Theo Verelst Diary Page

Latest: 29 january 2001

I've decided after good example to write some diary pages with toughts and events.

Oh, in case anybody fails to understand, I'd like to remind them that these pages are copyrighted, and that everything found here may not be redistributed in any other way then over this direct link without my prior consent. That includes family, christianity, and other cheats. The simple reason is that it may well be that some people have been ill informed because they've spread illegal 'copies' of my materials even with modifications. Apart from my moral judgement, that is illegal, and will be treated as such by me. Make as many references to these pages as you like, make hardcopies, but only of the whole page, including the html-references, and without changing a iota or tittel...

And if not? I won't hesitate to use legal means to correct wrong that may be done otherwise. And I am serious. I usually am. I'm not sure I could get 'attempt to grave emotional assault' out of it, but infrigement on copyright rules is serious enough. And Jesus called upon us to respect the authorities of state, so christians would of course never do such a thing. Lying, imagine that.

Previous Diary Entries

January 26, 2001

I didn't complete the programming course taste idea yet, and not the network solution section either, not because I can't (obviously enough), but I didn't feel like it enough, and because they are ideas a bit in the thinking realm still. For instance the matrix solution for in the latter and examples for the former can be made interactive as well, which is nice and illustrative (what a word). I find the subjects relevant for personal reasons and for lets say general reasons, the latter because networks and programming are quite relevant in both the computer related world, being of considerable magnitude, and the world system, and I can contentwise make very clear that there are at least bad thinking modes I can demonstrate to rightfully disagree with.

Networks and religion

I looked up 'agape' (the greek word for a certain form of love) in french lexicon the other day. A paragraph in french, don't think too much about it, its good for practice, and fun enough.

Le primaire traduction de 'agape' etait 'affection', que je fesait sonner comme l'anglais quand je lisais ca, l'amour etait le derniere (troisieme), j'ai oubliez le seconde. En tout cas c'etait beacoup plus clair le traduction que l'un en 'Scott Liddel', mais ce ne veut pas dire que on a compris meilleur la grece, ca. Peuvent les anglais comprende le concept d'affection comme les grec peut etre voulaient fair etre communice'? D'apart du faire une generalisation, ce question est relevant pour expliquer quelque un que ca veut dire 'l'amour', en grece, en francais, en englais, a les americain, aus hollandais. Je suis sur que fair comprendre quelque mode de vivre peut etre compare' avec la question de fair comprendre q'est ce que c'est de quoi Paul parle an 1 Cor 13, le chapitre parlant d'amour en bible, ou l'auteur utilise le meme mot.

J'ai dit en mes textes deja que c'est presque amusant de s'occuper avec ce mot en des lexicons divers, apprener le diversite' de mots on essaie de faire expliqer un concept, et le diversite en contradiction qui on a cree depuis quelque cents annees. Est ce que on a besoin d'avoir ete en Paris ou des autre cite's ou places en france pour se envisioner ou sentir et comprendre comment c'est, la. Et est ce que c'est different beaucoup de vie en autre pais? C'est possible de avour un sent de ca par cinema ou television?

On a ni de cinema, ni de television, ni de source audio ou musique de temps grec et Paul et Jesus. Il y a des livres, quelqeus images, illustrations, des ruines, peut etre des savoir des histoires non-ecrit, peut etre la grece moderne. Pour comprendre un livre on doit savoir la lange, les images, et aussi la logique d'auteur et des intentioner lecteurs. Ca peut etre plus ambigu et difficile qu' on ce rendre compte par example an les divers nouveaux versions de bible qui on voit en commerce. Faire on petite histore lui meme avec un (faible) base en grece de nouveaux testament est facile assez, et pour quelques peut etre interessant, mais fair clair qu'est ce que c'est que peut etre le Dieux a vouloir dire la est un autre occupation.

Enough french? Guess so. In short, I wonder wether it is possible to explain colors to a color blind? Sort of. It is quite impossible for a slave I would think to understand what the intrinsic difficulties are of sinning in the live of a serious democrat in greek times, maybe with the exception of some that live with them.

Now about Luke. The idea is that the network title is about what people form together when they think together, either in some unarticulated way when there is mutual influencing in a way that can only be circumscribed, such as the causes for in-love chemicals to be released in the brain, affecting other areas of live, or in a wordly form when spoken words or articulated thoughs are exchanged. The question is wether something can be said about the whole and sub-parts of such preferable non-machinery. The answer as an engineer and scientist would normally be that it should be considered possible, and desirable, and as human being I would say it is of primary essence that at least one knows what one is dealing with, and what the options are.

