My art 30 Sep 2014: “light and dark colors – distance, shadows and 3D effects…!”

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

My art 30 Sep 2014: “light and dark colors – distance, shadows and 3D effects…!”

“light and dark colors – distance, shadows and 3D effects…!”

a light colored leaf or vegetation is closer in an image!
a lighter colored Mountains is further away in the same image!

shadows can be lighter or darker colored!
darkness on a tree trunk and rocks are depths, cracks, as it is on rocks, land and water!

.
.
.
Bookmark and Share

…Complementary and additional definitions of PURE LOGIC…! William Thomson, Immanuel Kant and Richard Frederick Clarke…!

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

…Complementary and additional definitions of PURE LOGIC…! William Thomson, Immanuel Kant and Richard Frederick Clarke…!


William Thomson

Immanuel Kant

…Complementary and aditional definitions of PURE LOGIC…! William Thomson, Immanuel Kant and Richard Frederick Clarke…!

http://anagrammatt2.blogspot.ca/2014/09/my-re-edition-re-print-aquired.html
[A] ARCHBISHOP William Thomson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thomson_%28bishop%29
I will use a reference to the “particular” definition
or usage given by the late ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY,
William Thomson, of pure logic, in his Book of Logic.

I happen to have a reprint of his Book! Probably not
buried from World Libraries and re-prints on amazon.com,
but buried most likely from Universities Academia!

The Books title is:

An outline of the necessary LAWS OF THOUGHT: A treatise
on Pure and Applied Logic. By William Thomson, D.D.

[[[“…

Page 23
5. Pure Logic (which is later in the order of discovery
than applied, inasmuch as it is formed by abstracting
from that more general science) takes no account of
modes in which we collect the materials of thought, such
as Perception, Belief, Memory, Suggestion, Association
of Ideas; although these are all in one sense laws of
thought.* Presupposing the possesion of the materials,
it only refers them to their proper head or principle,
as conceptions, as subjects or predicates, as judgements,
or as arguments. It enounces the laws we must observe in
thinking, but does not explain the subsidiary processes,
some or all of which must take place to allow us to think.

Again, in pure logic, the different processes of the mind
are regarded in their perfect and complete state; whilst
in applied, the imperfect faculties of man, the limited
opportunities of observation, the necessity of deciding
upon a question when the materials of a judgement are still
insufficient, impose many limitations on the perfection
of our knowledge.

11. Pure Logic is a science of the form, or of the formal
laws of thinking, and not of the matter. The terms form
and matter, in their philosophic use, will require some
explanation.

A statue may be considered as consisting of two parts, the
marble out of which it is hewn, which is its matter or
stuff, and the form which the artist communicates. The
latter is esential to the statue, but not the former,
since the work might be the same, though the material
different; but if the form were wanting we could not even
call the work a statue. This notion of a material
susceptible of a certain form, the accesion of which shall
give it a new nature and name, may be regarded as matter,
and geometrical figures as the form imprssed in it. The
voice is the matter of speech, and articulation the form.
But as it is the form which proximately and obviously makes
the thing what it is (although there can be no form whitout
matter), the word form to be interchanged with essence and
with nature…

…”]]]

______________________________________________

I completely understand your doubts on my usage of the
terminology of PURE LOGIC!

But what has meaning and usage in chemistry, minerals,
language, can be completely defined using a combined
meaning!

Thus I simplify the issue, by merely saying pure is not
only the specific pure H2O formula for water, but can
also mean the necessary (complete) water contents the
human body needs, as MINERAL WATER, from a mountain
spring, plus a bit of chlorine, the brain needs, etc…!

Or as you find the origin of pure bauxite from where you
can make Aluminum. Or the pure form of gold found in rock
in Nature, which is pure, but can be further purified to
a specific form of Gold. But that came from a complete
general form in nature!

Pure logic is the complete realm of the necessary rules
for thought: the realm of positive good logic, and the
realm of negative bad logic! And so on!

Anyway, I am allowed to define or make a self definition
as pertaining the redaction of my Books and studies! In
this lies my originality!

For example in thought we can show a pure perfect idea,
or a merely logic idea!

Light is white, which is logic! But in complete pure logic,
we know light is not only white, it is even out of the
range of human eyesight perception!
[B] The Critique of Pure Reason, by Immanuel Kant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant

Introduction.

  1. Of the difference between Pure and Empirical Knowledge

That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt. For how is it possible that the faculty of cognition should be awakened into exercise otherwise than by means of objects which affect our senses, and partly of themselves produce representations, partly rouse our powers of understanding into activity, to compare, to connect, or to separate these, and so to convert the raw material of our sensuous impressions into a knowledge of objects, which is called experience? In respect of time, therefore, no knowledge of ours is antecedent to experience, but begins with it.

But, though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience. For, on the contrary, it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the occasion), an addition which we cannot distinguish from the original element given by sense, till long practice has made us attentive to, and skilful in separating it. It is, therefore, a question which requires close investigation, and not to be answered at first sight, whether there exists a knowledge altogether independent of experience, and even of all sensuous impressions. Knowledge of this kind is called a priori, in contradistinction to empirical knowledge, which has its sources a posteriori, that is, in experience.

