.. ==is>;.. . ;_%=>|=, .:. >|iii|+:.-:.. :*Y(+=:- .::. ..=:: .=::. __====;;..=-.::. .=|ii===:..-- :-. ..;=|v1i==::.:..... _<ns;==|n1|:::....:..: .|v2li;=i2i=:;.;..- ::. -~~+|;|I1=:=.==:...:... =|;<nl==:.>;..: .... :|;<%+;=-.=: ... .. .==d=|:;:.... . . ;<e|-;):<.... . .:v}==|=+;=::-.... .=n==Ivos||==.(|=;. =vi=|IInSo%+=:.)i;.. .|i==|||I11i=;: +=:. _=il==;===+=::. .:.. =++>+:;;;:::....++~. . -= `-::::... .;+:.. ......... :::...
HADESNode Heaven Visitation You and your node may visit together for a while. Powerful Jewish Lobby (thing) rep: -7 The USA gives vast, unimaginable sums of money each year to Israel. Much of this wealth is in the form of high technology weaponry. Why on earth does this superpower give gigantic amounts to this small, remote country? It is very natural to ask this question. The propaganda, social control machinery anticipates it and supplies the reply: It is "the powerful, Jewish lobby." I cannot believe this is the real reason. Powerful...Jewish, Jewish...powerful; this is an odd conjunction. Could one believe in "The Powerful Black Lobby?" Jews make up less than 2.5 percent of the American population. What is the real reason for this odd transfer of wealth: central, one assumes, to our true situations? Perhaps something with real power is using the Jewish lobby as a sort of front. return to the gates of Node Heaven My email address is firstname.lastname@example.org. (Am likely to take a while to reply.) Am always interested in stuff, especially on contemporary propaganda and social control - on which I am trying to write a book. The blacker and cynicaller the better. E.g. 'In the absense of the Jew the criminal will have to do.' Negative Entropy 6/3/01
What Erwin Shrödinger thought life was. ("What is Life?" - his book, intended for the general reader and one of the most seminal scientific works ever. For example, it prompted Watson and Crick to investigate DNA.)
He wrote he would have used the term "free energy," rather than negative entropy, if he had been addressing an audience of physicists; but feared that, had he done so, the layman would have failed to distinguish "free energy" from simply "energy".
The idea is that an organism is continually being shaken apart, at a submicroscopic level, by thermal agitation. Its atoms continually knocked from their proper positions. It becomes more disordered. In repairing this damage it is continuously creating order, creating, as it were, "negative entropy". Since entropy cannot be destroyed (though it can be created) the organism must continually export positive entropy - i.e. entropy - to its surroundings (see Homoiothermy).
(Sporus isn't 100% certain but is fairly sure that...
Moving an object from A to B within an ideal gas - a non- dissipative medium. As the object moves it bats the gas particles in front of it forward. These bang into other particles; setting all into violent motion. (The temperature rises immediately in front of the moving object.) The same process, acting in reverse, slows down the particles behind the body. (The temperature cools immediately behind the object.) Thus the body gets struck more violently and more often on its front face than upon its back. This would bring it to a halt were it not supplied with work - pushed - to enable it to continue its journey. The more slowly it is pushed from A to B the less work is needed; dissipated into increasing the speed of the average particle in the sea of ideal gas particles. In the limit, when the body is moved infinitely slowly, quasistatically, no work is dissipated - no entropy created.
Sliding an object, from A to B, along a wooden plank - not a non-dissipative medium. Here the force resisting the motion does not necessarily get less if the body is moved more slowly. It does not tail away to zero in the limit of infinite slow motion. Indeed, as it happens, static friction is greater than dynamic friction. It would always dissipate some work to get from A to B.
Dr. Pangloss, in Candide, held that, "Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds." Evolutionary theory is said to use the "Panglos Paradigm" since natural selection produces organisms that are perfectly designed for their functions.Natural Variation 6/5/01
For example: A population of white lizards live on black rocks. Because they are easily seen they are being heavily predated by giant, carnivorous birds. A slightly darker (natural variation) lizard is born; the birds find it harder to see and it flourishes (natural selection); it leaves behind it an unusually large number of offspring and these too tend to be slightly darker (heredity). The process repeats and black lizards may eventually supervene.
(Should one imagine hanging in space, looking down of the scene, with time speeded up: Expanding disks of darkerness would continually appear, at different positions, their edges racing outwards across the rocks. Perhaps after a few hundred discs had expanded over the rocks the lizards would have become invisible.)
