HALF WAY (~1/2) TO QUANTUM COMPUTING…! But still in infancy…!

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

HALF WAY (~1/2) TO QUANTUM COMPUTING…! But still in infancy…!

HALF WAY (~1/2) TO QUANTUM COMPUTING…! But still in infancy…!

Researchers Report Milestone in Developing Quantum Computer



Scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and at Google reported on Wednesday in the journal Nature that they had made a significant advance that brings them a step closer to developing a quantum computer.

Researchers have been pursuing the development of computers that exploit quantum mechanical effects since the 1990s, because of their potential to vastly expand the performance of conventional computers. The goal has long remained out of reach, however, because the computers are composed of basic elements known as qubits that have remained, despite decades of engineering research, highly unstable.

In contrast to a bit, which is the basic element of a conventional computer and can represent either a zero or a one, a qubit can exist in a state known as superposition, in which it can represent both a zero and a one simultaneously.

If the qubits are then placed in an entangled state — physically separate but acting with many other qubits as if connected — they can represent a vast number of values simultaneously.

To date, matrices of qubits that are simultaneously in superposition and entangled have eluded scientists because they are ephemeral, with the encoded information dissipating within microseconds.

The university and Google researchers reported, however, that they had succeeded in creating an error-correction system that stabilized a fragile array of nine qubits. The researchers said they had accomplished this by creating circuits in which additional qubits were used to observe the state of the computing qubits without altering their state.
The Blue Brain Project is an attempt to create a synthetic brain by reverse-engineering the mammalian brain down to the molecular level. The aim of the project, founded in May 2005 by the Brain and Mind Institute of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL) in Switzerland, is to study the brain’s architectural and functional principles.

The project is headed by the founding director Henry Markram and co-directed by Felix Schürmann and Sean Hill. Using a Blue Gene supercomputer running Michael Hines’s NEURON software, the simulation does not consist simply of an artificial neural network, but involves a biologically realistic model of neurons.[1][2][3] It is hoped that it will eventually shed light on the nature of consciousness.[3]

There are a number of sub-projects, including the Cajal Blue Brain, coordinated by the Supercomputing and Visualization Center of Madrid (CeSViMa), and others run by universities and independent laboratories.
Quantum computing studies theoretical computation systems (quantum computers) that make direct use of quantum-mechanical phenomena, such as superposition and entanglement, to perform operations on data.[1] Quantum computers are different from digital computers based on transistors. Whereas digital computers require data to be encoded into binary digits (bits), each of which is always in one of two definite states (0 or 1), quantum computation uses qubits (quantum bits), which can be in superpositions of states. A quantum Turing machine is a theoretical model of such a computer, and is also known as the universal quantum computer. Quantum computers share theoretical similarities with non-deterministic and probabilistic computers. The field of quantum computing was first introduced by Yuri Manin in 1980,[2] and Richard Feynman in 1982.[3][4] A quantum computer with spins as quantum bits was also formulated for use as a quantum space–time in 1968.[5]

As of 2015, the development of actual quantum computers is still in its infancy, but experiments have been carried out in which quantum computational operations were executed on a very small number of qubits.[6][citation needed] Both practical and theoretical research continues, and many national governments and military agencies are funding quantum computing research in an effort to develop quantum computers for civilian, business, trade, gaming and national security purposes, such as cryptanalysis.[7]

Large-scale quantum computers will be able to solve certain problems much more quickly than any classical computer that use even the best currently known algorithms, like integer factorization using Shor’s algorithm or the simulation of quantum many-body systems. There exist quantum algorithms, such as Simon’s algorithm, that run faster than any possible probabilistic classical algorithm.[8] Given sufficient computational resources, however, a classical computer could be made to simulate any quantum algorithm, as quantum computation does not violate the Church–Turing thesis. [9]
D-Wave was originally criticized by some scientists in the quantum computing field. On May 16, 2013 NASA and Google, together with a consortium of universities, announced a partnership with D-Wave to investigate how D-Wave’s computers could be used in the creation of artificial intelligence. Prior to announcing this partnership, NASA, Google, and Universities Space Research Association put a D-Wave computer through a series of benchmark and acceptance tests, which it passed.[6] Independent researchers found that D-Wave’s computers could solve some problems as much as 3,600 times faster than particular software packages running on conventional digital computers.[6] Other independent researchers found that different software packages running on a single core of a desktop computer can solve those same problems as fast or faster than D-Wave’s computers (at least 12,000 times faster for quadratic assignment problems, and between 1 and 50 times faster for quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problems).[38]


…I SUPPOSE the Blue Brain project is a more complex study than “quantum computing”…!

Bookmark and Share


Sunday thoughts of reason: A God father without a Wife…! A Jesus son without a Mother and a so called mystical wife…!

Sunday, March 1, 2015

Sunday thoughts of reason: A God father without a Wife…! A Jesus son without a Mother and a so called mystical wife…!

The Bride, the Lamb’s Wife

…A GOD Father without a Wife, and Jesus without a Divine Mother…!

Rev. 19:7, 8; Rev. 21:1-9
Eph 5:23-32


For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.

In our first passage in Rev. 19, just prior to the moment of manifestation, we read it is the marriage of the Lamb and “His WIFE hath made herself ready”. Then, in Rev. 21:9 we read, “The Bride, the Lamb’s Wife”. both are seen in display. Again, looking back to the opening verses of Rev. 21 where the new heaven and the new earth are in view, we read, “as a Bride adorned for her husband”. So the Assembly is married as a wife, displayed as a Bride; and abides as Bride when the Wife character has passed away.

The Bride character then is that which abides after the world to come — she is the object of His affection.

I think that is the point. The world to come is the sphere where God will display His triumph when He has solved all difficulties and overcome all opposition to His will. We know from the general teaching of Scripture that the Assembly will be the vessel which He will use for this display. She comes under the Headship of Christ for this, as we read at the end of Ephesians 1, “and gave Him to be the Head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all”.

