Skip to content

Diary entry from the writer’s block

It’s still too early to ask for an evaluation or recommendation, but thanks to those who have signed on.

The writer has been going through an experimental phase with the site and may turn into another blog of more consistent focus or turn into the equivalent of an open diary.

Since Helium Network went back up, I haven’t produced a single writing. That’s not to say that I haven’t worked on at least ten but that I couldn’t bring myself to finish them. Still, I’m happy with my decision to produce the written word.

That’s all for now. Happy Thanksgiving!

 

Advertisements

Annotation: “God is dead, man has surpassed him”

In our humble opinion, without “God” then communications would be playing Russian Roulette, the works of great philosophers would moreso go to waste, and pretty much everything great about civilization would fall to conflict (petty by nature yet grand by its destitute appal WRT reason). This love of eclectic communications that hooks and draws any writer in to express whatever facts esteemed as such be designated were Deistic in mode because writer is not attempting to appeal to what to do about God but rather to appeal WRT what to do about stuff.

Nietzsche’s work was dangerous, and the title headline makes ado about it.

If the philosopher of very nihilism itself were per pathos, then the quote may refer to self-destruction both socially and self-socially, that Man’s society — or a man’s version of WORD(~,||, CIVILIZATION) — was, thereby, deader than God. The quote used to appear atheistic, but perhaps its meaning were intentionally parapatetic. The “self-social” reference concerns that singular relation to participation that concern what Americans call politics. The unidentified notation refers to the common programmer’s function procedure call, complete with function name, tune, pipe, and receiver that relates to what any writer does.

Thus, in truth and in fact, God can be embraced without changing your religion. Our assertion rests on what basic fact that without God, venerable philosophers would not make any sense, and hence literacy would become impossible.

Although fearing what could be an embarrassing utterance there, its sole fact does deserve to be stated. If people shall ever defend their right to privacy successfully and in practical ways, then there should at least be some respect for scope and dignity, without which it is no civil society but would remain trenched and shackled in feudal cement.

“God” represents scope and dignity, dignifies that otherwise absent proposition that sentience, intelligence, and reason (capacity for rational thought) can exist amid science and before the race of Man.

For these explicit purposes stated above, that’s all it does 😉

Outdoing hysteria

Americans: Lucky to have the Web and all that the Internet offers that were for the best.

… Unlucky to have a growing gulf between the concept of greater personal safety (great transit effort saved by having online-nexus at common disposal) and any trend of absence.

There was a point somewhere c. 2002-3 when I noticed that there were public facilities out there in the city that no one was using (presumably it was a warm day during the winter months).  It was rather inconceiveable but nonetheless one of those lesser iconoclastic moments where reality doesn’t gibe with expectation.

Lest the situation be presented any worse than it was, those years were nonetheless directly after events of September 11, 2001. For anyone who doesn’t know what happened, there were orchestrated hijackings of four planes on the very same day by inarguible terrorists who rammed two of those planes into skyscrapers in New York City. One plane was probably shot down by Pentagon antiaircraft, and the 4th plane went down somewhere in Pennsylvania. Such ambitious effort was monumental in the scheme of all terrorism that had gone before in the USA, which was generally sparse. There had been odd bombings over the years, but never anything on such unbelieveable, apocalyptic scale. There’s actually no writing off the event. In the way that those attacks occurred, every nation of the world now has an active, ostensible stake in securing the sort of peace in the world that looks hell-bent on succeeding. That’s not their fault any more than nuclear weapons or virtual nuclear weapons qualified under the phrase nuclear fission reactor plants. We always need to make plans; we must remain ever vigilant … against all manner of evil.

The USA, generally at the federal level, has been treating the virtual scenario of orchestrated demolition as a public emergency, the sort of what the U. S. Constitution mentions in brief in like terminology. There has been some sort of surge in challenging traditionally popular American notions of security with ideas of how speech or words alone both are not sufficient to establish basis for action. No; You need to know the law at some point. (Or if you mean point as in “pike,” or “spear,” then you probably need to know the law at each point.) Ideas such as government having specific powers have emblazoned pages of news sources both paper and plastic/silicon, and the reaction has generally been disconnected albeit traditional (“don’t trust the government.”)  Nor did I say wrong. Ideas and legislation emitted at the federal level now has attempted to follow through on capturing the moment as a divisive one and recognize need to challenge and eliminate the sort of doubt that can be habit-forming.