A pretty example from everyday life is the pattern of spots on spotty flowers, like foxgloves. Each flower has a different decoration. (That is each flower even if the flowers are growing on the same plant. Doesn't conventional, evolutionary theory imply that flowers on the same plant will have the same pattern; the design will only differ between plants?)
*But see: Darwinism.Inheritance of Acquired Character 6/5/01
A proto-giraffe with a short neck, relative to the modern ungulate, nevertheless browses on trees and the days it spends straining upward stretches its neck. Its offspring are therefore born with necks longer than the neck it was born with. That is: during its life it acquired a longer neck than it was born with and its calves inherited this longer neck - the inheritance of acquired character. This is the well known example.
Tom Watkins: This is very much what I have argued in Lynch-Mob. But perhaps, instead of the suggestion that jurors should retire to 11 individual rooms, they could divide into groups of three or four, each presenting a verdict (with reasons). Interesting Ken. However if I had to do the job I would want to do it alone. However the consensus amongst people I have discussed this with is that we would soon find that half of jurors were completely incapable of doing the job and just agree with others. The latest email on this subject came from a man who said his mother had done jury service some time ago. A young man was accused of causing GBH to a police officer. She said it was obvious the man was guilty but the police officer was so arrogant they decided to find the man not guilty. Just before Helen was convicted a policeman sprayed an old age pensioner in the face with CS gas over an argument about parking on yellow lines. The jury found him not guilty. Both decisions had nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Prejudice is absolutely rife. The only way of stopping this from influencing other jurors is to make them each take responsibility for their own decision, then we will really find out how many are capable. A prisoner wrote to me saying that for some offences it is impossible to find ordinary people who are not affected by the nature of the offence. He would prefer a professional jury of people with a record of clear logical thought. I still think they need to do the job individually though, even professionals influence each other. -- Tom Over the past few days I've added a few words in Lynch-Mob and corrected a few faults. But it's going to be hopeless if we are both working on it. The best thing, I think, is that from now on I make no changes and if anything occurs to me I'll pass it to you. However, if you have done nothing much yet, or if you can identify any changes made, perhaps I should send you a completed version as of this date, and then it's your pigeon. I could send the complete book as an email attachment but it would take you about ten minutes to receive. Or shall I post another floppy disc? By the way, would you like your name, address, phone no. and email address on the Portia letterheading? If so, give me the phone no. Since Lord Justice Auld is working on possible revision of the jury system I've sent him the suggestion for individual decisions or small groups of three or four. Ken We'll try -but we have made little research into MSbP, main interest being cot deaths that are alleged to be murder. And there is the problem that the majority of false MSbP allegations probably remain officially unquestioned. The UK government claim in their response to ECHR that the rate of incidence of MSbP is 5/100,000 p. a.. This makes approx. 60 cases/year at the current population including England, Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and Eire) This figure is based on the epidemiology study by Meadow et al which took as its criteria for inclusion the fact that a case conference had been held. This figure, of course, is a figure on outset Not outcome i.e. .5/100,000 is based on initial allegations and investigations and not on the results of that investigation or court case. One way of potentially challenging this is to establish figures for the number of false allegations of MSbP If I can demonstrate that a certain # of false allegations are seen each year, then perhaps we can question the reliability of the incidence rate, mortality rate, morbidity rate - or at least the reliability of the alleged diagnosis If you could compose a list of known cases of false allegations for each year I would greatly appreciate it. I do not have all the information of when each case first actually started and the carer was accused and first case conference date.as set out in the Incidence of Msbp,NAS, NAP epid study 1992-1994 So the best argument for the above or legal strategy that I came up with is:to use the # of known misdiagnosed cases for a single year- cleared by case conference, court case, letter of acknowledgement or apology from social services, etc. (keeping in mind that because of the secrecy of the courts and injunctions against families this will only be a partial list) The following is a list I have started examples from newspapers,ect.1-G Sheldon-1999 2-Mandy Morris 1999 3-Mcgregor-1999-2000 4-Sharon Kennedy-1999 5-rose-smith 6-rose 7-rebecca 8-hazel 9 another woman's magazine-1998*99 10 Kirby-Sept 1999 10 -Shy 12-sarah Wright 13-Blount off register mar 2000 Kayla- year?? Helen McDade ME case in Sutton Coldfiel