It is the wife in Ephesians 5?

That is what led us to take up this subject. “Husbands, love your wives”; it does not say “your brides”. We do not want to destroy one thought by another, for we shall see they are both of equal importance, but we do want to grasp the distinction and see what the Spirit has in mind in using both these terms to describe the Assembly. It was that statement which first led me to think over this matter and, in view of the exhortation given us there, it led me to suggest that the wife is the fruit of the work of Christ in us as well as his work for us. I gather the work going on in us by His daily care has in view the forming of a competent vessel to display His glory in the world to come.

It is God Who says, “I will make him an help meet for him”, and, taking the rib from the man He builded a woman (Gen. 2:22, Margin). In Gen. 5:2 we read that God “called their name Adam”. Adam called her “Woman” for she was taken out of Man; but after the fall he called her name “Eve” — which means “life” for “she was the mother of all living”. We might have said, She is the mother of all dying, but Adam had grasped the thought of God in the promise He made as to the seed and he “called his wife’s name Eve”. Not, mark, his bride’s name, but “his wife’s name Eve”. So, the woman shows the original thought of God, a help meet for the man; Eve, the vessel through whom He is going to operate to recover all that had been lost.

The Bride, the Lamb’s Wife
…A GOD Father without a Wife, and Jesus without a Divine Mother…!

…A God that makes sex and marriage with Dads and Mothers, Husbands and Wives…! But this God does not have a wife, and this Jesus his alleged son, has to have a mystical church wife…!


In pure logic, it would be nice and more normal to have female Gods called Goddesses…! Yee haaaaa…!


Bookmark and Share

INFIDELS – wikipedia.org – “a exclusion from you believing what you want, and your basic freedoms of expressing your contrary beliefs, or even sharing partially and participating partially with some accepted belief…!”

Sunday, February 22, 2015

INFIDELS – wikipedia.org – “a exclusion from you believing what you want, and your basic freedoms of expressing your contrary beliefs, or even sharing partially and participating partially with some accepted belief…!”

INFIDELS – wikipedia.org – “a exclusion from you believing what you want, and your basic freedoms of expressing your contrary beliefs,  or even sharing partially and participating partially with some accepted belief…!”




From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Infidel (disambiguation).

Infidel (literally “unfaithful”) is a pejorative term used in certain religions for one who has no religious beliefs, or for those who doubt or reject the central tenets of one’s own religion.[1][2]
Infidel is an ecclesiastical term in Christianity around which the Church developed a body of theology that deals with the concept of infidelity, which makes a clear differentiation between those who were baptized and followed the teachings of the Church versus those who are outside the faith.[3] The term infidel was used by Christians to describe those perceived as the enemies of Christianity.
After the ancient world the concept of otherness, an exclusionary notion of the outside by societies with more or less coherent cultural boundaries, became associated with the development of the monotheistic and prophetic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.[3]
In modern era literature, the term infidel includes in its scope atheists,[4][5][6] polytheists,[7] animists,[8] heathen and pagan.[9] Infidel as a concept is sometimes contrasted with the concept of religious pluralism.[10]



The origins of the word Infidel date to the late 15th century, deriving from the French infidèle or Latin īnfidēlis, from in- “not” + fidēlis “faithful” (from fidēs “faith”, related to fīdere ‘to trust’). The word originally denoted a person of a religion other than one’s own, specifically a Christian to a Muslim, a Muslim to a Christian, or a Gentile to a Jew.[2] Later meanings in the 15th century include “unbelieving”, “a non-Christian” and “one who does not believe in religion” (1527).



Christians have historically referred to people outside their religious group as infidels, somebody who has actively rejected the Christian religion. It only became a well established notion in English sometime in the early sixteenth century, when Jews or “Mohammedans“, were described as active opponents to Christianity, and as such infidel was seen as term of contempt. In Catholic doctrine, an infidel is one who does not believe in the doctrine at all and is thus distinct from a heretic, who is one seen as having fallen astray from true doctrine, i.e. by denying the divinity of Jesus. Similarly, the ecclesiastical term was also used by the Methodist Church,[11][12] in reference to those “without faith”.[13]
Today, the usage of the term infidel has declined;[14] the current preference is for the terms non-Christians and non-believers (persons without religious affiliations or beliefs), reflecting the commitment of mainstream Christian denominations to engage in dialog with persons of other faiths.[15] Nevertheless, some apologists have argued for the usage of the term, stating that it does not come from a disrespectful perspective, but is similar to using the term orthodox for devout believers.[16]
Moreover, some translations of the Bible, such as the Authorized Version, which is still in vogue today, employ the word infidel, while others supplant the term with nonbeliever; the term is found in two places:

And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? —2 Corinthians 6:15 KJV