We are not alright; we’ve been hit where it matters. And no one has lain any fault as part of the American institution. No one has come out and said, “These terrorist activities have a rational and factual explanations.” In other words, we may still bear plenty of cause for doubt. Instead, it was straight into war and destruction that were certainly in defense of treaties outstanding. Prospects of nuclear armageddon, mass orchestrated terrorism, upheaval in maintaining good relations with other nations, and general catapulting of morale into depths of despair while feeling assailed constantly to do the right thing are not easy tasks.

Still, looking at the prospect of reigning in unnecessary commitments outside the borders and getting out of any extraneous alliance that is not ; if we do not do so and the USA were to become an empire, then the USA would be hated for establishing itself not as a dominant power that belongs 98% in North America (excepting treaties that have obligated, but with what time limitation?) but rather for arrogance of believing that it has been “chosen” to lead the world because of its unlimited appeal and unwavering virtues. Never mind that the USA has obliged herself to many legal bases for being overseas in militant form.

Could there be any way to shrink government by de-militarizing its grip on the rest of the world and focusing on building — but protecting — its own infrastructure domestically?

There can still be trade between nations without the perception that active armies belong only in other nations. Whatever the vision of the United Nations, the contrary idea that private legal entities could administer to much of the world the sort of fairness and due process for any matter of arrest that could ensure free trade globally lacks only the concept of a fair and internationally-accredited mode of justice that would be capable of satisfying the peoples of nations of any sort.

The ocean is in no danger of being “seized” in the near future, although a greater presence of floating structures shall only be realistic to anticipate. That international trade could flow from ocean to ocean and from port to  port without interference from warring states or piracy on the high seas would surely fulfill something of many an ancient mariner’s dream. Protecting such an apparatus with private security would directly mean accountability not to one but to many nations, asking in return only that the charter, legally founded and instituted as well as supported by many nations, be honored and that its law be adhered to.

Just such an act might require a new “Magna Carta,” a new Constitution that could be agreed on by many nations to serve the interests of trade solely as such concern shore-to-shore, by sea, and by administration to that implicit area. Such a document does not even need to cover anyone residing on the ocean as such concern matters of trade, although the private endeavor could admit any such entity’s ownership to contract to be included deliberately in matters of concern for security against pirates or warring state vessels (“privateeers” of any sort).

Such regard would probably end up in establishing general trade routes of more specific quality that would be considered “in-range” of protections and regulation administered to by such private business that would be using technology to establish the identity for any vessel in transit to a port and further decide whether any particular vessel should be held in suspicion so as to render aid or protection from distress. These wayward trading ships would probably be organized under trade unions that pay the private security firm an annual rate that covers every vessel registered under its wing.

And anyone could buy security directly from the trade union or instead directly from the private security company. Even ships that are not trading from port to port but that go out and fish could buy in, probably at a lesser rate for not being much trouble to track. Other benefits, such as private communiques that explain anything from weather warnings to sightings of hostile ships, and possibly programming that offer helpful tips, could come from this (am seeing this as digital and encrypted transmissions that do not trap anything nor anyone in random accidental significance or into significance loops or loops of meaning. Such as persons suffering from identification simultaneity distress — a form that trauma can take.)

Private security regulating ocean trade for consistency with trouble-free egress would hire people from all supportive nations and direct worthy goals that do not hinge on military dominance being the only available vehicle. Fairness thus would be possible and should be perceived as viable. To underwrite such a company with a constitution and provide support for its existence as nations, the question of how justice shall be tended to emerges. In cases between plaintiff and defendant, there would necessarily be need for an appeals sort of system. Giving defendant or plaintiff benefit of the doubt would not be reasonable, so the case would not be tried in either nation of citizenship of either plaintiff or defendant.