Luke's first sentences are quite interesting in straightforward greek rendering. I though about it, I don't have the greek lexicon here, I don't think I'll dare to put sentences down from only memory, but the essence is that he, like John, speaks about words that from heaven formed him in essential ways, and that he considers it of importance that the 'pragmata', methods (of living) are made clear. A lot of interesting and clear figurative language is used, which is quite worth putting on an english page, maybe more then most other passages I've tried, and quite relevant in terms of the way things worked. I think Luke was a (edified?) physician.

Anyhow, 'In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God' (talking about Jesus, Gods son), is clearly indicative of the importance of the greek word that here is translated with 'word' in new testament teaching. So the word of god is important, and the possible network, or connection between Him, his thoughts, his ideas, and, whatever that would mean, his Spirit, is probably of prime importance to life on earth having to do with him. And considering He is the giver of His life, that is probably the only thing realy worth it amoung degenerated mankind, He will have something to say about it.

Without question that is also why there is such attention for doctrine and communicating Gods words in the bible. And words, amoung images, and possibly personal touch, are the prime way in which God seems to communicate.

What about deamons? Unregenerated man, and the natural world is not permitted in direct contact with God, theoretically and practically. The spiritual is then what is called 'dead', devoid of contact with God. Does that mean there can be no knowledge of or about Him? Of course not, the bible, (true) christian utterances, prophesies, visible, observable works he does are all available, but no direct spiritual contact. That does not mean there are no spirits that will claim to be God even, a known favorite ambition of the satan for instance, which in the bible is portraied as not all to intelligent, subdued at times even to one angel alone, and certainly not rightfully the head of the world. Various demons, smaller and bigger ones will try to claim they speak gods words, are god, or the holy spirit, or whatever makes them perceived in certain ways. It it never worth following them, or even listening to them. Of course evil people will play games with the principle of letting deamons generate lies, indice fear, back up and come up with their false doctrines that bring them advantage, and take spiritual place amoung them when they see fit.

Now about the network. Lets talk about a network where the links carry words and the nodes spanning the network precieve and / or utter words. Then one node is God, another is me, yet another is another person, and maye still another could be a deamon, and in physical sense, there are books and computers that are able to reproduce words. When I, with or without bible code, Israel, Jesus' fruits and contemporary visible signs of Gods work, decide that certain words are most probably originating with God, it becomes interesting, and in my opinion generally advantageous to learn about them, and take them serious as they are intended.

What happened to the babylonic speach network after it was damned by God, if we take that story for literal and correct? They didn't understand eachothers' language anymore, the network apearently didn't serve their purpose anymore, they spread out and various nations seem to have formed.

What was with the nazi network? The head wasn't courageous, powerfull, and dignified enough in the end to continue its own life, and the whole network appearently wasn't truthfull enough to make it to a complete misery over the world.

Are human, both physical and spiritual networks influenced by modern communication means? The physical questionless are, they depend on communication means, and anyone not within speaking distance needs some non-verbal communication network link.

7 years ago or so ago (just happens to be roughly the number) I did research in computer networking area, and I produced software units that would talk to eachother, quite like in normal language even, except to could utter sentences over different channels simultaneously, and listen to more than one source at the time. And the talk would not be all too elevated: put this bit of data there, give me that information, start computing this and that, inform me when it is done, what are you doing? That sort of communication.

I've recently mentioned my connection server, which communicated about desired connections, sort of like various nodes in the internet also do when a webpage is requested somewhere. That means the network communicates about its own structure. In the graphics software I made, as an example, the processes, the programs running in parallel, that together would make computer graphics images would start up other processes to complete the task with together. That on itself is not new, there are thousands of programs on varous operating systems that utilize the principle, but the thinking in general terms about such networks of programs with an amount of logic or intelligence in them, that significantly form structures themselves to perform certain computations was, and is fashionable in a not too common software design thinking. Object orientedness isn't the idea here (remember, I professionally programmed in Objective C, a bit more scientifically oriented, more set-thinking equiped, OO language maybe older then C++, for at least 5 years, with working and even efficient enough results), it is about processes running as independent entities communicating in a known language, structuring (virtual) networks themselves while they run. That means they have a communication protocol, which is also not a new concept, ask computer for 30 years, midi equiped synthesizers for at least 15 years, etc. But it is interesting, and scientifically fashionable enough to consider how such communicating processes can be utilized and described together.

Also in my more tcl/tk page, networks of semi-parallel communicating blocks can be made, that form, and when requested break, their connection structure, and where the network may grow and change with time, under external (my) control, or by internal control, such as one of more conceptual blocks.