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. —1 Timothy 5:8 KJV


Infidel is an English language word commonly used to translate the equivalent Arabic language word for non-Muslims; kafir (sometimes “kaafir”, “kufr” or “kuffar”), and the equivalent Turkish loanword gâvur, literally the one who “covers” and “conceals”, is usually translated as “infidel” and “disbeliever”.[17][18][19] Other terms sometimes synonymously used in Islamic literature for infidel are shirk, mushirk, and mushrikun.[20][21]
In the earliest recited verses of the Qur’an, such as Al-Kafirun, the term kafir simply divided the Meccan community into believers and unbelievers. In later recited verses, particularly those recited after the Hijra in 622 AD, the concept of infidel – kafir – was expanded upon, with Jews and Christians included.[22] The expanded term kafir refers to anyone who satisfies one or more of the following conditions – practices idolatry of any form, does not accept the absolute oneness of God, denies Muhammed as Prophet, ignores God’s ayah (evidence or signs), or rejects belief in resurrection and final judgment.[22][23][24] Jews were condemned as infidels for their disbelief in God’s ayah, Christians were condemned as infidels for their belief in the Trinity, which the Qur’an declared as a form of polytheism.[22][23][24][25] Texts of Sunni sect of Islam, the majority, include other sects of Islam such as Shia as infidel.[17][26] Certain sects of Islam, such as Wahhabism, include as kafir those Muslims who undertake Sufi shrine pilgrimage and follow Shia teachings about Imams.[27][28][29] Similarly, in Africa and South Asia, certain sects of Islam such as Hausas, Ahmadi, Akhbaris have been repeatedly declared as Kufir or infidels by other sects of Muslims.[30][31][32]
The usage of kafir, and related words with root k-f-r for infidel and unbelievers is very common in the Qur’an and Hadith.[24] Under Islam, an infidel (kafir) is considered unclean and ritually impure (najasat).[33] Many scholars claim Islam’s original sources (Qur’an and Hadith) and derived sources (Ijma, Qiyas and Qitabs) speak of violence against infidel unbelievers living in Dar al-Harb – countries targeted for war because they refused to submit to Islam,[34] as a matter of religious duty of the Muslim community (fard ala’l kifāya).[33] Other scholars disagree.[35][36] Yet other scholars refer to the historical sequence of the verses, suggesting verses from early Meccan period recommend waiting and living apart from unbelievers. Later recited verses, such as Surah 2:191 discuss violence against k-f-r, widely translated as infidel and unbelievers.[22][33]

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

The sunnah in various hadiths, which record the teachings and actions of Muhammad, similarly describe violence against infidels. For example:

Narrated ‘Abdullah: The Prophet recited Surat-an-Najm and then prostrated himself, and all who were with him prostrated too. But an old man took a handful of dust and touched his forehead with it saying, “This is sufficient for me.” Later on I saw him being killed as an infidel.

When the Messenger of Allah appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils [of war, booty[37]]; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate the dead bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to accept Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai’ except when they actually fight with the Muslims against other disbelievers. If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.

The term infidel, kafir in Islam, is broad. One group is the so-called murtadd, who are variously translated as apostate or renegades. For renegades, Islamic law prescribes death, with the opportunity first of obeying the demand to return to Islam. The other group, the so-called kafirun asliyun, or unbelievers proper, have only to expect death or slavery.[33][38]
Some scholars claim Islam considers Jews and Christians as fellow believers. They are called the “People of the Book (Ahl al-kitab)”.[39][40] Other Islamic scholars and literature, however, consider Jews and Christians as kafir.[41] Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, for example, claims, “it is well known among the Muslims, and they are unanimously agreed that the Christians are kaafirs, and even that those who do not regard them as kaafirs are also kaafirs.”[42][43] Similarly, Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah bin Baz suggests, “The Jews and Christians are both kafirs and mushrikeen. They are kafirs because they deny the truth and reject it. And they are mushrikeen because they worship someone other than Allah.”[44][45] Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, and other scholars, consider annual religious holidays celebrated by Christians such as Christmas as a celebration of the belief in the “Son of God” which in Islam is blasphemy and kafir.[46][47][48]
Kafir, like the term infidel, has also come to be regarded as offensive.[49]


Judaism has a notion of pagan gentiles who are called acum (an acronym of Ovdei Cohavim u-Mazzaloth or, literally, those who are “star-and-constellation worshippers”) or idolaters. The Hebrew term, kofer, cognate with the Arabic kafir, is reserved for apostate Jews.[3]

Infidels under Canon Law

Right to rule

In Quid super his, Innocent IV, asked the question “[I]s it licit to invade a land that infidels possess or which belongs to them?” and held that while Infidels had a right to dominium (right to rule themselves and choose their own governments), however the pope, as the Vicar of Christ, de jure possessed the care of their souls and had the right to politically intervene in their affairs if their ruler violated or allowed his subjects to violate a Christian and Euro-centric normative conception of Natural law, such as sexual perversion or idolatry.[50] He also held that he had an obligation to send missionaries to infidel lands, and that if they were prevented from entering or preaching, then the pope was justified in dispatching Christian forces accompanied with missionaries to invade those lands, as Innocent stated simply “If the infidels do not obey, they ought to be compelled by the secular arm and war may be declared upon them by the pope, and nobody else.”[51] This was however not a reciprocal right and non-Christian missionaries such as those of Muslims could not be allowed to preach in Europe “because they are in error and we are on a righteous path.”[50]
A long line of Papal hierocratic canonists, most notably those who adhered to Alanus Anglicus’s influential arguments of the Crusading-era, denied Infidel dominium, and asserted Rome‘s universal jurisdictional authority over the earth, and the right to authorize pagan conquests solely on the basis of non-belief because of their rejection of the Christian god.[52] In the extreme hierocractic canonical discourse of the mid-twelfth century such as that espoused by Bernard of Clairvaux, the mystic leader of the Cisertcians, legitimized German colonial expansion and practice of forceful Christianisation in the Slavic territories as a holy war against the Wends, arguing that infidels should be killed wherever they posed a menace to Christians.[53] When Frederick the II unilaterally arrogated papal authority, he took on the mantle to “destroy convert, and subjugate all barbarian nations.” A power in papal doctrine reserved for the pope. Hostiensis, a student of Innocent, in accord with Alanus, also asserted “… by law infidels should be subject to the faithful.” and the heretical quasi-Donatist John Wyclif, regarded as the forefather of English Reformation, also held that valid dominium rested on a state of grace.[53]
The Teutonic Knights were one of the by-products of this papal hierocratic and German discourse. After the Crusades in the Levant, they moved to crusading activities in the infidel Baltics.[54] Their crusades against the Lithuanians and Poles however precipitated the Lithuanian Controversy, and the Council of Constance, following the condemnation of Wyclif, found Hostiensis’s views no longer acceptable and ruled against the knights. Future Church doctrine was then firmly aligned with Innocents IV’s position.[54]
The development of counter arguments later on the validity of Papal authority, the rights of infidels and the primacy of natural law, led to various treatises such as those by Hugo Grotius, John Locke, Immanuel Kant and Thomas Hobbes, which in turn led to the transformation of international law‘s treatment of the relationship between Christian and non-Christian societies and the development of human rights.