The right to be represented in the courtroom, however, would be paramount. Defendant should have something of a 50%-50% stack of jurors, 50% from the plaintiff’s nation and 50% from the defendant’s nation. Other cases can be decided if the defendant were willing by mediation involving the equivalent of courtroom justices — or even a single judge, in low stakes “misdemeanor” cases. Just because an international contest exists does not necessarily require that jurors be diverse. However, if the State — any nation — constitutes the plaintiff of the case, then it would be a diverse slate of jurors with the defendant guaranteed 25% of the juror picks from the given, associated nation of defendant’s origin — a right that may also be waved if approved by the governor of the defendant’s home state or province and requested to be waived by the defendant. Offering justice with some amount of representation behind it, if the governor of the defendant’s state believes that the state has a vested interest in the matter, then the governor may elect to appeal the case to the President or Congress and send a delegation to represent the national interest in the matter, consisting of lawyers and other professionals who could be most resourceful in providing expert testimony. And the same for any nation, to see justice done as such concern the matters being decided.

But the process would not decide the matter “once and for all,” but instead solely on a case-by-case basis so that the decision would not bind the other nations to change their laws. This little element maintains the legitimacy of the private security company’s capacity to carry out its designated functions without throwing mandate after mandate around.

You’ve got to admit that it’s not actually a difficult job to police the seas since those tend to be sparsely occupied, unless you start throwing fleets of ships coming from all directions into conflict, which is not practical to expect with today’s coordinate-navigational devices (a.k.a. GPS, global positioning systems).

Appeals would be more interesting. If such an international court were administered, then it would probably be most practical to use it for each appeal. The question of a private system of justice would, of course, amount to the question of whom were being served.  Is the business of being a nation really about justice — or about law?

America solved the problem of justice in a criminal trial by leaving it to the people, in the form of jurors, to decide. In non-criminal trials, you basically pick whether a judge shall decide the case or whether a jury should. There could be a few exceptions to the latter condition of non-criminal-trial. If, as American tradition contends, justice shall be decided by the people — by a representative jury of one’s peers, as the phrase goes — then the question of who lives in the vicinity of the crime necessarily becomes relevant. And that would be a geographical matter that relates to who lives nearby who also has a role in seeing the interests of port to port trade served, since it were their competence that factors in to the very profile of port to port trade, safety, and security.

Bringing nations together over matters that they and their people benefit from would probably be a good idea. For such an enterprise to succeed and administer private security over the seas, also acting in the capacity (like AAA with triptiks and travelers checks) and general navigational courses, the question of whether there were any need for this comes to mind. It does so happen to be the case that a few people of the world live like navigating a boat will be more practical that riding a bike or using a car.

And as oceans fill with floating islands, the prospect could become something of a “viable economic sector.” One day there could be such pre-plotted courses as well as floating structures that in fact amount to full service restaurants and malls for navigators positioned along common courses and key areas. There might could be something of an oceanic highway and oceanic economy — if ship navigators can be incentivized to follow pre-planned “security courses” so as to constitute a popular movement of progress. Some cruise ships could even downsize their operations and simply go point-to-point on the ocean chasing after invigorating designer restaurants with exciting architecture that don’t necessarily have any tax to pay. And considering the bad reputation of how cruise ships treat their workers, it would probably be a win-win situation. Evidently, to work on a cruise ship is not synonymous with bad treatment.

Going from the hysteria and uncertainty of the recent century and all its conflicts to better, saner shoelaced prospects for “global peace headers” by covering goals of worthy design that can hope to gain international support would probably be a good idea now. The economic potential could be there at any time. And the best way to promote such a grand oceanic scheme would probably be to incentivize using boats to accomplish certain recreational tasks that otherwise are not popular: casinos, alcoholic drinks, hash bars, college courses, professional seminars, fan conventions, film festivals, thespian extravaganzas, training exercises, schooling for special hands-on skills, book signing and special celebrity opportunities, but absolutely zero human exploitation.  The ship would also need a wide, spiral bicycle path that extends near the outer edge of the deck. That’s about the only thing that could incentivize some people to go on a cruise of any sort — and a trip complete with oceanic pizza delivery. Yes?!?