Now is it possible to say general things about such networks? Of course. And that is where it starts to get relevant in an essential way in my opinion, as a comparision with the human, too. Supose I have on node with the capability to generate a 'delete all' message that can be triggered somehow, then I will want to make sure, I don't have a chance of connecting with that branch of the network unless I can trust that that won't happen. Or supose I want to find certain information, then for sure I'll need to find some reliable path to a reliable enough node containing the information I'm looking for.

Is God into all this? Reading His word, it seems that He has various ways of creating, destroying, and rendering damned various constellations of people, having various doctrines and lives, which in general language at least seem to be clearly qualitatively described in for instance the book of revelation. And from the source of the life that spans the whole of what we can ever be, that information is most likely important.

It seems that though God is truthfull at times he lets people 'have' a lie, I'll need to read the greek, but at least He doesn't always blow lies away straight away, and He, being almighty and eternal and all of course has mysteries not understandable by man, probably, our brains are limited (and demonic thinking patterns even worse, they usually suck real bad, and take seconds to throughsee).

Now what about 'doctrines of deamons'. I think they are simply what the language states, a kind of truth (seemingly) that a demon suggests or points at, and that will of course always damn the listener taking it to heart. There is no good in them, realy. It is written (what a expression) that fake apostles even, in the time of Peter would produce misery and damnation with their 'truth', that would wither as cancer, well, it did, and still does. Punishment from God, if they have aching ears they want to have scratched with lies, they can have em, God does not force himself in general on such persons, if they want lies, they can make them. Those fake apostles and deceitfull workers are then human, and their doctrines, too, will damn when taken for good news. They give and have given religion a bad name, for clear reasons. Lets focus on a truthfull gospel that is good news.

Analog samples

I got 7 chips for free from Analog Devices, a major electronics components manufacturer, as procucts samples, even with the datasheets. In electronics, datasheets are sort of a standard idea: they contain in language of the field all information about a part, the connections, the electrical properties, their dynamical behaviour, temperature sensitivity, even the geometry and measures of their case, and in a standard, and appreciated form: Introduction about the part with main features, description of functioning, all electronical featuers on a row in a table with generally known constants and measurement units (these are usually hundreds of figures easily), then a set of graphs plotting interesting parameters and their dependence on certain contitions, then application examples, and case drawings, maybe followed by appendices with theoretics, more applications, and literature list (and the address of the manufacturer or supplier)

I've known them since I was little, and they hardly changed, which is pleasant. For someone in the field, the datasheet and the part are enough to built some piece of working electronics with. So one can go over (new for isntance) part lists, see what would be usefull, fun or nice, get the parts and their datasheet, and one can make a circuit with them. Major hobby over many years, and scientifically very valid. I've regularly wished computers, operating systems and software would be documented the same. Just to form thoughts the right the whole hart of the modern PC, the pentium chip, has its own datasheets too, hunderds of pages about the chips connections, the instructions, the internal busses, the electrical properties, everyhting (it seems). Surf to Intel, check for datasheets in the menus for developers section, prepare acrobat, and have a look. Of course the datasheets are illegible for non experts in certain fields, but the interesting part is that with some background knowledge about computer parts, and maybe a word and acronym list, it is realy possible to learn about every little bit of what normally is known of the pentium. No bull, no fuzzyness, not even that much company secret in terms of applying the part (not it internals), just pretty objective technical data. Available for free (minus the internet connection or the cheap enough print), quite legible for someone with computer design knowledge, though still complicated of course, and in line in buildup and logic with other types of datasheets.

Major fun I had long periods of my life with electronics and computer parts was to get magazines and catalogs (including radio shacks), scan for new and interesting (and at the time cheap) parts, an plan and make designs with them. I was completely aware of the reasons for wanting chips: they saved incredible amounts of work and money. I could get chips to do digital and analog jobs that would take massive amounts of parts to do with conventional parts, in some cases a few hundred, in other cases such as computer circtuiry one chip would replace easily tens or hundreds of thousands parts. And they were often cheap enough, few guilders to maybe a few tens. Organ, light organs, all kinds of running lights, a audio circuits, games, measurement tools, supplies, sensors, all kinds of fun gadgets or essential (for me at the time) equipment, all made easier and cheaper by chips.

That still holds: my digital synthesizer would be pretty much impossible without integrated circuits, and they're quite cheap. And the number of parts and work it would take to built a heavy, reliable, and high quality 100 Watt audio amplifier from 'normal' electronics parts is considerable. Nothing like a little circuit board with two hands full of cheap electronics parts and a chip that together (without heatsink) literally fit in a normal sized matchbox.