Colonization of the Americas

During the Age of discovery, the Papal Bulls such as Romanus Pontifex and more importantly inter caetera (1493), implicitly removed dominium from infidels and granted them to the Spanish Empire and Portugal with the charter of guaranteeing the safety of missionaries.[55] Subsequent English and French rejections of the bull refuted the Popes authority to exclude other Christian princes. As independent authorities such as the Head of the Church of England, they drew up charters for their own colonial missions based on the temporal right for care of infidel souls in language echoing the inter caetera.[55] The charters and papal bulls would form the legal basis of future negotiations and consideration of claims as title deeds in the emerging Law of nations in the European colonization of the Americas.[55]
The rights bestowed by Romanus Pontifex and inter caetera have never fallen from use, serving as the basis for legal arguments over the centuries. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1823 case Johnson v. M’Intosh that as a result of European discovery and assumption of ultimate dominion, Native Americans had only a right to occupancy of native lands, not the right of title. This decision was upheld in the 1831 case Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, giving Georgia authority to extend state laws over Cherokees within the state, and famously describing Native American tribes as “domestic dependent nations.” This decision was modified in Worcester v. Georgia, which stated that the U.S. federal government, and not individual states, had authority in Indian affairs, but it maintained the loss of right to title upon discovery by Europeans.
Native American groups including the Taíno and Onondaga have called on the Vatican to revoke the bulls of 1452, 1453, and 1493.[citation needed]


According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Church views Marriage as forbidden and null when conducted between the faithful (Christians) and infidels, unless a dispensation has been granted.[56] This is because marriage is a sacrament of the Catholic Church, which infidels are deemed incapable of receiving.[56]

As a philosophical tradition

Some philosophers such as Thomas Paine, David Hume, George Holyoake, Charles Bradlaugh, Voltaire and Rousseau earned the label of infidel or freethinkers, both personally and for their respective traditions of thought because of their attacks on religion and opposition to the Church. They established and participated in a distinctly labeled, infidel movement or tradition of thought, that sought to reform their societies which were steeped in Christian thought, practice, laws and culture. The Infidel tradition was distinct from parallel anti-Christian, sceptic or deist movements, in that it was anti-theistic and also synonymous with atheism. These traditions also sought to set up various independent model communities, as well as societies, whose traditions then gave rise to various other socio-political movements such as secularism in 1851, as well as developing close philosophical ties to some contemporary political movements such as socialism and the French Revolution.[57]
Towards the early twentieth century, these movements sought to move away from the tag “infidel” because of its associate negative connotation in Christian thought, and is attributed to George Holyoake’s coining the term ‘secularism’ in an attempt to bridge the gap with other theist and Christian liberal reform movements.[57]
In 1793, Immanuel Kant’s Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, reflected the Enlightenment periods’ philosophical development, one which differentiated between the moral and rational and substituted rational/irrational for the original true believer/infidel distinction.[3]

Implications upon medieval civil law

Laws passed by the Catholic Church governed not just the laws between Christians and Infidels in matters of religious affairs, but also civil affairs. They were prohibited from participating or aiding in infidel religious rites, such as circumcisions or wearing images of non-Christian religious significance.[56]
In the Early Middle Ages, based on the idea of the superiority of Christians to infidels, regulations came into place such as those forbidding Jews from possessing Christian slaves; the laws of the decretals further forbade Christians from entering the service of Jews, for Christian women to act as their nurses or midwives; forbidding Christians from employing Jewish physicians when ill; restricting Jews to definite quarters of the towns into which they were admitted and to wear a dress by which they might be recognized.[56]
Later during the Victorian era, testimony of either self declared, or those accused of being Infidels or Atheists, was not accepted in a court of law because it was felt that they had no moral imperative to not lie under oath because they did not believe in God, or Heaven and Hell.[57]
These rules have now given way to modern legislation and Catholics, in civil life, are no longer governed by ecclesiastical law.[56]

See also


  1. Royle, Edwards, “Victorian Infidels: The Origins of the British Secularist Movement 1791-1866”, Manchester University Press, ISBN 0-7190-0557-4



External links


Bookmark and Share

To Darwin and “darwinian minds/brains”…! 12feb1809…!

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

To Darwin and “darwinian minds/brains”…! 12feb1809…!

Charles Darwin 12 feb 1809 [2015]


History of evolutionary thought
Further information: History of evolutionary thought

The proposal that one type of animal could descend from an animal of another type goes back to some of the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles.[15] Such proposals survived into Roman times. The poet and philosopher Lucretius followed Empedocles in his masterwork De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things).[16][17] In contrast to these materialistic views, Aristotle understood all natural things, not only living things, as being imperfect actualisations of different fixed natural possibilities, known as “forms,” “ideas,” or (in Latin translations) “species.”[18][19] This was part of his teleological understanding of nature in which all things have an intended role to play in a divine cosmic order. Variations of this idea became the standard understanding of the Middle Ages, and were integrated into Christian learning, but Aristotle did not demand that real types of animals always corresponded one-for-one with exact metaphysical forms, and specifically gave examples of how new types of living things could come to be.[20]

In the 17th century the new method of modern science rejected Aristotle’s approach, and sought explanations of natural phenomena in terms of physical laws which were the same for all visible things, and did not need to assume any fixed natural categories, nor any divine cosmic order. But this new approach was slow to take root in the biological sciences, which became the last bastion of the concept of fixed natural types. John Ray used one of the previously more general terms for fixed natural types, “species,” to apply to animal and plant types, but he strictly identified each type of living thing as a species, and proposed that each species can be defined by the features that perpetuate themselves each generation.[21] These species were designed by God, but showing differences caused by local conditions. The biological classification introduced by Carl Linnaeus in 1735 also viewed species as fixed according to a divine plan.[22]


…Hi to the famed Atheist/Evolutionist Richard Dawkins and followers of Darwin and Biology Evolution…!