SNAFU: The University of Florida hosts John Kerry (and special agent Andrew Meyer)

Sleeping minds get yet another cause to be wary. “If it looks too good to be true, it probably were.” Not that there were anything good about being tased or exploiting the wishes of a guest and verifiable servant of the public by explicit intention. If no one defends John Kerry then how do we know that Mr. Kerry were serving the public interest and critique general rather than specifically that “interest of one”?

Initially in viewing the tape-and-comments (“hoax”), the only explanation seemed to be that these police were ganging up on a guy for free speech. If they had any reason to arrest him, then what were they waiting for?

What the tape doesn’t show was apparently all there was to the case.

The facts of the case suggest severe repercussions for the Web in general. Anyone already should know that video should not be admissible as evidence. This incident at the University of Florida should drive one densely metallic nail firmly into the dossier of Why.

In something of a twist on the 90’s film Rising Sun, we can be lab rats for the cause of discovering that the implicit rebuke and unpopularity of Andrew Meyer as displayed in the non-fiction film popularly known “Don’t Tase Me Bro” was fictive in the sense that the prelude was withheld and called into question by this alleged police report. This important albeit restricted adult film relates to using video to establish facts of a case (see the infamous “Don’t Tase Me Bro” discovery).

Well, of course it was unpopular — and possibly violation of the school rules or code of conduct (haven’t confirmed that much 4u, r-u-there!?)

The key was reportedly that the tasered U press reporter, Andrew Meyer, has been cited with a history of refusing a cue by the acting U authority. The message appears to be that reporters can pursue the story aggressively, but you gotta be sure of that pursuit being without viable legal contest. The amazing thing about this abduction event was that it did not concern acceptance or rejection by  J. Kerry as function of University of Florida forum hostings, but rather about the acting University of Florida authority telling Mr. Meyer in so many ways to be arrested. They in fact let him speak and ask his questions but protected Mr. Kerry by arresting Mr. Meyer immediately after completing Meyer’s promised inquiry of “two more questions.” (touch meaning arrest, so their acting in official capacity to subdue or prevent free exercise). Clearly Andrew Meyer was not in a “free speech zone.”

In effect, the media has absolute power to manipulate the facts and control crowd of behavior, and law recognizes this fact in “free speech zones.” So long as no one were being hounded by a reporter, then, the police perceive no legal grounds to arrest or detain.

But the Twilight Zone moment was rather something to the effect of why there was no designated authority with control of the microphone who could had turned off journalist Andrew Meyer and explained to the group that his action was improper — other than by way of arrest. Seeing sights such as these should make one extremely wary of uncontrolled microphones … and especially of unmoderated, or poorly moderated, public forums.

See page eight of this pamphlet of California State University for a section about Free Speech Zones. The general idea of setting refers to the grander idea of significance. Although certainly a different state law, the passage it is not unqualified material.

This helps establish or affirm any form of paranoia (“Unidentified Flying Contest”) over the concept of “free speech” being nothing other than words coming out of a person’s mouth.  And what social movement do you identify the cause of nothing other than words coming out of a person’s mouth as being something other than the fact in question? The only possible or likely answer would be when the person so engaged were a guest whom were at coordinates THC that stand for , tribunal, hosted, code — a location that were sanctioned legitimately under legally qualified administration (tribunal), hosted by legitimate authority (Congress), and pertaining to legitimate institutional code (code of conduct). The translation means that anywhere on federal territory, the Bill of Rights although binding is not the law of the land’s administration but rather only the law as such pertains to being handled consistent with the idea of effective method-of-expulsion. As such, federal land or possession does not give anyone any right to be accepted there by federal officials. One may attempt to practice any rightful thing, but the greater effect were that the federal authority or its employees have the greater power to expulse in accordance with due process.

The twisted idea of “defending free speech” or free expression by imposing restrictions upon anyone else resorting to such rather transfers the burden of critique from the crowd or witnesses to the person so engaged. But just because pledges to uphold and defend the constitution occur does not, evidently, certify and establish that such shall be the sole priority of enforcement.