Would all this end at some point? It didn't the last 20 years when I witnessed it. It's still more than fun enough, storing a phonebook of information on a little black box with connections the size of a quarter or something with battery power lasting long is fun enough. A wristwath with real digital camera for prizes even kids can ask for is fun enough. A gps unit in a watch, with tracker to see where the watch has been over a period of time could be dangerous to evil, and is completely affordable (the latter two are products I picked from Casio's website).

I now got some operational amplifiers for instance, with up to date specifications. In electronicists terminology, 300 MHz gbwp, low noise enough, good distortion figures, high load outputs, rail to rail driving. In short a few dollars (or less) for general purpose amplifier chips that can do video amplification even for high quality computer monitors with very little quality loss, as well as maybe a radio receiver job, as well as audio pre-amplification probably with specs amoung the very top hifi range.

One little thing: these things are for, indecently put, asians.. They are tiny. The size of a small knot, with wires apart just enough to use a pincet on. Realy, the biggest ones under 'normal' electronics parts wire distances (being 2.56 mm) are a twentiest of an inch. That should be just doable. I've received one that without realizing it has pins about half a millimeter (!) apart, just above loupe size, I'm not sure I can trick connections with that easily without the right tools. Normally, these parts are put on a Printed Circuit Board with the connections chemically etched or maybe mechanically cut for a prototype, where the part is put in place by a soldering technique with for instance hot air, or simply glued in place with conductive, carbonized glue on the pins and the pcb. Works good for wireless phones and palmtops and such. But of course thats not so much intended for hobby use, and when they brake, who will repair them?

Are those datasheets interesting? They are not like lets say the specification of large, nechanical electrical parts like switches and lights, with lots of measures and colour coding and such, though some may have interest in them, too. They mainly evolve around known specification methods, lets say how much current they use, how fast they are, what type of input and output loads they can handle, their maximum amplification, how much noise they produce in addition to the signal, and how faithfull they transmit signals. All these kinds of opamps have figures for these parameters, and can be relatively boring.

Unless they are extreme, or advanced. Lets say an amplifier unit with a maximum frequency (bandwidth) of 1200 Mega herz 10 years ago was extreme. Probably not at secret HPlabs, but for normally available parts that would be 1 or 4, maybe 20 up to sometimes a hundred megaherz (costly), but not that high. Another interesting point, related, is that the datasheets would normally contain information on how to apply such a part, which is instructional. How are signals of such high frequencies actually carried to and from the part. It seems for instance that those small, surface mounted devices as they are called, are much better at dealing with such high frequencies because of their lead (wire/pins) design.

state vs. who ?

The official documents of the us together in a paperback made me raise an eyebrow by a title: the state versus Holland, it one title reads, or something to that extend. Now there could be masses of titles like that, but there aren't. What is this? Picture the 20's/30's. There seems to be a canadian city or province, where wild birds were supposedly shot, or something, I forgot the exact story, or maybe that's where they crossed the border of the us, and were shot down in hunting. Anyhow, the issue at stake was that the federal gouvernment was to decide wether a state had the right to decide on an issue maybe about the passing over of these birds to their feeding grounds in yet another state or hunting them down, by itself, or wether the federal level would interfere in this case. Normally the issue was a state matter, but in this case it was easily decided on, I guess in the interest of the birds, that the states' souvereignty in the matter would be lifted.

This was amoung dignified and officially relevant other legal cases, and the document of state such as the declaration of independence, the constitution, and such. Remarkeble reading, I've already remarked before, the 'persuit of happyness' against the denial of the authority of the 'english king', what a weight and place this is given. It's interesting also to see what is written at high (or low) times of history such as 1917 (about working laws), of course WO I (some quotes I must refresh in my memory, I don't dare to just give em), and the horrible times of WO II, starting with the declaration of war after pearl harbour, and also the (half a year later) official declaraton of war against germany, with some strong and lets say upright language worth quoting acccurately.

Then Yalta (sucks, but the russians strike me as almost funny in the proceedings in certain ways), and I was looking for official documents on the main event countering the japanese evil, the nuclear bomb, but there isn't any. I guess it was secret and covered by the press afterward. May have been hard to take a vote in the congress about it, but still, this is not nothing. I remember a documentary where the president was passed a secret note, and that continuously some of the involved, secretly operating, army men and scientists were communicating their worries and uncertainties about the possible effects and the responsibilities involved in actually detonating such a horrible and destructive device. They must have prayed a lot, and I know that one of the worries, apart from war and maybe 'humane' considerations was that the whole earth might become part of nuclear chain reaction and burn like the sun. Einstein was involved I think for similar reasons.