…in the Book of Pure Logic, I explain the lack of a road way in the genomes from one life form to another, though we get a comparison and similitude between genomes, DNA is so intermingled in functions and locations that nobody has shown what it takes in DNA to get from an APE/CHIMP to a HUMANOIDE and then a HUMAN…!
The road for this is too complex and not as simple and “wishful THINKING” of DARWIN and Evolutionists…!

…Then we need the road to the first unicellular being…! And the formation of the basis for life through DNA…! Too many roads to traverse willfully ignored by Science…!

…To deny the God of the Bible is a logical correct assertion! To deny gods/entities and what we do not logically know and lack data to know correctly, infers the possibility of the logical! Energy is accepted to be eternal somehow, and so eternal origins is not a wishful thought! Though an eternal existence as humans could be a “wishful thought”…!

Evolution is the complete extreme logic of the negative spectrum, from the Bible logic of complete eternal damnation and a asexual Heaven for ever for a “few” [ sounds like Catholicism to me ]…!

THE REASON OR NO REASON FOR LIFE, is for my Book 2: “ANOTHER & CONTINUED BOOK OF PURE LOGIC”, to study for you all…!

Bookmark and Share

Intel Server Chips going on to some limit…! For notebooks for the vast population, I do not even have a Core i3…!

Friday, February 6, 2015

Intel Server Chips going on to some limit…! For notebooks for the vast population, I do not even have a Core i3…!

Intel’s Xeon E5-2600/1600 v3 CPUs Bring Haswell to the Server Space

Posted 09/08/2014 at 9:33am | by Paul Lilly

Intel’s Core i9 “Gulftown” Six-Core Processor Pictured

Posted 08/03/2009 at 10:00am | by Paul Lilly



A big boost for Xeon

Intel today announced its new Xeon processor E5-2600/1600 v3 product families designed to crunch through diverse workloads and the growing needs of data centers. These new processors sport several enhancements that Intel claims will result in up to a three-fold increase in performance compared to the previous generation (Xeon E5 v2 family). Among those enhancements are more processing cores and an upgrade from Ivy Bridge to Intel’s Haswell architecture.

While the core count ceiling for Intel’s previous generation Xeon X5 v2 CPUs was set at 12, the new Xeon E5-2600 v3 product family tops out at up to 18 cores per socket and 45MB of last-level cache. On top of this, an extension to Intel Advanced Vector Extensions 2 (Intel AVX2) doubles the width of vector integer instructions to 256 bits per clock cycle for integer sensitive workloads and delivers up to 1.9x higher performance gains, Intel says.



Getting bored with Core i7 already? That’s okay, because word on the web is that Intel plans to release its six-core Gulftown processor sometime in the first half of 2010, and possibly by Q1.

What’s believed to be the first product shots of the six-core part have been leaked to the web. Likely to be called Core i9, the pictures show off the new chips in a dual-socket motherboard that’s either an existing Xeon-based socket LGA1366 mobo or a next-gen Skulltrail platform. Either way, that’s 12 cores of processing power, and 24 cores with hyperthreading enabled.

According the alleged screen grabs, the engineering sample spied in the photos comes clocked at 2.4GHz courtesy of a 133MHz bus speed and 18X multiplier, along with 12MB of L3 cache.


…Intel Server Chips going on to some limit…! For notebooks for the vast population, I do not even have a Core i3…!

…ANYBODY going to catch up with this American technology…! No doubt that never by normal means…!

Bookmark and Share

Harmful economic systems as a cause of hunger and poverty…! ONLY SLAVERY MINDS ACCEPT POOR AND HUNGER IN HUMANS…!

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Harmful economic systems as a cause of hunger and poverty…! ONLY SLAVERY MINDS ACCEPT POOR AND HUNGER IN HUMANS…!

Harmful economic systems as a cause of hunger and poverty…! ONLY SLAVERY MINDS ACCEPT POOR AND HUNGER IN HUMANS…!


Harmful economic systems as a cause of hunger and poverty

Lane Vanderslice

The standard economic model of how economies work is that people produce and exchange goods.  Governments exist to provide “government goods”— things that people cannot provide for themselves, such as national defense. Thus the standard economic view is that activities are essentially productive. While this view has made for a thriving profession of economics,  it is not a correct view of reality. The principal difficulty is that there is economic activity that is unproductive and harmful (from the point of view of those being harmed), and that this is a key feature of the economic organization of  societies. What follows is a brief analytical description of these societies and how it affects people’s welfare and development.
Many societies are run on this basic set of principles. Take and maintain control of the government.  Use powers of the government to obtain income. Key elements of this process are described in five sections:

A sixth section discusses the impact of harmful economic systems on poor and hungry people and on development. A seventh section Reducing harm gives a too brief discussion of what people are doing to improve matters.


