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.
Physically, it is easy enough. The physical world by and large has rules that are quite known and understandable enough to trust pretty much, minus when the complexity is too high, the starting positions are uknown, and for certain types of unpredictability, such as in quantum physics, but then still a lot can be trusted.
The complexity of a system can make it unpredictable, and an unpredictable system cannot be trusted, except for the rules in the unpredictability, maybe, such as probability distributions, certain ruled possibilities, and such.
Not knowing the starting situation is different. Then the system may well be predictable very well, but not known status-wise. All the marbles in a marble machine bowl follow quite well known, probably mainly deterministic and even not too complicated physics. Yet is is hard to compute which colour marble will come out at any time, unless we can check the outlet guiding mechanics for the balls it has in store. That means the system isn't know enough for what constellation it happens to have at the moment, but it isn'f fundamentally hard to predict what the next color will be, or of great complexity for the next one or a few.
The spiritual is of course the worst in terms of predictability, unless we simply see it as a connection realm with various parties, so it is reduced to a mechanistic, connection type of model, where the parties are the factors that determine trustworhtyness, and the communication channels in principle neutral. The latter may not always be the case, but assuming this is reasonably possible, which between intelligent people could hopefully be true, than it is in the end people that are the determining factor in the making of spiritual connection.
Apart from demaons (simple: not reliable, never trustworthy), there is one more interesting party: God. assuming He exists, and interacts with human beings somehow, of course. Is God reliable? He'd better be, for us that is. Assuming He is indeed God, and allmighty, allknowing, we'd better not be in trouble with Him, and when he in spiritual or other sense is not reliable, we'd be in trouble deep.
I assume God is reliable when He makes known something about Himself or other subjects, so I assume that as far as the bible is indeed His word (by and large to be expected) that book too is reliable when it is taken right. And that in spiritual sense He too should be taken for what He makes clear, and doesn't lie. So if I'd follow a deamon (which I certainly don't plan on), I'd find out for instance when things mess up in reliability sense. I gues the pope is a good example: completely unreliable utterances, and spiritually nothing but evil and untrustworthyness, and without any question Babylon and the new version centering around the city on the seven hills (rome) is not called a future dwelling place of deamons for nothing.
And let me not forget to mention that major parts of official and official 'christianity' will very much team up with the great whore 'motherchurch' there, and be equal, effectively, meaning that the bibles', my, and others' fermenting against it applies equally well to christians of any kind with the same behaviour. Let that be well noted.
So we a (hopefully) trustworthy God, human beings, and deamons as spiritual parties of significance, of which the latter is almost per definition not trustworthy. What does this mean in practice dealing with a certain spiritual constellation or, unpleasant word, system, assuming that some would (again) want such a oppression or mayby voluntary idea.
It means we'd better be aware of the sources of information and guidance in it, or be prepared to be messed with or worse. And I'm sure that those without direct information from the holy spirit, or who doubt their spirit taken for it, are for certain damned in many ways when they're in with the equivalent of the papal system. That for certain is not good for even repeating Gods real, and indeed His, words. I'm very certain the pope or your local childabuser 'general christian' childabuser is not going to repeat the words of Jesus faithfully. Very certain not.
So why do gouvernment leaders shake hands with the pope? Do they have no choice, is it a mere formality? Do they try to subdue the *** forever by it, are they uncapable of getting free from that system? Let's hope that at least it is not because they trust it for one motherfuck (deliberate word) to lead their and my life, officially, and state-wise. Or person wise, but that should be easier.
I'll chose my own deamons to go to hell with, if I so desire, thank you very much. And I mean it to, when someone walks up to me or communicates to me something I find, evil, stupid, or demonic in nature, I reserve the choice to renounce such a person, their accompanying attitude, and especially the content of what they would want to clear. When the nazis role their tanks over the border, thats hard. When Mein Kampf is published, the one writing it should end up behind bars for conspiracy to endloesung. There's a line of thinking involved here.
And seriously, certain types of thinking and their foundation will probably be around starting from before the middle ages to when hopefully Christ returns, but that is no reason to tolerate them and consider them unharmfull. When some claims with almost fanatic, illogical, unhumanly acceptable, or otherwise completely out of order position somethings I don't agree with, then the source of their attitude, behaviour and opinions needs exposure at least in my opinion.
And hopefully the good is appreciated and the evil not liked in societies that don't deserve the worst damnation. The simple fact that only 2 generations or so ago the country I live in was occupied by nazies, that genocide was commited in it with a certain amount of collaborators, and that even now maybe a few thousand kilometers away an actual war is not ended in europe tells me that I'm not seeing ghosts in these areas, and that thinking about the foundations of society is needed and far from luxury.
What about this religion? Supposing that I'm not wrong about the major influence it has in the world, it becomes important to be sharp about things I was edified in quite some time ago, meaning basically there is not much good in the world unless the real God and his Holy Spirit have something almost directly to do with it. The rest declines by nature and is sinfull completely, without exception.
I didn't particularly like that idea, and still not, but I guess it is true, like many other teachings in that black book, and it would better be taken serious.
What about 'the blood of saints' and little whores in that major religeous adulterous (against God) system? That must mean there is cuh evili concept, that should be prevented, and that the desire for Gods life must be the reasons for the adulterers' unjustified jealousy.
How is the religeous life outside that quite lets say uncommon (un-general) religion? Inclined to evil isn't the expression. Inherently evil, producing evil, not blessing, not worth it, and again: evil. And it would better not be seen as advantageous, those idea about pacts with the devil from the middle ages were probably not for nothing from that time. Advantage for many, outside obvious exploitation, became the words' share mainly after historic religeous changes in the times of lets say reformation. The 'western' thinking that can be quite traced back to principles from that time and earlier is by no means from some eastern guru, indonesian maffia clan, israeli antichrist (just for the argument, I guess not many would try making it), african magic doctor, or whatever.