But the expression, “a priori,” is not as yet definite enough adequately to indicate the whole meaning of the question above stated. For, in speaking of knowledge which has its sources in experience, we are wont to say, that this or that may be known a priori, because we do not derive this knowledge immediately from experience, but from a general rule, which, however, we have itself borrowed from experience. Thus, if a man undermined his house, we say, “he might know a priori that it would have fallen;” that is, he needed not to have waited for the experience that it did actually fall. But still, a priori, he could not know even this much. For, that bodies are heavy, and, consequently, that they fall when their supports are taken away, must have been known to him previously, by means of experience.

By the term “knowledge a priori,” therefore, we shall in the sequel understand, not such as is independent of this or that kind of experience, but such as is absolutely so of all experience. Opposed to this is empirical knowledge, or that which is possible only a posteriori, that is, through experience. Knowledge a priori is either pure or impure. Pure knowledge a priori is that with which no empirical element is mixed up. For example, the proposition, “Every change has a cause,” is a proposition a priori, but impure, because change is a conception which can only be derived from experience.

  1. The Human Intellect, even in an Unphilosophical State, is in Possession of Certain Cognitions “a priori”.

The question now is as to a criterion, by which we may securely distinguish a pure from an empirical cognition. Experience no doubt teaches us that this or that object is constituted in such and such a manner, but not that it could not possibly exist otherwise. Now, in the first place, if we have a proposition which contains the idea of necessity in its very conception, if, moreover, it is not derived from any other proposition, unless from one equally involving the idea of necessity, it is absolutely priori. Secondly, an empirical judgement never exhibits strict and absolute, but only assumed and comparative universality (by induction); therefore, the most we can say is—so far as we have hitherto observed, there is no exception to this or that rule. If, on the other hand, a judgement carries with it strict and absolute universality, that is, admits of no possible exception, it is not derived from experience, but is valid absolutely a priori.

Empirical universality is, therefore, only an arbitrary extension of validity, from that which may be predicated of a proposition valid in most cases, to that which is asserted of a proposition which holds good in all; as, for example, in the affirmation, “All bodies are heavy.” When, on the contrary, strict universality characterizes a judgement, it necessarily indicates another peculiar source of knowledge, namely, a faculty of cognition a priori. Necessity and strict universality, therefore, are infallible tests for distinguishing pure from empirical knowledge, and are inseparably connected with each other. But as in the use of these criteria the empirical limitation is sometimes more easily detected than the contingency of the judgement, or the unlimited universality which we attach to a judgement is often a more convincing proof than its necessity, it may be advisable to use the criteria separately, each being by itself infallible.

Now, that in the sphere of human cognition we have judgements which are necessary, and in the strictest sense universal, consequently pure a priori, it will be an easy matter to show. If we desire an example from the sciences, we need only take any proposition in mathematics. If we cast our eyes upon the commonest operations of the understanding, the proposition, “Every change must have a cause,” will amply serve our purpose. In the latter case, indeed, the conception of a cause so plainly involves the conception of a necessity of connection with an effect, and of a strict universality of the law, that the very notion of a cause would entirely disappear, were we to derive it, like Hume, from a frequent association of what happens with that which precedes; and the habit thence originating of connecting representations—the necessity inherent in the judgement being therefore merely subjective. Besides, without seeking for such examples of principles existing a priori in cognition, we might easily show that such principles are the indispensable basis of the possibility of experience itself, and consequently prove their existence a priori. For whence could our experience itself acquire certainty, if all the rules on which it depends were themselves empirical, and consequently fortuitous? No one, therefore, can admit the validity of the use of such rules as first principles. But, for the present, we may content ourselves with having established the fact, that we do possess and exercise a faculty of pure a priori cognition; and, secondly, with having pointed out the proper tests of such cognition, namely, universality and necessity.

Not only in judgements, however, but even in conceptions, is an a priori origin manifest. For example, if we take away by degrees from our conceptions of a body all that can be referred to mere sensuous experience—colour, hardness or softness, weight, even impenetrability—the body will then vanish; but the space which it occupied still remains, and this it is utterly impossible to annihilate in thought. Again, if we take away, in like manner, from our empirical conception of any object, corporeal or incorporeal, all properties which mere experience has taught us to connect with it, still we cannot think away those through which we cogitate it as substance, or adhering to substance, although our conception of substance is more determined than that of an object. Compelled, therefore, by that necessity with which the conception of substance forces itself upon us, we must confess that it has its seat in our faculty of cognition a priori.

III. Philosophy stands in need of a Science which shall Determine the Possibility, Principles, and Extent of Human Knowledge “a priori

Of far more importance than all that has been above said, is the consideration that certain of our cognitions rise completely above the sphere of all possible experience, and by means of conceptions, to which there exists in the whole extent of experience no corresponding object, seem to extend the range of our judgements beyond its bounds. And just in this transcendental or supersensible sphere, where experience affords us neither instruction nor guidance, lie the investigations of reason, which, on account of their importance, we consider far preferable to, and as having a far more elevated aim than, all that the understanding can achieve within the sphere of sensuous phenomena. So high a value do we set upon these investigations, that even at the risk of error, we persist in following them out, and permit neither doubt nor disregard nor indifference to restrain us from the pursuit. These unavoidable problems of mere pure reason are God, freedom (of will), and immortality. The science which, with all its preliminaries, has for its especial object the solution of these problems is named metaphysics—a science which is at the very outset dogmatical, that is, it confidently takes upon itself the execution of this task without any previous investigation of the ability or inability of reason for such an undertaking.