  1. Production vs. harm basic statement. The basic idea and activity in productive societies is helping to produce goods—things that are useful to someone—food, light bulbs, cars—and then exchanging the income received for goods that are desirable to you.
    The fundamental economic mechanism exists in “harmful” economic societies as well. But these goods (or the resources that produce them) can be reallocated through force, as well as law backed by force. Simply put you can produce goods, or take them away from others, which is why we describe these societies as harmful. The highest stratum—the ruling class—obtains goods through means which may be described as unproductive or extractive.
    2. Conquest and conflict historical overview. Armed conflict, the fight by groups for control of the government or territory (frequently  possessing  natural resources), has been throughout history the principal way in which harmful economic societies have been established. Its importance continues today.  The results of conflict have been the domination of the winning side over the losing and the establishment of a pattern of income and resource allocation favoring the winners.
    Examples would be the Hittite empire (Wikipedia 2013), the Assyrian empire (Wikipedia 2013), the Roman empire (Wikipedia 2013), the Norman conquest of England (Wikipedia 2013), the conquest of the territory that became the United States by various European powers and then the government of the United States, the British empire (Wikipedia 2013) and the Japanese Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere (Wikipedia 2013).
    Control over labor power is also an important way of using power to obtain income, with serfdom (Wikipedia 2013), slavery (Wikipedia 2013), and debt bondage (Wikipedia 2013) as important examples. Forced labor (ILO 2013)  is the general modern term. Also see Unfree labor (Wikipedia 2013). Caste systems (Wikipedia 2013)  can also confine people in certain types of work, with the Dalits (Wikipedia 2013)  in India being an example.
    3. Basic overview. The central idea is that there are winners and losers. To have a simple model of history and harmful economic societies, we would say that conquest establishes control by a small group over a large group. Once the conquest is completed, much fewer ‘domination’ resources are needed, and, in addition to arms, other resources/methods of control are used, such as domination of the political and judicial system. Moreover, transfer of ownership of resources such as land, labor and natural resources takes place, and more subtle forms of control are employed. The small group can of course be the elite of another country which has happened frequently in the past, as the examples above illustrate.
    Economists have developed some models that incorporate both production and conflict. When game theory is employed in models that incorporate both conflict and production those that obtain resources through conflict are known as the “winning coalition,” terminology that will also be used here.
    4. Other structures of harm.  Harm as a means of obtaining income can exist in other ways as well.  These include theft, robbery, and larger scale organized crime (Wikipedia 2013), such as the Mafia (Wikipedia 2013)  or drug cartels (Wikipedia 2013).

Obtaining income

  1. Basic statement. The principal ways in which income is obtained in a harmful economic system are twofold: 1) obtain it through the government, or 2) use the government to obtain and maintain sources of income that are (apparently) obtained in other ways. These are not substantially different, but may appear so at first.
    2. Obtaining income from the government. There are a wide variety of means in which government officials and others obtain revenue from the government. The first thing to recognize is that people at the top of government, or those who have significant control over the government but who are not government officials—often entrepreneurs or corporations—can and do plunder resources coming into the government. Government revenue is often not devoted to productive services but siphoned off by those in control of the government. Such activity is typically referred to as corruption. A nation expects that its national resources will be used for the benefit of the nation. However, very large amounts of such revenue are often used to enrich those who control or have influence with the government. People at lower levels of government can obtain income too, by not providing services which they are paid to provide, by charging for services which they should provide, or by taking goods, such as medical supplies or automobiles/trucks, which should be used for government service.
    3. Using the government to obtain resources. Privileged groups can often obtain access to national resources.  The allocation of natural resources such as oil and the income therefrom frequently go to international corporations, allies of high government officials, and government officials themselves. These structures of domination, control and income distribution have been going on for centuries and have resulted in highly unequal societies.  For example, the Spanish conquest of Latin America resulted in a society where land and other natural resources and larger scale economic opportunities were in the hands of a few.  This unequal distribution of land and income has persisted to this day.
    See harmful economic systems: obtaining income for specific current examples of these practices and further discussion.  Behavior of the type described here has also been referred to as Kleptocracy (Wikipedia 2013) and Crony capitalism (Wikipedia 2013).
    Keeping people oppressed/preventing revolution
    1.  Basic statement. In essence, there is part of the population that is living well because of their control of assets and people. (This in the economic model referred to above is the winning coalition and it will also be referred to here as the ruling class.) The people whose assets and income have been reallocated don’t like this and thus there is the threat of revolution—overturning the minority in benefit of the majority.  This is prevented in a number of ways.
    2. Preventing revolution is at bottom accomplished by force. Peasant rebellions, a frequent occurrence in history, illustrate both the discontent of the productive sector and the use of force in repressing it. One Chinese expert says that there were peasant rebellions almost every year in China, while a Russian expert says that in the period between 1801 and 1861 there were no less than 1,467 peasant risings in various parts of the Russian empire [Lenski, 1966, p. 274]. That even more did not take place may be explained in part by referring to the saying of Aristotle, “If you strike at a King, you had better kill him,” with its implicit threat of the dire consequences of failure. Certainly a very clear way of keeping people oppressed and unable to move to a situation that might be characterized as democratic, is terrorizing the subject population, including beatings, murder and torture. Especially important is killing leaders of the subject population(s) or otherwise keeping them from being a source of unrest (by such means as imprisonment, exile, or bribery).  Controlling how people are able to communicate, including tracing what they say for possible reprisal, is also important.
    3. Key groups.  Nonetheless, force is not the complete story of how a winning coalition establishes and mantains control. For many countries in relatively recent times, groups who have been importantly represented in the sector that has political and economic control are capitalists, both national and foreign, landlords, the military, a group that we might refer to as “educated civilians” including government functionaries and politicians, foreign governments, and more rarely and more debatably, organized labor. Why was the winning coalition that ended up in control of the state formed from members of at least some of these groups who are far from representing a majority of the population? The central part of the answer seems to be that these groups have power capabilities useful in capturing, controlling and operating the state apparatus (Anderson 1967). The military has control of the largest part of the armed force.  Capitalists and  landlords have resources and organization that they can use to obtain influence.

The educated civilians derive their power from a number of sources. They have the ability to run the “ship of state.” As lawyers and administrators they often perform crucial functions for capitalists and landowners as well. As politicians, they have special skills in putting and keeping a coalition together, and as writers and orators they can mobilize support for their coalition. This is not to say that these roles cannot be performed by others, such as landowners or the military, just that they are often performed by these educated civilians.

Organized labor, to the extent that it is in the winning coalition, seems to derive an important part of its power from its ability to disrupt the functioning of crucial sectors of the economy and from its potential as an armed force, factors which tend to put organized labor in opposition to the military. In addition, they, like landlords and capitalists, have economic and organizational strength, and where elections are a factor, some degree of voting power as well.