There are pretty clear, objective enough for our relative prosperaty and even freedom, that can be quite clearly and onjectively traced, and I'm not planning on tolerating another image on the subject unless I have good reason. At least not in my own views and life as I have power over. And certainly rome and many fake religions do not have many fruits I'm jealous of, either you end up rich, than the ityfull evil, ugly, uninteresting and luckily effectively not too powerfull pope is no interesting prospect except when I'd be a sucker, and becoming like the general lets say asses in the christal chappel kind of thing is contentwise not much different, unless you like to at least talk big, dressing up as a woman.
The idea being that I agree God occupies himself with this world and people in it, that prophesies when applied right and tested are not only at home in ancient (true) christian lives, and that it is advantageous to listen to what he has to say , both in written form, in utterance form, and maybe in many ways in which he wants to express himself through reliable enough and fitting means.
All this is scriptural, too, in my opinion, when applied right, which is not necessarily easy and without effort, and certainly not senseless.
What would the downside be? Lets say wannabe god, liarish utterances and messages, powergreed, unreliability in general, abuse, being agaist the real God and affraid of being put up with him at work or to be exposed.
So people mustn't think, subdue to all kinds of preferably as powerfull, fear inducing and unfreeing doctrines, treatment, and spiritual influence, I guess. And I'm sure that when the basis isn't one, which it then never is, it goes against itself all the time, and does not exactly bless or value appreciable human life forms.
I'm certain certain delusions are a form of damnation for certain types of lets use the word 'sin'. Nah, maybe not, lets say I'm certain that certain people are damned by their own lies and (clearly) fake religions, lets say like the pope doesn't look very appealing, but different and worse. That implies it is not necessarily a God given job to expose their lies to themselves, or to try to make all christians one or other obvious errors.
On the other side of things, it sometimes isn't very clear what the (hopefully real) God and his Holy Spirit want or are after, and I am sure that it is still true that his service requires man to obey what He indeed wants.
There is a major money question, speaking in general, involved when considering some hot software job or a lets say potentially dusty scientific position. That may be different for major companies in terms of more or less commercial research labs, I have not much experience with these.
Is it fun to research? Yes, certainly, again speaking in general I consider it worth some life time. Beats working? No, when done right, it is work, and should be, otherwise it most likely isn't going anywhere decent. That means 'playing around' may well be important in various ways and keep creativity alive, I consider the essence of science in the sense of research serious work. With my partial calvinist background (not mainly bad I'm sure) that means one does effort, has an amount of discipline, works toward objective enough results, and is rewarded for the efforts.
Is research political? Of course like any society wise area it is subdued to various political constellations, a countries ones' the scientific area it is in, at local and world level, and it is one itself with the people in it.
But that does not mean its results need to be political. We can't take votes on what schoedingers' equation is going to look like today, we can claim not to want to know it or talk about it, we can be in error about it, we can be in research phase about it, or we can know it from many experiments that add up reliably (until know, and within bounds) to a theory we rely on. But deciding on a theory is only possible when we have choices, and experiments limit (and maybe guide) those choices, we can't make statements about matters that have practical implications which are detached from that practica, observable reality for political reasons without succoming to eastern european 'behind iron curtain' types of operation, that hopefully will not make it in societies not worth such terror.
I recently looked at the Java developers manuals concerning for instance page-java applet interaction, and ended up in some pdf's about communication structures with java classes using (of course) socket based communication stubs to make structures with various java parties for tying parties together, with a funny enough extension class for 'rows' of data (sort of supercomputing in Basic idea), and I was reminded, probably on purpose, on a presentation course at university where supposedly a table of content, can be read to have an idea of what a book or sorter piece is about. The titles spanned about three quarters of the computer screen in that small acrobat reader font.. To say that made it clearer, maybe. At least it was clear what the text was about, but honestly, all the strucures are for clear enough reasons, but programming wise don't make that sense, except maybe to create marketshares. The objective reasons would be address spaces, shared secure data access, and portable distributed software, but relying on java based connections to distribute simulations rings the same bells in me as projects to use java for scientific simulations on computer structures. My 286 can work faster, probably, though at least javas' memory management may not be that bad.
All this rambling on about some programming languages and their makeup. The reason lies in two factors: programmers constitute a very non-negligable part of western working society, both number wise and turnover wise, and it seems to me that the matters at hand in programming land (world) have impact that being not mythical, at least takes on forms and occupies positions in thinking that may need care to be taken.
I'm very not iliterate in the area, yet I found similar thinking, where clearly uncontentwise considerations led to my work being seen different (and right by others, luckily, and with more weight) than would be justifiable and desirable.
There are considerations at stake which are simply a matter of taste or choice, but when they take on economical, and up to even near-religious place, I feel compelled to consider and possibly correct. Why did microsoft rule a certain third of the PC OS world until Linux came along? Because it wasn't there yet? Because it grew better?
Don't believe my desk model is good enough? Check this
taken from this page on 'superscalar' processors, lets say fast processors in line with supercomputer structures. for in this case graphics processing.
A few times I looked at my old universities' web pages, for instance on the nanotech subject. What a mess. What an unclearness. The nature or so quotes also don't make effort to hide that they're not exactly themselves the worlds' spearpoint in the area, or are up to the quality standards put forward by some major players in the field of making electrical or other systems on the nanoscale. Not that that is needed, I'd have clear lines in mind as to positioning such an effort, but wouldn't like to deal with at least some of the people there, not for personal capability reasons, but I to strongly detest the idea of the possible situation.