Now the safe ground of experience being thus abandoned, it seems nevertheless natural that we should hesitate to erect a building with the cognitions we possess, without knowing whence they come, and on the strength of principles, the origin of which is undiscovered. Instead of thus trying to build without a foundation, it is rather to be expected that we should long ago have put the question, how the understanding can arrive at these a priori cognitions, and what is the extent, validity, and worth which they may possess? We say, “This is natural enough,” meaning by the word natural, that which is consistent with a just and reasonable way of thinking; but if we understand by the term, that which usually happens, nothing indeed could be more natural and more comprehensible than that this investigation should be left long unattempted. For one part of our pure knowledge, the science of mathematics, has been long firmly established, and thus leads us to form flattering expectations with regard to others, though these may be of quite a different nature. Besides, when we get beyond the bounds of experience, we are of course safe from opposition in that quarter; and the charm of widening the range of our knowledge is so great that, unless we are brought to a standstill by some evident contradiction, we hurry on undoubtingly in our course. This, however, may be avoided, if we are sufficiently cautious in the construction of our fictions, which are not the less fictions on that account.

Mathematical science affords us a brilliant example, how far, independently of all experience, we may carry our a priori knowledge. It is true that the mathematician occupies himself with objects and cognitions only in so far as they can be represented by means of intuition. But this circumstance is easily overlooked, because the said intuition can itself be given a priori, and therefore is hardly to be distinguished from a mere pure conception. Deceived by such a proof of the power of reason, we can perceive no limits to the extension of our knowledge. The light dove cleaving in free flight the thin air, whose resistance it feels, might imagine that her movements would be far more free and rapid in airless space, just in the same way did Plato, abandoning the world of sense because of the narrow limits it sets to the understanding, venture upon the wings of ideas beyond it, into the void space of pure intellect. He did not reflect that he made no real progress by all his efforts; for he met with no resistance which might serve him for a support, as it were, whereon to rest, and on which he might apply his powers, in order to let the intellect acquire momentum for its progress. It is, indeed, the common fate of human reason in speculation, to finish the imposing edifice of thought as rapidly as possible, and then for the first time to begin to examine whether the foundation is a solid one or no. Arrived at this point, all sorts of excuses are sought after, in order to console us for its want of stability, or rather, indeed, to enable us to dispense altogether with so late and dangerous an investigation. But what frees us during the process of building from all apprehension or suspicion, and flatters us into the belief of its solidity, is this. A great part, perhaps the greatest part, of the business of our reason consists in the analysation of the conceptions which we already possess of objects. By this means we gain a multitude of cognitions, which although really nothing more than elucidations or explanations of that which (though in a confused manner) was already thought in our conceptions, are, at least in respect of their form, prized as new introspections; whilst, so far as regards their matter or content, we have really made no addition to our conceptions, but only disinvolved them. But as this process does furnish a real priori knowledge, which has a sure progress and useful results, reason, deceived by this, slips in, without being itself aware of it, assertions of a quite different kind; in which, to given conceptions it adds others, a priori indeed, but entirely foreign to them, without our knowing how it arrives at these, and, indeed, without such a question ever suggesting itself. I shall therefore at once proceed to examine the difference between these two modes of knowledge.

_____________________________________

MY NOTES:

So far I can extend the definition of pure logic, to at least three usages and definitions:

[1] Pure complete logic, is not only the purity of a chemical element of the periodical table, but the pure natural form of a element as found in nature, which is not as pure as to its main element, but complete as to what else is found with it.

[2] Pure complete logic, is all logic, including non-logic or illogic.

[3] Pure logic, as un-biassed, true and factual logic. Has no need to invent or make up stories.
 http://anagrammatt2.blogspot.ca/2014/09/my-re-edition-re-print-aquired.html

[4] And the Immanuel Kant, pure logic, of what is pure a priori knowledge and what is not pure a priori knowledge.

I am sure there exists more usages of pure and applicable to pure logic! But if there aren’t these four listed ones, are well sufficient.

George F. Thomson
.
.
.

Posted by George Frederick Thomson at 6:19 PM

…My Re-edition Re-print acquired Copyright of an old Book in the Public Domain with no know(n) renewed Copyright…! Logic – Richard Frederick Clarke 1882-1894 [Under : Manuals of Catholic Philosophy!]

Saturday, September 13, 2014

…My Re-edition Re-print acquired Copyright of an old Book in the Public Domain with no know(n) renewed Copyright…! Logic – Richard Frederick Clarke 1882-1894 [Under : Manuals of Catholic Philosophy!]

My Canada copyright re-print of Logic by “RICHARD FREDERICK CLARKE”!

First blogged around November in the year 2012, when it was copyrighted by the a new rightful publisher! Unless the first publisher claims copyright!

“””Some of the new notes to be included in the re-edition, re_print are:

Clarke defines correctly true pure logic, with no biasses, and then supports the Bible and the Catholic Church as true logic only Theology! As we can see in Chapter 1 page 1.

So in page 2, he clearly declares the necessity of the Laws of Thought and logic, for everything and Academia Theology!