Foreign governments have both organization and control over financial resources that can be used in such diverse ways as financing the election of sympathetic nationals or providing a “carrot” incentive to hard-pressed governments through foreign aid. As suppliers of modern armaments, often on generous terms, the large foreign governments also have an influence through the military, which is no less important for being derivative. They control, or greatly influence, major international institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization, whose decisions affect developing countries.  Finally, one or more developed country governments may use force against a developing country government.

  1. Some strategies.
    One favorite way of maintaining oppression is to stay in power for a long time, frequently by manipulating or subverting an ostensibly democratic legal framework. Election fraud/rigged elections is a principal way of staying in power.
    A second way—certainly a very clear way—of keeping people oppressed and unable to move to a situation that might be characterized as democratic, is terrorizing the subject population, including beatings, murder and torture. Especially important is killing leaders of the subject population(s) or otherwise keeping them from being a source of unrest (by such means as imprisonment, exile, or bribery).
    Controlling how people are able to communicate, including tracing what they say for possible reprisal, is also important.
    In essence, there is part of the population that is living well because of their control of assets and people. The people whose assets and income have been reallocated don’t like this and thus there is the threat of revolution—overturning the minority in benefit of the majority.  This is prevented in a number of ways. There are two powerful ways of changing a harmful economic system—through revolution, or through democracy. Both have been common in the past and today.  Revolution has been frequently thwarted by successful opposition by the existing government and its allies or by a revolutionary movement evolving into an oppressive government. See the further discussion under Reducing harm below. See Harmful economic systems: Keeping people oppressed for specific current examples of these practices.

Avoiding Overthrow

  1. Basic statement. Avoiding overthrow is very similar to preventing revolution. However, what is emphasized in this section is preventing overthrow by others who would maintain a structure of harm.
    Two important issue areas are:
  • the struggle for control of the government
  • how is a structure of harm maintained?
  1. The struggle for control of the government
    Key ways in which the struggle for control of the government occurs is through armed conflict,  coup d’etats and and other more or less violent, more or less legal, government reorganizations.
    Armed Conflict. There are many examples of armed conflict in the world today. Examined more closely this conflict is typically over control of the government or specific territory—often territory with natural resources. Thus this conflict is over who will establish control over government/territory and subsequently over control over resources, including the power to tax, arrange oil leases, and so on. Examples would be conflict between the more-or-less established government and rebel or other groups, conflicts between governments, done surreptitiously or openly, and conflicts between governments, and conflict between government and organized crime.
    In conflict, in addition to the struggle for control over resources or power, there is typically great harm done to ordinary people, such as murder, amputation of limbs, rape, and taking of family food and other resources. (This can be so bad that an end to conflict, even if it then means establishment of an organized system of oppression, is preferable to people.)  Revolution against an unjust government (see section above) also causes conflict.  It is often difficult to decide if armed conflict is a way to gain resources, or a reasonable reaction against injustice, or a reasonable reaction by government to what is viewed as dismemberment of its territory.  This in a particular circumstance is usually debatable, however it is possible to form an opinion based on the evidence.
    Coup d’etats, ‘“revolutions,” and other means  There is a substantial amount of more or less violent, more or less legal, rearrangements of governments or attempts to do so.  Coup d’etat is where one group, typically members of the government/winning coalition and also typically including at least a segment of the military, oust those at the top of the current power structure and replace those people with their own.  (The overthrowing group does not want to refer to its seizure of power as a coup, and thus uses terms such as revolution.) (See Wikipedia 2013 and Luttwak 1968.)  There is also quite a bit of “jockeying for power” which can involve such actions as removing a threatening member of the ruling coalition or changing the rules, such as rewriting the constitution so that the President is not limited in the number of terms he can stay in office.  These actions, if unsuccessful, can result in a coup.
    3. How is a structure of harm maintained? 
    Ways in which a structure of harm is maintained include the following.
    A key use of the revenues of the winning coalition is to pay the members of the coalition suffficiently so that they will not be tempted to overthrow or reform the current coalition.  The gradiation of rewards and status within the winning coalition helps keep costs of maintaining the winning coalition down, and  provides ‘career paths’ for those in the winning coalition.
    Installing loyal supporters in key areas is important for those at the top of the winning coalition.
    Terror in its various forms, and controlling means of communication, can help those at the top of the winning coalition keep other coalition members in line, just as they are useful in preventing revolution.
    Various things strengthen the cohesion of the ruling class.  The ruling class can often be a racial or religious minority in society. This in itself provides cohesion.  The threat of overthrow by the majority can serve to increase cohesion.  There can also be the development of a ruling class ideology to strengthen cohesion (e.g. the divine right of kings), ideologies which often include the disparagement of those who the winning coalition needs to control.
    See Harmful economic systems: avoiding overthrow for specific current examples of these practices.

Restricting entry

  1. Basic statement. Restricting entry to the harmful sector is necessary, because an income differential exists between the productive sector and the exploitative sector. If free entry, the standard assumption made in economics, were allowed into the harmful sector, incomes in the two sectors would be equalized. Barriers to entry into the harmful sector include:
  • being of a different tribe, nationality or religion
  • racism or other strong prejudice against a given group.
  1. How barriers to entry work. The way barriers to entry work is to limit access to worthwhile employment, as well as other social advantages such as education and ability to marry outside of one’s class or group. Typically minorities/ordinary people have been disparaged in some way—for their supposed (lack of) intelligence, personal appearance or for some other reason. People can be marginalized because of their skin color, ethnic origin, income level or indications of same, such as names.  For example in the US south before the 1960s, African Americans were not allowed to drink from the same water fountains as whites, shop in most stores, eat in the same resturants, or live in the same neighborhoods.  Their personal characteristics such as intelligence and appearance were disparaged.  They were referred to in insulting ways. Basic justice was denied them.  Schools were much worse.  Such discrimination limits peoples opportunities and diminishes their sense of self-worth. There has been a reaction against this sort of disparagement and oppression in many ways in many countries, but it still persists.
    See Harmful economic systems: restricting entry for specific current examples of these practices.