The idea here were that one is not going to be free to practice constitutionism on federal soil. And when the constitution mentions such freedom under right, it implies the freedom to petition Congress for redress of any grievance outstanding.

That means that we have manifest reason to fear our federal government, but because our rights evidently are not regarded as first-priorities by the federal government; and for apparently sound legal and practical reasons of regard. This fact seems significant, but because the thrust of democratic activity has focused on many freedoms, even referred to their basis. But the idea that one’s rights are not federal priority rather suggests legal “need to know” as imperative before rushing into any organized cause … for any intention whatsoever.

Imagine waiting there in the theater when all of a sudden one of the thespians on the stage comes to a particularly provocative verse of the performance. Police jump out of the audience and then seize the speaker … well, because it is not a free speech zone. This idea should be absurd — unless the performance so happened to be on federal land or possession.

And so, the idea that Free Speech Zones that have been daintied up were originally some sort of affirmation of federal jurisdiction as such regard the principle of THC indicated above. (THC — is no joke, incidentally, but rather parallel of speculative valence if understood as entirely clear otherwise than as-related in this article.)

So in sum, the nighmarish episode of Andrew Meyer was the sort of dream sequence that any could expect if the legal role of video footage in displaying evidence has never been drilled with correct boundaries into applicable legal clarity. And the idea of Free Speech Zone was the sort of dream sequence that anyone would get for wandering off beyond the thrust of democracy into the idea of freedom and ideal that protection and objection must somehow be incompatible. It is no different than what happened at Kent State University on May 4, 1970 … except for the power of the flower.

Dead horse or Dark horse? Looking once again at “insider trader” Martha Stewart

There is more security in retaining vital information than in any loss thereof due to spying. This consideration may be rendered moot upon pointing out that leaks of certain information prior to patent, trademark, or acquisition otherwise can be costly; but in terms of having securities of any sort; right to secure those trademark patents or other marks aside; a bird in the hand were yet worth two in the bush.

For this reason, the unsubverted right to possess what information one in fact may own were superlative over the unresolved right to cash in on the very worth of intellectual property. To emphasize the point, it was not what Martha Stewart owned in fact that got her into trouble with the law but instead acting on information that did not belong to her, as determined by federal regulations against insider trading. The distinction certainly calls into question, so what if the information did not belong to her if it was nonetheless allowed to leak into her hands? The implicit idea of personal responsibility necessarily accompanies being allowed by law and every benefit of optional corporate status to handle management even of knowledge according to any concomitant restriction.

The law was unfair, however, because the law should had outright prohibited trading stock of her own company without approval by the regulatory authority. The actual crime that she went to prison for was precisely denial of her inherent right to representation in such matters. The reason for her imprisonment dates back to the origins of Labor Day and in fact recapitulates her as laborer for the sort of cause that identifies ownership of the company to belong not only with the State of its incorporation but also to the stockholders, of whom she had the actual right to vote thereby. It was in fact not the State but rather the federal authority that refused to recognize her right to vote and that denied her any necessary, proper right to be represented as a voter in its refusal to regulate the necessitating fact of approving any request for trade. As such, she was abused very much in the traditional fashion where an owner of a business delivered arbitrary penalty and in effect refused to recognize her right to have any legitimate say in whether she may trade or not. The very law itself that denied her the right to trade and thereby vote was unrepresented and therefore rested fully on arbitrary authority. Who’s to say whether any particular trade would had been legitimate? The ultimate question there is not whether any particular trade were improper, but rather whether any particular trade were patently illegal. It’s not impossible to produce public information that takes the stance one way or another that the situation was a profitable one. Because information alone is not legitimate and does not establish anything, the thought most likely on Ms. Stewart’s mind was, “You’ve got to be kidding.” The law does not have the sort of authority to set up guilt as predicated by mere information. There must be evidence beyond information itself that makes the arbitrary offense incriminating. And that information would be the fact that the federal authority evidently prohibits there being any journalistic effort to critique each trade before it transpires. (Yeah, well, a free press can be of aid …)

If she had been an employee prior to the institution of Labor Day in the 1860s, then she would had either been fired or replaced by someone else. But instead of her prosecutors (complaintants) resorting to killing, as often occurred by anyone striking on the job or trying to replace a striker, the federal government gave her a prison sentence instead. The idea of “labor shortage” was the very equivalent of “insider trading,” inasmuch as she was convicted of attempting to use her knowledge to exploit and to gain against their employer, just as strikers attempted to use their knowledge to exploit their employer and gain. Information was held at a premium there, strikers had inside information, and anyone attempting to replace them was reportedly contested, fought, or duelled.