Then in Chapter in page 411, Clarke clearly leaves logic and declares truth from what has wrong logic! Which is explained mainly in my Book of Pure Logic.

Clarke falsely affirms against non-biassed logic, that blindly a Doctrine is true, without giving the premisses and arguments of logic, for their basis!

“””Amongst other of my annotated comments done forthcoming in this publication!

This book was published around 1882-1894. Originally as Manuals of Catholic Philosophy…!!! But of Richard F. Clarke!”””

“””FOR THE INTELLIGENT OR NAIVE READER, THIS BOOK IS EVIDENCE OF HOW TRUE UN-BIASSED PURE LOGIC HAS BEEN OBFUSCATED AS RECENTLY AS 122 YEARS AGO, BY THE RELIGIONS OF THE BIBLE WHO CONTROLLED MUCH OF UNIVERSITY ACADEMIA! And is still being obfuscated…!!!”””

“””I could not withhold putting my hands on this book, lost in time in Libraries and as “old logic” available by re-printer online, that do not really read Books! But the effort for their electronic availability, surely is a positive desire of preservation of “old books”…!!!”””

“””The other book I like is a Book by the late Arch Bishop of Canterbury William Thomson, whose book is not even mentioned online at Wikipedia, titled as: “The necessary Rules of Thought. A treatise on “pure” and “applied” logic 1863. Only because it is somehow of the Monarchy of England, as head of the Anglican Church, did I not venture to lay hands on it also!
This book a nice definition of the many of what is correct unbiassed true complete pure logic and all logic.”””

Many thanks to all for your unbiased desire to progress to more advanced and better logic and knowledge! Believe me, the Indians of the Jungles have survived there for 1,000 of years, and could do so until the end of times, with no education and modern technology…! Without psychology nor need of medicine or other! They would get most all needed from their jungles or simply die! The heathens, infidels, savages, never needed a White mans God, nor a Muslims God, nor any God but their own beliefs…!

http://anagrammatt2.blogspot.ca/2014/09/complementary-and-aditional-definitions.html

George F. Thomson

.
.
.
Bookmark and Share

#Suicide is preventable…! Unless you don’t find the right “thing” to stop it…! – Did JESUS CHRIST SUICIDE…?

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

#Suicide is preventable…! Unless you don’t find the right “thing” to stop it…! – Did JESUS CHRIST SUICIDE…?

.
.
.
Bookmark and Share

Re-Blog: …how does a Original Honda Accord 2001 front wheel ball bearing burn out in less than 1,000Km usage ?! (North American’s must be all rich, they do not like you doing your own mechanics!) – …NYLON Bearings since the 1995’s, that burn or are “burned”, the World Car Industry’s DOOM…! PLEASE do not mention NYLON ENGINE PISTONS…!

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Re-Blog: …how does a Original Honda Accord 2001 front wheel ball bearing burn out in less than 1,000Km usage ?! (North American’s must be all rich, they do not like you doing your own mechanics!) – …NYLON Bearings since the 1995’s, that burn or are “burned”, the World Car Industry’s DOOM…! PLEASE do not mention NYLON ENGINE PISTONS…!

…how does a Original Honda Accord 2001 front wheel ball bearing burn out in less than 1000Km usage ?! (North American’s must be all rich), they do not like you doing your own mechanics!

_________________________________________

Friday, December 6, 2013

…NYLON Bearings since the 1995’s, that burn or are “burned”, the World Car Industry’s DOOM…! PLEASE do not mention NYLON ENGINE PISTONS…!

Sunday, December 1, 2013

…NYLON Bearings since the 1995’s, that burn or are “burned”, the World Car Industry’s DOOM…! PLEASE do not mention NYLON ENGINE PISTONS…!

Bearing Parts Descriptions and Terminology

Ball Bearings Components

http://www.nmbtc.com/bearings/engineering/component-parts.html http://www.beckarnley.com/

The figures below illustrate an assembled Ball Bearing and the terms used to describe each component:

Bearing Parts 1 Standard Shield type Component Parts Shield type
Flange type Component Parts Flange type External Retaining Ring type External Retaining Ring type

About Ball Bearing Parts

When discussing ball bearing components, it’s important to understand that the main parts of the ball bearing are the races and the balls. There is an outer race, which goes into a bore, and the inner race, in which the shaft rides. The balls are placed in between these two parts to create the rolling properties of the ball bearing. Without these basic parts, there is no ball bearing. That being said, there are other bearing parts to consider, like shields, cages, and flanges. Here you can find a description of some of these types of parts that are available through NMB.

Retainers/Cage

The following retainers are available in most of our Ball Bearings.

Ribbon Retainer

Ribbon Retainer/Cage (Symbol R)

It is composed of two press molded steel parts. The balls are held between the two steel parts, and the tabs of one of the steel parts are bent over the second steel part to unite them together. This is the most common type.

Crown Retainer

Crown Retainer/Cage (Symbol H)

It is composed of a press molded steel part. The small difference in inner and outer diameters of the retainer allows them to be used for thin type and very small ball bearings.

Plastic Retainer

Plastic Retainer/Cage (Symbol MN etc.)

It is composed of a molded and cut plastic part. The plastics include Polyamide, Polyacetal, and so on. It is used for high speed rotation and low noise level.

