journals? Well, then, EXPLORE. Is it really so? Is the institution or journal really existing? Is it really independent? Some companies sell awards, some companies make fake videos of 'being awarded such-and-such'. Some companies even make fake journals to give themselves words towards good credit. * Is the company owned in a big and robust and wealthy and democratic company, and is it so that the company, also its holding company, must answer to laws in such a big, robust, wealthy and democratic country? Find out; companies are rarely better than the judicial aspect of a country. Companies are rarely more stable that the average stability of the country. Nondemocracies are nearly always based on fakes -- that doesn't mean that every company in a nondemocracy is a fake, but on the average, it easily becomes so, for even the most robust of people may get overwhelmed by the corruption in a country. * Is the company offering an enormous variety of trading alternatives and platforms? Well, then, why? How come it is really possible to do so, and at the same time follow up all these approaches with the maximum possible integrity? * Is the company bad at emails then drop them no matter how convincing they sound at the phone or over the textual chatline or through a social website. For emails are stronger when it comes to presenting a case, an argument relative to the company years later. You are interested in earning considerable sums and that must be done on the foundation that the company is a high- integrity company that has the perhaps modest but real ambition to earn money WITH you, rather than OFF you. But then you must be able to build a trusting relationship by means of email before you even become a customer, where you save every email in an archive. Chatlines may be operated by other companies that merely access their FAQ's. Chatlines may not be valid documentation for a conversation with the company, where the company promised something. Chatlines may provide useful information about how big the leverage is set to as a standard, and such, but the person operating the chatline may have no powers at all to do anything concretely than affect your business with the company. Chatlines are merely informative. But even if you are able to carry out a good email conversation with the company, don't get hypnotised about it. After all, clever people with a cunning mind and a lot of starting money behind them can hire an email-answering staff that knows nothing of the deeper motives of the company. * Is the owner or owners of the company on an egotrip, boasting over their own prominence? Unlikely, then, that the company has high integrity in its software. * Is the company ONLY willing to use own software, or has it enrolled in the MT4 db also? If ONLY own software, perhaps this software is made so as to tweak money from rich customers at crucial moments by delaying sell/buy completions, or by subtle, not-easily-seen shifting of currency values. * Do the company connect only to other good companies on their website, or are all their comrades a sleezy group? * Are they profoundly in favour of credit cards? No high-integrity company is profoundly in favour of credit cards. They usually must collaborate with them. But they must ALWAYS allow bank wire and international money transfer by Swift bank wire. * Is the company website speaking more about your 'depositing' of money with them, than your 'withdrawal' of money from them? Is the company speaking more about how clever they are, and how fun it is to trade, rather than how significant it is that YOU earn money, you yourself? * Is the company asking you insulting questions when they want information from you concerning setting up an account? Suppose, for instance, a company asks you, 'What is your net worth?' THAT is insulting, in anyone's language, because it is coupling you-as-person with entirely monetary terms. Rather, if they don't have a sensitivity along the lines of asking instead, 'Could you indicate (optionally) what your net income was last year and/or what your net fortune is?', then considering seriously ditching them. * Is the company logo ugly? Is the company name evoking distasteful associations? Do you get a feeling that there is not really a person behind the emails answering you, but rather a wall of fear and uncertainty and premade speeches, with strange or fake names? Do you have to wait a long time for each email? Are there many different email addresses with no responsibility by the company to answer them all? Do they call you without asking for permission, in writing, to call you? DON'T BE FOOLED, PLEASE. Currency trading, and rapid CT as I call it, in the form described above, is a wonderful opportunity for earning money, possibly much money given a large startup sum, given hard work, very hard work indeed. You must find a partner company, not a company that works against you. You must try their virtual account for three months and print out the trading statistics and watch over it. You must PROVE to yourself that at least with virtual money you can make big bucks. Then you start moderately, opening a live account, and your luck is supposed to carry over. Only after such a very careful start, increase the foundational amount that you trade with, in successive steps. Regularly do some withdrawal of money, to keep the bank wire lines hot in both directions, and be familiar with the process, the fees, this and that. Be aware of possible changes in the company -- they may get bought by another company with an entirely different approach, or they may get a single powerful bad programmer where before there were only good programmers, or the leader may decline in integrity and start skewing things. You must have the right intuition about the company in order to have right intuitions about currencies. Added article here: MORE ABOUT HOW TO SELECT A GOOD CURRENCY TRADING BROKER -- Navigating around in the vast wilderness of offers of all kinds, here's some advice which could make sense * Added note: be sure to check, and doublecheck, that your preferred method of transferring money both TO and also FROM the broker indeed is accepted by the broker company. They may be willing to accept money in more ways than they may be willing to part with them! Check the criterions, the fees, what limits there are, if any, to the sums that can be sent -- and withdrawn. And check the transfer both ways before you get into dealing with bigger sums. * Added note: most short-term currency trading, over shorter term than let's say two or three days, is highly dependent on the pricing the company gives you -- the distinction between the 'sell' and 'buy' prices of currency pairs. This pricing varies between account types, between broker companies, and indeed also between times of the day and week. Trade at high-trade hours to get the best prices, and watch out for sudden large jumps between 'buy' and 'sell' price for some pairs before you do anything with them. * Added note: some trading servers simply don't work at some times during the week for some companies, and they may not even acknowledge this: do check out also such things before you get serious with currency trading. In few other domains of net interaction is full 24-7 reponse time for the machinery of the currency servers of such key significance. If the server is not up when you wish to finish a trade, that is equivalent to a possible loss, and the company ought to explain why the server isn't up and what it is doing to improve the uptime records for the future. If they don't feel that they have the capacity to provide such info, then you may want to pick another broker. * Added note: Even if you have picked a broker that is good, they may get desperate about making money and that may make them corrupt at some later stage: you must carefully scrutinize the broker company each season and judge whether to go to another. Be lightfooted. The smallest companies as well as the biggest ones may be made of crooks, and there has been many fines also to big banks for their manipulation of benchmarks of currencies behind the scenes when they appear to do humble servicing for for such as big state funds. My early ct essay begins here: ****************************** For those interested in getting going with currency trading or CT (or FOREX as it is very often called, bringing together the words FOReign and EXchange), esp. currency trading of a relatively short-term kind -- minutes,hours, days -- there's a lot of things to learn, and a lot of background political and general financial information to gauge, and then in addition intuition must be the final hand in affirming what trades you must do. The foundation, in practical terms, is that you have found a service offering currency trading that you are at ease with, and which works without problems on the computers you typically use. (Elsewhere on this economy column -- -- there are other notes on the same theme. This is an update, with some additional notes which may be of value.) The notion of a 'broker' is that most big banks that do offer currency trading rather want to do it with great stacks of cash such as billions, so that to get going with sums of mere millions ;) or even a mere couple of hundred of dollars we would want to go THROUGH a company that itself is a client of an interbank firm. The notion of 'spreads' (and an associated concept called 'pips') is essentially that of a way for a broker to earn money on each individual trades you do, in a way that is scaled naturally to the size of money you trade with. You put in a bet, say, that USD relative to some other currency is going to go a bit up, and you assert a leverage, say, of fifty or a hundred. That means that the little bit difference of USD value will be multiplied by a fifty or a hundred by a temporary implicit loan given to you by the broker backed up by the norms of the relative stability of the overall currency fluctuations, fluctations even when multiplied by such a factor of fifty will be well within the capacity of your account with them can handle no matter which way it goes. To see the notion of 'spreads', imagine that you put in a bet on such a currency pair and at once closed that trade, finished it, got out of it. The spread is then the difference between the 'buy' of that pair and the 'sell' of that pair, a minute percentage. If you trade with ten thousand dollars, it is ten times more profit to the broker than if you trade with a thousand dollars, because of this margin. That is to say, this is the ideal, good, noble case, what we want in the situation of what we call Honesty in Business. We want the broker to earn money by such relatively fixed spreads, and optionally by trading alongside with you if you have proven a remarkable person in typically on betting on winning horses. Here, you may know that there is a concept called Straight Through Processing, or STP. <<[..] STP brokers makes their profit only through the spreads that they provide. [..] Generally, STP brokers never trade against their clients and therefore they add small pips to the spread quote. All the orders are then routed through liquidity providers as per the original spread quote provided by those providers while STP brokers make money from the extra money that they earn as markups. [..] STP brokers are good because they send their clients order directly from clients to liquidity providers which are usually banks and financial companies.