Had she freedom to contest the issue, only then could there be justice. Yet there was no process to apply for approval of any particular trade; she was either 100% free to use her discretion regardless of what sort of information; or she was 100% qualified to go to prison for any given trade once any arbitrary discretion decided to swing its way into her path.

Had there been a requirement that any trade of stock must be approved according to regulatory authority, then the contest would presumably had looked something like a contest to show whether any evidence could be produced — not about insider trading, but specifically about whether the trade in question would had violated the base crime that “insider trading” law was bent on preventing. We perceive that it were as if there were some point where a stock trade is no longer considered a gamble but considered instead to be something of a “direct tax” against potential stock buyers, or an “unfair trade” because the quarterly reports have become obsoletised against specific information not yet reported to existing stockholders and thereby to the public in general.

None of this has to happen if but the law read to the contrary that all trades by existing insiders — the board of directors and shareholders who own a threshold percentage of corporate stock — have each trade approved.

Indeed, there may be a better option, that such trades by members of the board of directors or above-threshold-level stockowners cannot be to other stockholders but instead must be drawn off the existing assets of the corporation as such exist following the following Treasury Department’s audit of the corporations’s estate. That way, they draw from the pool that they had supported to begin with rather that from the pool of gamblers who buy stock either to be supportive of a company or to gamble for profit.

The fine-tuning electromagnetism of AM radio massing

Perhaps in sighting it has been previously recognized, if not identified. But with the tiniest spark continually ekeing its way on through the sky, no that’s not the Moon and in this case not a celestial body near earth per se. This were the apparent sign of amplitude modulation of AM radio establishing its signature degree of presence.

Clearly there were something better than this AM radio spark to attend to. Nonetheless, it has been referred to as an object of perception and thereby remains inevitable reference to encounter through any range of social interaction, whether passive or active. By way of existence alone per its observance, its potential for acting in the presence of human interaction suggests a share of underlying ills that may directly be responsible for its own share of widespread mental illness, mostly routed in depression, angst, distress, dismay, and some measure of personal grief. Anxiety may also be possible in its wake, or even severe depression. And that spells out its own very unsanguine prospect of acting capacity to effect suicide.

How to be sure of the radio station belonging to that specific source of the spark?

The most basic of certainties can often be established by following the spark to a source of known radiowave transmittal activity. Transmitters generally attach to towers that may situate on or near a radio station certified to broadcast AM. Smaller towers may be mounted to a physical building, while stand-alone towers may be anywhere from towering themselves to that very dimension of skyscraper height. During night-time hours, such towers shall be endowed with enough lighting to scare away any navigator-controlled airplane.

These depict some ways that the spark can hope to be traced to it radio station of origin.  Another way may be through common sense … If knowing that any particular AM channel happens to be most popular throughout a region, then the most likely spark isolated and recognized probably belongs to the most popular or widest-cast radio station nearby somewhere in the region.

Practical living

Tackling this diminuative spark can bring hope of achieving practical living. The goal of human psychology happens to be to address, even to deal with sources of human stress or strain, so it amounts to an inevitable topic of reference — thus a qualified matter to address.

A healthy mind can ignore excesses such as these, to whom this spark probably would not exist except as such significance of gamma-class (γ-class) radiation. Reading stories in The Incredible Hulk or The Avengers, and references to gamma rays — indicating that extra-bright idea — probably comes from that memblitive glow of AM radio.

To fight that spark for control — or to examine the human psychology about it?