Shields and Steels (Enclosures)

Steel Shield Snap Ring

Steel Shield-Snap Ring Type

NMB part number symbol : ZZ
The metal shield is a steel plate secured in the outer ring with a steel snap ring.

Steel Shield-Caulking Type

NMB part number symbol : KK or HH
JIS part number symbol : ZZ

The shield is a formed steel plate, pressed into a recess in the outer ring.

          Steel Shield Caulking

Rubber Non-Contact & Contact Seal

Rubber Non-Contact Steel

Symbol SS
Refers to NMB & JIS numbering system.
The rubber non-contact seal is constructed with a snap-fit into the outer ring.

Rubber Contact Seal

Symbol DD
Refers to NMB & JIS numbering system.
The rubber contact seal provides a positive contact onto the inner ring and is a snap fit into the outer ring.
Company Contact
Beck/Arnley Worldparts, Inc.
2375 Midway Lane
Smyrna, TN 37167
615-220-3200 Customer Service for Distributors, Technicians or Counterman Customer service phone lines are open from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. CST. To place an order,
call 1-888-GO4BECK (1-888-464-2325).

Orders must be placed by 4 p.m. CST to be shipped the same day (U.S. customers only).

Product Management
We welcome any suggestions, recommendations, or feedback regarding our current products, new products, or ways to improve the Beck/Arnley offering.
Suppliers please contact us at:
e-mail:
beckproduct@beckarnley.com
Credit
Customers with an active account can request invoice, copies and/or statement copies.
Request
credit references.

e-mail: beckcredit@beckarnley.com

Customer Service
Place orders or get general information.

e-mail: beckcustomerservice@beckarnley.com

Marketing
Contact the Beck/Arnley
Marketing Dept.

e-mail: beckmarketing@beckarnley.com

Sales
We value new channel partners. Contact us if interested in becoming a Beck/Arnley distributor or if you would like a Beck/Arnley representative to contact you.

e-mail: becksalesadmin@beckarnley.com

Pricing
Customers with an active account can request price, files and/or data files.
Report pricing questions or concerns.

e-mail: beckpricing@beckarnley.com

Careers
Interested in a career at Beck/Arnley?
Click here
International Sales Contact the Beck/Arnley
International Sales Dept.
e-mail:
vonda.lee@beckarnley.com

Honda.com Honda.ca http://world.honda.com/
Honda Japan

pm@pm.gc.ca
TheSec@doc.gov
http://www.cpsc.gov/
…Nylon is crap ! Do you have a Honda or Toyota ???

Not that you be the only ones!

But it happens to be that I have a Honda Accord 2002!

Now, Nylon has good physical properties! But, but…!

There is always a but! IT IS CRAP!

AND I WANT MY CUSTOM MADE STEEL BALL-BEARINGS SENT TO A HONDA IN SURREY FOR MY “FOUR” 4

[CUATRO] WHEELS, AND ANY OTHER NYLON RECALL!

I will go to any part of the World to get you for this HONDA…! And why not include any Car Make/Brand!

Nylon can not stay together and burns in a ball-bearing! I would not want a overheated Nylon

Piston motor to discredit you for good!

Cheers,
Quality counts, crap does not!

George.
.
.
. Bookmark and Share


.
.
.
Bookmark and Share

Icelands Vocano eruption of September! – An impressive force of nature…!

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Icelands Vocano eruption of September! – An impressive force of nature…!

George Frederick Thomson

Shared publicly  –  10:02 AM

LAVA from our inner planets interior, is certainly a cause for the scary feeling before such power and destructive energy!

IS LAVA BEING MADE? AND FROM WHERE?

In pure logic, what comes out and does not go back, stays out! And there is a loss in the total amount of available World LAVA!

But believe me, these mysteries surpass normal science!

________________________________________________
Holuhraun Eruption
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Have you ever felt the real power of nature so close?
It is hard to describe the feeling you have when you see something like this with your own eyes. Some months ago when I was planning my stay on Iceland I dreamed of seeing a volcanic eruption during that time. Now my dream became real and it’s hard to believe. Is it fate or just luck? Anyway, I will never forget this breathtaking experience.

Thanks for watching, commenting and sharing my pictures!
______
www.stefanbrenner.com

▬ TAGS & SHARES ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
#photography #fotografie #iceland #island #volcano #vulkan #eruption #ausbruch #holuhraun #bardarbunga #bárðarbunga

…mY aRT: “a house no-where…! – jesus said i will go to prepare for you all a place…!

Sunday, September 7, 2014


…mY aRT: “a house no-where…! – jesus said i will go to prepare for you all a place…!

 
“a house no-where! – jesus said i will go to prepare for you all a place…!”
“a house no-where! – jesus said i will go to prepare for you all a place…!”

…mY aRT: “a house no-where…!
jesus said i will go to prepare for you all a place…!

…English peasants have been waiting for 1,000 years or more for their “own place”…!
…this is a nigger slavery English trait of their twisted minds on what is human dignity…!
 

.
.
.
Bookmark and Share

 

…How to put a human on Mars ? PROVE THAT YOU DID…!

Thursday, September 4, 2014


…How to put a human on Mars ? PROVE THAT YOU DID…!