On another point trying to make as well - discredit epid study but more importantly Dr Davis and his MD thesis. Need any cases that began AND had FIRST CASE CONFERENCE between Sept 1992 - Aug 1994 Examples: Sharon Bozier+1993 Sharon Payne No names will be used for ECHR only numbers. Our extension is only until early next week. Could I please have this as soon as possible Tue, 4 Sep 2001 10:32:20 +0100 This is very much what I have argued in Lynch-Mob. But perhaps, instead of the suggestion that jurors should retire to 11 individual rooms, they could divide into groups of three or four, each presenting a verdict (with reasons). Do you want to rewrite accordingly? Ken News item, Independent, Sept 4, 01 Juries ‘swayed by dominant speakers’ Henry Fonda’s valiant one-man stand to save a boy from the electric chair in Twelve Angry Men would have failed to convince a real jury of his innocence, research published yesterday suggests. In the 1957 film, Fonda’s softly-spoken character used subtle arguments to persuade the other 11 jurors that the defendant may not have murdered his father. But, in reality, he would have been drowned out by a dominant jury member and the boy found guilty. Prof. Simon Garrod, of the University of Glasgow, told the conference that his research showed juries were not good arrangements for gaining true consensus. His paper, published by the Economic and Social Research Council also argued that groups of more than seven do not reach unanimous decisions. In large groups, dominant speakers exert much more influence than others and people are not especially influenced by those they directly interact with, he said. Prof. Garrod said his research, which included studies of how large and small groups made decisions, might explain perverse verdicts which ignored common sense and why larger juries were more likely to fail to reach a consensus than smaller juries. In large groups, the communication is more like serial monologue with each speaker broadcasting information in turn to the group as a whole. This explains why dominant speakers, who broadcast the most information to the group, have such a strong influence, he said. Under the Contempt of Court Act it is illegal to conduct research using real juries because of the risk of contaminating deliberations. So Prof Garrod’s research will help those who need to understand how a jury reaches its verdict. Some lawyers argue that the British system should be reformed so that juries have to give reasons for their verdicts. Lord Justice Auld, who is reviewing criminal courts for the Government, is also looking at the workings of juries. He is due to present his findings shortly. Over the past few days I've added a few words in Lynch-Mob and corrected a few faults. But it's going to be hopeless if we are both working on it. The best thing, I think, is that from now on I make no changes and if anything occurs to me I'll pass it to you. However, if you have done nothing much yet, or if you can identify any changes made, perhaps I should send you a completed version as of this date, and then it's your pigeon. I could send the complete book as an email attachment but it would take you about ten minutes to receive. Or shall I post another floppy disc? By the way, would you like your name, address, phone no. and email address on the Portia letterheading? If so, give me the phone no. Since Lord Justice Auld is working on possible revision of the jury system I've sent him the suggestion for individual decisions or small groups of three or four. This is very much what I have argued in Lynch-Mob. But perhaps, instead of the suggestion that jurors should retire to 11 individual rooms, they could divide into groups of three or four, each presenting a verdict (with reasons). Do you want to rewrite accordingly? Ken News item, Independent, Sept 4, 01Juries ‘swayed by dominant speakers’
Two old pauses for thought:
1/. If stick insects are fed on peppermint their hatchlings - given a free choice between peppermint and something else - initially choose to eat peppermint. 2/. If a female fly gets a disease her offspring are immune to the disease. (Perhaps she has simply inoculated her eggs with "antiserum" as with the mammal's colostrum.)
Should nodes usually follow the same rule? This question caused this to be written.Monsanto is the State
It is a truth universally acknowledged that the western countries are not demos-ocracies, people-ocracies but are powerful interest group-ocracies. It follows that Monsanto is the state, the state Monsanto.
On the, quite correct, ground that the State is sinister, responsibility for various things, such as education, is transferred to Monsanto. But this is not transferring it away from the State merely to another, even less democratic, part of the State.
(The glans's surface is the most richly endowed with sensory nerves in the body, a disproportionately large piece of brain is devoted to it. Surely to prevent a living machine from running according to its design, courts disease. Surely circumcision implies a belief in the imperfection of God's design.)
"Like making love in a Wellington boot", a remark associated with The London Rubber Company's electrically tested (so was the Titanic) products. Circumcision's effect makes the French letter seem like the flimsiest gossamer, it is like making love in a plaster cast.
It is significant that - like circumcision - the effect of each of the sex taboos is to reduce the pleasure, the happiness to be had, from copulation.