The impact of harmful economic systems on the welfare of poor people and development.

The influence on the welfare of poor people and the development of poor nations is profound.
1. Resources, both governmental and other resources, such as natural resources, are directed toward members of the ruling coalition, not to the benefit of all. For many governments, the government/people in the government and their allies, in spite of lip service to the contrary, are not principally engaged in helping the people of the country, but rather in helping themselves. This has, and continues to have, a disastrous effect on the incomes of poor people and development.
2. Conflict. There is a substantial amount of conflict in the world, most of it in developing countries. The 2012 Human Security Report says that there are 30 to 40 state-based armed conflicts per year on average; there were 23 non-state (neither side was a state) armed conflicts in 2009; and there were 19 cases of one-sided violence in 2009, the last year for which statistics were available (Human Security Report Project 2012).  According to the latest estimate by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, at the beginning of  2011, 43 million people were forced to flee their homes with 26 million displaced within their own country, 15-16 million refugees (displaced to another country) and 1 million asylum seekers. Conflict is the principal cause of this displacement.  3. There is a very unequal distribution of income and this has persisted over centuries It is important to remember that harmful economic systems have existed throughout history, and a key result has been very unequal distribution of income. There is a ‘dead hand of the past’ though perhaps most of us, including standard economists, recognize it only dimly.  In the United States, for example, the Native Americans were almost totally pushed off their land, ending up with a few small, or if larger, hardscrabble, areas of land.  Slavery oppressed African Americans from the beginning of European settlement in North America,  and though ostensibly freed after the Civil War, severe oppression continued for 100 years or more. This in a country that many view as a model of democracy.  In other areas of the world control of countries and  resources by a minority has also resulted in serious income inequality.  [Give Latin America example.] The result is that poor people have substantially less income.  This lower level of income is not just missing out on a few luxuries.  It is a major cause of malnutrition, which causes greater infant mortality, stunting and reduced cognitive ability.  It is a major cause of poor health–many basic services such as clean water, waste disposal, and essential health services are not available at all.  It is a major cause of poor education.
4.  Barriers to entry also inhibit people’s incomes and life chances. It is not simply a matter of income as discussed in point 3.  Caste, race, ethnic group, and gender can keep people from education, from jobs, from having the rights of citizens, and from social interaction with the “elite”  including marriage and other forms of social inclusion.  People cannot rise—they are kept in their “station in life.”
See Harmful economic systems: Impact on poor people  for specific current examples of these practices.

Reducing harm

This section gives a too brief discussion of what people are doing to improve matters.
There has been a struggle for thousands of years by human beings in many different ways against the sort of subjugation described in this special report. To name just one very important example, the world’s religions have worked to establish a set of principles for human relationships that were very much against oppression, and though the religions were persecuted for doing so, they did manage to establish at the very least a set of guidelines for human behavior. In all countries of the world there has been a struggle against injustice, and attempts, which have met with increasing success, to establish the societal frameworks for a more just and equitable society. This is a long (and inspiring) story which we cannot recount here.
The current efforts in the world to reduce harm include reducing corruption, moving to more democratic governments with established rights and processes (by means such as reducing the influence of the military and improving the fairness of elections—and having them! and reducing police brutality), and, internationally, reducing the advantages which developed nations have assigned to themselves through their control of international institutions, such as United Nations, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization. In recent years, there have been important efforts to have elections that express the will of the people and to implement policies that reflect an electoral mandate. Nations are evolving from power structures that have been based on some combination of military, economic and political control to ones that increasingly reflect the wishes of the (often very poor) people. This evolution has not been easy, and it is far from complete.
See Harmful economic systems: reducing harm for specific current examples of these practices.

Lane Vanderslice is the editor of Hunger Notes

End notes:1. Jack Hershleifer appears to have begun the consideration of conflict and other examples of harm in standard economics with his 1991 article “The Technology of Conflict as an Economic Activity.” This article recognized that there are two main approaches to obtaining income: production and conflict, and provides an introductory analysis of some key issues when conflict was possible. A second early, basic article was Stergios Skaperdas’ 1992 article “Cooperation, Conflict, and Power in the Absence of Property Rights.”
Anderson, Charles W. 1967. Politics and Economic Change in Latin America. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce and Alistar Smith.  2011. The Dictator’s Handbook:  Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics New York: Public Affairs.
Hershleifer, Jack. 1991. “The Technology of Conflict as an Economic Activity.” American Economic Review 81: 2(130-134).
Human Security Report Project. 2012. Human Security Report 2012.  Vancouver: Human Security Press. http://hsrgroup.org/docs/Publications/HSR2012/2012HumanSecurityReport-FullText-LowRes.pdf
International Labor Organization 2013.  Forced labor http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forced-labour/lang–en/index.htm
Lenski, Gerhard E. 1966.  Power and Privilege. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Luttwak, Edward. 1968. Coup d’Etat: A Practical Handbook. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett.
Skaperdas,  Stergios. 1992. “Cooperation, Conflict, and Power in the Absence of Property Rights.” American Economic Review 81:4(720-734).
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 2012. State of the World’s Refugees 2012. http://www.unhcr.org/publications/unhcr/sowr2012
Wikipedia. 2013.  Assyria
_______. 2013. British Empire
_______. 2013. Caste
_______. 2013. Coup d’etat
_______. 2013. Crony capitalism
_______. 2013. Dalit
_______. 2013. Debt bondage
_______. 2013. Drug cartel
_______. 2013. Kleptocracy
_______. 2013. Mafia
_______. 2013. Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere
_______. 2013. History of the Hittites
_______. 2013. Norman conquest of England
_______. 2013. Roman empire
_______. 2013.  Serfdom
_______. 2013. Slavery
_______. 2013. Unfree labor


Posted by George Frederick Thomson at 9:48 PM