 

How to put a human on Mars

24 July 2013 Last updated at 03:39 ET

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23349496

[[[“…

Mars
The mission

One of Earth’s closest neighbors, Mars is still some 56 million km away at its closest alignment, a journey of at least nine months. Rovers have landed on the Red Planet, probes have scanned its surface but what would it take to put a human on Mars? The BBC asked scientists from Imperial College London to design a mission which could take astronauts to the planet – and back. Watch the videos and explore this interactive to find out about their radical solution.
…”]]]

…How to put a human on Mars ? PROVE THAT YOU DID…!

…Yep! Enough amount of water and Oxygen! And to “swallow” and keep down all that food, in a non-gravitational environment!

…My theory is, that no space presence is possible, unless somehow completely tubed to the lungs, esophagus shut, and feed by intravenous…!

I DO NOT KNOW WHY THE SECRECY OR THE NEEDED CONSPIRACY…!

IT IS ALSO SAID THAT TO LAND A ROVER ON MARS, IS LIKE LANDING A FRUIT FLY ON THE HEAD OF A NEEDLE! But lets not disbelieve this one!

WHAT I DO NOT BELIEVE IS THE WHY, THERE ARE NOT TRUE ROVERS LIVE AND WELL ON THE MOON…!

.
.
.
Bookmark and Share

 

A Political Profetico: Canada, the Liberal Party and Trudeau Jr…! And not exactly about the Conservative Party…!

Wednesday, September 3, 2014


A Political Profetico: Canada, the Liberal Party and Trudeau Jr…! And not exactly about the Conservative Party…!

 
 
 
 
 

A Political Profetico: Canada, the Liberal Party and Trudeau Jr…! And not exactly about the Conservative Party…!

David Frum: The disastrous legacy of Pierre Trudeau

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/23/david-frum-the-disastrous-legacy-of-pierre-trudeau/#comments

http://www.liberal.ca/justin-trudeau/
http://anagrammatt2.blogspot.ca/2014/09/a-political-profetico-canada-liberal.html#.VAe1blcg6t8

[[[“…

David Frum  Mar 23, 2011 – 10:11 AM ET
Postmedia files

A world leader, and Pierre Trudeau

Author and columnist David Frum participated Tuesday in one of the Royal Ontario Museum’s series of  “history wars” debates, on the resolution, “Pierre Trudeau was a disaster for Canada.” His debating partner was John English, the former Liberal Member of Parliament and the distinguished biographer of Pierre Trudeau. Following is the text of his opening remarks.

I could win this debate with just two words: plaid suits.

Canada elected Pierre Trudeau on the understanding that Trudeau would continue to wear his 1960s skinny lapels and skinny ties. Trudeau reneged, and in 1972 his career was appropriately very nearly terminated.

The only thing that saved him: Trudeau’s opponent wore plaid suits too.

Under the strict rules of debate, my opponent Professor English can win if he proves that Trudeau was something less than a disaster for Canada: a disappointment or even a misfortune perhaps. I hope you will hold him – and Trudeau – and Canada to a higher standard. I hope you will require him to prove that Pierre Trudeau was affirmatively a good thing for Canada, a successful prime minister.

A few years ago, I took my children to visit battlefields of the First World War. All bloomed peaceful and benign in the summer sunshine. You’d never know that a century before, human beings had crouched in terror in these trenches, that here bullets had shattered human heads, doctors had amputated human limbs, bomb blasts had buried human beings alive, and that rats had feasted on human bodies.

When we look back on the past from a distance, everything fades and blurs. It was all so long ago. The dead would be dead by now anyway. Wasn’t the situation really very complicated? We are here and warm and comfortable. No point wasting time in futile regrets. Off we wander to view the next sight.

But if we are to understand history, we have to understand it as it was lived.

Canada today is a very successful country. It has suffered less from the global economic crisis than any other major economy.

So Canadians may be tempted to be philosophical about disasters in their own past. Hasn’t all come out right in the end? Of course you could say the same about the invasions of Ghengis Khan.

I don’t draw any personal comparison between Pierre Trudeau and Ghengis Khan, obviously. But I want to stress: Canada’s achievement overcoming Trudeau’s disastrous legacy should not inure Canadians to how disastrous that legacy was.

Three subsequent important prime ministers – Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien and Stephen Harper – invested their energies cleaning up the wreckage left by Pierre Trudeau. The work has taken almost 30 years. Finally and at long last, nobody speculates any more about Canada defaulting on its debt, or splitting apart, or being isolated from all its major allies.

Yet through most of the adult lives of most people in this room, people in Canada and outside Canada did worry about those things.

And as you enjoy the peace, stability and comparative prosperity of Canada in the 2010s just consider – this is how Canadians felt in the middle 1960s. Now imagine a political leader coming along and out of ignorance and arrogance despoiling all this success. Not because the leader faced some overwhelming crisis where it was hard to see the right answer. But utterly unnecessarily. Out of a clear blue sky. Like a malicious child on the beach stomping on the sand castle somebody else had worked all morning to build.

That was the political record of Pierre Trudeau.

I want to examine the Trudeau record in 3 dimensions: What Trudeau did to the Canadian economy, what Trudeau did to Canada’s standing in the world, and what Trudeau did to Canadian political stability.

I’ll conclude by offering some thoughts about the personal and intellectual traits that animated Trudeau’s destructive career. And I hope you’ll agree with me at the end that Trudeau deserves at least this much credit: There was nothing small-scale or parochial about him. As a political wrecker, he was truly world class.