>> [An early quote I found at a ct website once --]. You must combine analysis with what you can muster of intuition, and you must test your luck and regularly check both on your luck, and on what limits you put to your trading esp when trading doesn't go as you've hoped, and also be willing to change to another broker if something isn't sensed to be right about them, in your gut. See how they are about email information, also: it's sometimes quite a probe! (Whereas chatlines may be just a licensed outsider who, at best, is willing to quote something from a manual.) MT4 has key components needed to do direct, intuitive trading on the safest, most stable currencies, and which (consult notes elsewhere in this economy column) starts relatively ease with the Wine Windows compatibility layer in eg (especially when one sometimes spend a little time with the Tools/setup frame, so as to assist the MT4 program to reset itself when you go from a virtual account to a real account). Let me say that when you initially get to work with a virtual account, so as to learn and then see that you have got the knack of earning money on this, you have to put up, perhaps, with a level of customer relationship which is tuned to the fact that currency trading is hugely interesting for many and that somebody who has signed up for a virtual account is not yet a real customer. Usually, it is possible to build a relationship on a personal email-conversation foundation if you have the patience to connect beyond the level where the answers are little but copy-and-paste from the FAQ of the website; but it is to me far more important that the broker is an honest one that they are answering every email promptly and deeply. I think the chances that they are honest and have good integrity are increased if they are using an independent trading program like MT4 or later versions, and that they do not promise too many forms of alternative trading approaches but keep it somewhat simple, like a good bank should do. Also, let's agree that people who are trying to earn money selling 'sure ways of success' may in fact be trying to get success, their first success, by selling just that recipe -- which may be a recipe that they have never tried themselves with any success. In contrast, those who really have great success may have a sense of a bit of protection as to just how they do it. Also, they do not need that extra little bit of money it is in selling success recipies. As for the question of likelihood as for CT earning, I regard it as likely that a person who -- as Warren Buffet (3rd richest on the planet) says -- 'doesn't too easily get excited about what people says, but who looks at the facts' -- and where, in the business world, 'temperament is more important than IQ' -- can indeed earn with CT. But it requires a great gift of coolness about it, a sureness about your intuition, and a willingness to be flexible (perhaps more flexible than I indicated in my earlier summary with a focus on hour-long trades). I think, further, intuition works best with a sense of focus on one currency pair at a time. Rather than putting in a lot of trades so as to 'spread the risk', I would suggest trading only with money that definitely can be said to be surplus money. The reduction of risk is a challenge that means learning to listen to the heat of gut feeling and setting petty emotions aside, not to be in a rush. Or, as Robert Pirsig pointed out: the word GUMPTION has a lot to it; it should be stated first in all maintenance manuals that you need GUMPTION before working on the nuts and bolts. To complete this note, I'll say it affirmatively: SUCCESS FOR YOU WITH CT!!!!!

H M M H M U S I C Put together for your own benefit by Aristo Tacoma. These are for private eductional use, and, while the magnetic tape and, at times, intense remixing, has done its work with the music elements, there are numerous bits and pieces and occasionally longer passages within from commercial music and we must respect the copyright of these. So for any commercial use of the present files, you must in case undertake to contact the copyright holders of these bits. Agreeing to this, please make good use of:-- harmony messy mix house dance HMMH #1 harmony messy mix house dance HMMH #2 harmony messy mix house dance HMMH #3 harmony messy mix house dance HMMH #4 "fantast" {shorter, more experimentative} harmony messy mix house dance HMMH #5 "cantast" {Note: has wilder, NSFW audioclips} There are some more inside zips related to music at the G15 PMN main programming website. Music Information and Acknowledgements: In these remixes of Deep House, Dance Hall, Club Dance, Trance and various other bits of new and classical pop music, and some hard rock and classical music bits as well, there are conscious arrythmic elements. That is to say, rhythm is so that it enlives rather than militantly repeats itself. In the G15 Intraplates Multiversity approach, this is an adviced approach in which the muselike music extends the sense of art and dance beyond the foreground; it is similar to allowing sketch-like impressionistically inspired paintings have many ambigious aspects, so that the mind must work on its own. The intention, then, is wholeness, artistic HARMONY, the way is by means of also somewhat crazy or MESSY MIXES, and a main input to this is the HOUSE and DANCE genres. The acronym HMMH then refers to just this, the Harmony Messy Mix HouseDance approach. You can generate further yourself by simple Open Source Linux mixing programs like Audacity {included with our Sparkles release, by the way}. The bits of classical Pink Floyd are evident in the remixes in the fourth and fifth, in part thanks to a House-Remix element also used there, quite freely, derived from work by the well-known musician Eric Prydz. Elements of House from the Lt Wee and Dj Friendly shows at Norwegian NRK MP3 and NRK P3, as well as elements from some independent radio stations. Some of the mixing in the first three has been done by means of magnetic tape. Note: to dance to something that has the arrythmic component in it requires a training in intuitive modes of movement to match the change of rhythm. This is of course more easy when you already know the HMMH well. Have great dance!