***

Pierre Trudeau inherited a strong, growing and diversified Canadian economy.

When Trudeau at last left office for good in 1984, Canadians were still feeling the effects of Canada’s worst recession since the Great Depression. Eight years later, the country would tumble into another and even worse recession.

The two recessions 1981-82 and 1992-93 can both fairly be laid at Trudeau’s door.

Pierre Trudeau took office at a moment when commodity prices were rising worldwide. Then as now, rising commodity prices buoyed the Canadian economy. Good policymakers recognize that commodity prices fall as well as rise. A wise government does not make permanent commitments based on temporary revenues. Yet between 1969 and 1979 – through two majority governments and one minority – Trudeau tripled federal spending.

Nemesis followed hubris. Commodity prices dropped. Predictably, Canada tumbled into recession and the worst federal budget deficits in peacetime history.

Trudeau’s Conservative successor Brian Mulroney balanced Canada’s operating budget after 1984. But to squeeze out Trudeau-era inflation, the Bank of Canada had raised real interest rates very high. Mulroney could not keep up with the debt payments. The debt compounded, the deficits grew, the Bank hiked rates again – and Canada toppled into an even worse recession in 1992. By 1993, default on Trudeau’s debt loomed as a real possibility. Trudeau’s next successors, Liberals this time, squeezed even tighter, raising taxes, and leaving Canadians through the 1990s working harder and harder with no real increase in their standard of living.

Do Canadians understand how many of their difficulties of the 1990s originated in the 1970s? They should.

To repay Trudeau’s debt, federal governments reduced transfers to provinces. Provinces restrained spending. And these restraints had real consequences for real people: more months in pain for heart patients, more months of immobility for patients awaiting hip replacements.

If Canada’s health system delivers better results today than 15 years ago, it’s not because it operates more efficiently. Canada’s health system delivers better results because the reduction of Trudeau’s debt burden has freed more funds for healthcare spending. The Canadian socialist Tommy Douglas anticipated the Trudeau disaster when he said that the great enemy of progressive government was unsound finance.

Pierre Trudeau was a spending fool. He was not alone in that, in the 1970s. But here’s where he was alone. No contemporary leader of an advanced industrial economy – not even the German Social Democrat Helmut Schmidt or the British socialist James Callaghan – had so little understanding as Pierre Trudeau of the private market economy. “Little understanding?” I should have said: “active animosity.”

Trudeau believed in a state-led economy, and the longer he lasted in office, the more statist he became. The Foreign Investment Review Agency was succeeded by Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada was succeeded by wage and price controls. Wage and price controls were succeeded by the single worst economic decision of Canada’s 20th century: the National Energy Program.

The NEP tried to fix two different prices of oil, one inside Canada, one outside.  The NEP expropriated foreign oil interests without compensation. The NEP sought to shoulder aside the historic role of the provinces as the owner and manager of natural resources. I’ll return in a moment to the consequences of the NEP for Canada’s political stability. Let’s focus for now on the economic effects.

Most other Western countries redirected themselves toward more fiscal restraint after 1979. Counting on abundant revenues from oil, the Trudeau government kept spending. Other Western governments began to worry more about attracting international investment. Canada repelled investors with arbitrary confiscations. Other Western governments recovered from the stagflation of the 1970s by turning toward freer markets. Under the National Energy Policy, Canada was up-regulating as the US, Britain, and West Germany deregulated. All of these mistakes together contributed to the extreme severity of the 1982 recession. Every one of them was Pierre Trudeau’s fault.

***

Pierre Trudeau had little taste for the alliances and relationships he inherited in 1968. Canada had taken a lead role in creating the institutions of the postwar world, from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to the General Organization for Tariffs and Trade. Those institutions were intended in great part to contain the aggressive totalitarian regimes in the Soviet Union and China. In 1968, Canada remained a considerable military power and an important voice in the councils of the West.

Trudeau repudiated that inheritance. His spending spree did not include the military. He cut air and naval capabilities, pulled troops home from Europe, and embarked on morale-destroying reorganizations of the military services. In 1968, Canada was a serious second-tier non-nuclear military power, like Sweden or Israel. By 1984, Canada had lost its war-fighting capability: a loss made vivid when Canada had to opt out of ground combat operations in the first Gulf War of 1990-91.

Something more was going on here than a left-of-center preference for butter over guns. Throughout his life – now better known than ever thanks to John English – Pierre Trudeau showed remarkable indifference to the struggle against totalitarianism that defined the geopolitics of the 20th century.

Indifference may be too polite a word.

Pierre Trudeau opted not to serve in World War II, although of age and in good health. He traveled to Josef Stalin’s Soviet Union to participate in regime-sponsored propaganda activities. He wrote in praise of Mao’s murderous regime in China. Trudeau lavishly admired Fidel Castro, Julius Nyere, and other Third World dictators. The Soviet dissident Andrei Amalrik scathingly recalled Trudeau’s 1971 prime ministerial visit: Trudeau visited the Siberian city of Norilsk and lamented that Canada had never succeeded in building so large a city so far north – unaware, or unconcerned, that Norilsk had been built by slave labor.

As prime minister, Trudeau to the extent he could tried to reorient Canada away from the great democratic alliance.

It’s telling I think that Trudeau came to the edge of endorsing the communist coup against Solidarity in Poland in December 1981. Hours after the coup, Pierre Trudeau said: “If martial law is a way to avoid civil war and Soviet intervention, then I cannot say it is all bad.” He added “Hopefully the military regime will be able to keep Solidarity from excessive demands.”

Trudeau’s neutralism negated Canada’s former influence. Probably few remember now his farcical “peace initiative” of 1982. Convinced that Ronald Reagan was leading the world toward nuclear war, Trudeau shuttled between Western capitals to appeal for some kind of concession to soothe the Soviets. Results? Unconcealed disdain from the Americans, unconcealed boredom from the Soviets.

Canada had often before played an important go-between role. Not this time. Canada’s most important geopolitical asset is its unique relationship with the US. Trudeau had squandered that asset, and with it, his own influence.

Obviously, Canada and the United States will disagree sometimes. Canadians of different points of view will favor a more or less intimate relationship with the United States. But even the most US-skeptical Canadian nationalist would agree: it’s reckless and foolish to offend the Americans gratuitously. In fact, the more nationalist the Canadian prime minister, and therefore the more likely to conflict with the Americans on large issues – the more carefully you would expect that prime minister to avoid giving offense over inessentials.

Yet Trudeau made it clear to Presidents Nixon and Carter that he personally disliked them, and to President Reagan that he personally despised him. When it came to foreign affairs, there was always a deep strain of frivolity and irresponsibility in Pierre Trudeau.

What Trudeau did take seriously was our third ground of indictment: the stability and unity of the country. And it was here that he did perhaps his greatest harm.

***

Pierre Trudeau had a unique approach to national unity. He ascertained what each of Canada’s regions most dearly wanted – and then he offered them the exact opposite.

Did Quebeckers want to live and work in French in Montreal? Trudeau said no to that – and instead promised that they could live and work in French in Vancouver.

Did Albertans want a less exploitive economic deal within Confederation? Trudeau said no – and instead offered a more exploitive economic deal within Confederation.

Unsurprisingly, Trudeau’s flip-them-the-finger approach to national unity did not yield positive results.

In fact, he nearly blew apart the country – and his own party.

At the beginning of the Trudeau years, separatism was a fringe, radical movement in Quebec. A decade later, Canada faced a referendum on “sovereignty-association.”

In 1968, Trudeau’s Liberals won 25 seats west of Ontario. In 1980, they won 2.

And in the end it was Trudeau’s own policies that destroyed his vision of the country. By dramatically increasing immigration, Trudeau made irrelevant his vision of a bilingual Canada. Lester Pearson famously expressed a hope that he would be Canada’s last unilingual prime minister. It’s very possible that sometime in the 2040s Canada will see its last bilingual prime minister, at least if the second language is French. On current trends, by the 2040s the proportion of French speakers in Canada will be lower than the proportion of Spanish speakers in the United States today.

Defenders of Trudeau’s disastrous governance habitually rally around one great accomplishment: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Well, Herbert Hoover had some excellent wilderness conservation policies, but we don’t excuse the Great Depression on that account.

Would it really have been impossible to combine the adoption of the Charter with a less destructive economic policy, a less destructive foreign policy, a less destructive national unity policy?

Yet there is a sense in which the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a very characteristic Trudeau project.

The Charter addressed a deficiency in Canadian constitutionalism: checking the powers of government. It’s possible to imagine a lot of solutions to that problem. The solution contained in the Charter is to give unelected judges the power to void acts of Parliament.

Unelected judges chosen by the prime minister at the prime minister’s sole discretion, unscrutinized by any elected body.

The Charter encapsulates the grand theme of Trudeau’s political life: his lack of respect for the people who returned him to office again and again – his instinctive sympathy for power, the less accountable the better.

One story sums up the man best.

1979. Trudeau had lost that year’s election. His career seemed finished. Reporters awaited in the driveway of 22 Sussex Drive as he stepped into his gull-winged vintage Mercedes to speed away into history.

One shouted: “Mr. Prime Minister – any regrets?”

Pierre Trudeau pondered. Perhaps he had planned, perhaps he remembered something that Richard Nixon had said after losing the California governor’s race in 1962. In an instant Pierre Trudeau revised Nixon’s words to his own very different purpose. “Yes,” he said. “I regret I won’t have you to kick around any more.”

It’s long past time that Canadians in turn resolved: no longer to be posthumously kicked by this bad man and disastrous prime minister.

National Post

Read more from David Frum at FrumForum.com, where this originally appeared.

…”]]]

______________________________________________

…The condecorated by the Queen, Ex-President/Governor of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge, brought with him what was the damage to many people with high Bank loan interest rates!

…Justin Trudeau, son of the above most disastrous Prime Minister of Canada, so far! Would not be somebody to trust, being a Liberal, and somehow, have a similar tendency of his Dad!

…I do not see a good future with a Liberal Trudeau Jr. government for Canada! I think the people of Canada would be doing a History cycle mistake, by supporting in polls and election votes, such bad family baggage person!

…The Cuban Castro likes of papa Trudeau, with the druggist system in Canada, does not guarantee a good future for Canada!

…I do wish I were wrong in this Political Profetico!

.
.
.
Bookmark and Share