And that sort of dilemma probably is not anything of a good place to work any use of controlled substances into, but because the control factor cedes to the unstoppible force that applies to all. Alcohol, however, probably won’t raise the human metabolism to challenge this spark because of being a depressant — but it could complexify already existing complication yet unresolved. And ordinary human labor rather should optimize the human body’s capacity to handle waste and poisons with applied veracity of “Health studies” taught at the public school level.be where faith must surpass doubt at any expense of surprise genetic alteration and distinction.

But the all-powerful false-god of the imposed spark … that would be where faith must surpass doubt as to any expense of alteration or distinction. Because, I think that so doing entails losing awareness of the thing or of regarding such as least. Given the sort of role that an annoying spark of this sort can have, I refuse to accept its role as being least. But shall the perfected rendition lose awareness of the spark or be obliged to track its impact on passive and active human interaction?!

This question is not closed.

[Apologies for framing the thing as if it is not a qualified deity, insinuating religion, but we just don’t think that it fits into distinctifying monotheistic schema as a legitimate one. This is not being done to establish any religious connotation. References may be used that involve concepts recognized in philosophical context, but any gods referenced in this article can be independently and scientifically demonstrated as qualified references to phenomena of explicit and consistent attribute(s). Since our agenda is neither doctrine nor atheism but rather science, references shall be incorporated according to what validity that the author can validate or otherwise substantiate as convenient by having pre-existed in a known cultural weave-of-basis.

(Since one shall have to be inconvenienced by occasion of interpretation anyway, does it really matter who concepts once belonged to prior to Webster’s institution of the open dictionary?)]

Why the spark appears

Basically it’s not other than refraction from its ultimate source, its correspondent transmitter. However, its ranged proximis adds implicit depth. And there could be other such sparks.

Now, aside from any parasites that may land on skin and apply proboscis, all distinguishments must be made with total perfection against that of any applied convenience that invade the unforted private home.

Why the spark can be troubling

Alienating other persons to some degree already has its own supportive framework in the business world*. The concept is not expressly that of business but rather derived of the psychology of human interaction. The specific mode in question concerns an artificial but culturally veracible concept of personal space. Some peoples find reasonable comfort by speaking at arm’s length, while others find reasonable comfort by speaking at the length of a slap. * But necessarily so, for essential comfort.

Imposing “agent provocateur” of continuity that occurs from analog of its given range addresses proximity from source to imminent destination. Powerful analog transmissions imposed via continuity of their own neurolinguistic form establish continuity of neurolinguistic caliber. There were real troubles there.

And we won’t delve into those, because the broadcasting technology itself has been obsolete for a number of years. Once replaced with encrypted digital transmissions, all neurolinguistic correspondence between transmitter and destination cease to exist. And once those powerful neurolinguistic, subliminal continuities cease to exist, then lost were an entire proximity of range that had been potentially limiting structure of  mind and that could not scarcely do the laundry, wash the dishes, feed the dog, or handle the fine distinctions and delicate sensitivities of human interactivity on each level of engagement, including intimate; which sometimes becomes leftovers once absorbed with matters of working for a living and paying bills.*

There’s nothing like more quality time and fewer stressors to improve both the quality of work and quality of home life.

Once this electrical power to establish long-range neurosemantic continuity has been altered and abolished in favor of encrypted digital transmissions, there will still be analog continuity from receptive node output (i.e, radios and computers that act broadcast real-time radio programmes), but the power will be significantly less, and complication would be reduced by that power, that wattage that has by way of lacking continuity become more object-like without being particularly muddlesome. The binary itself in expression would consist of two signals with its content determined by its rate and could both easily and simply be ignored.

Oversight

At this point, we thought, what if people tried to pair the binary with the end product, as if to look for in-common patterns. This should be entirely unnecessary and unappealing. But by removing the neurolinguistic element, there ought to be no compulsion to affect even the wandering mind as in that case of the current, possible degree that may induce its psychoses by engaging directly with its degree of acting electrical power.

In unelaborate summary, there is no continuity to binary exchanges that applies to reception of neurolinguistic continuity that commonly occurs at that magnitude of expression of power. Their (binary signal) being so indifferent to the affairs of social interaction, at at its higher power, it should thereby become no more engaging — no more compelling — than unobliging sounds of road work or mechanical humdrum generally stationary or held in place per its application.

Why resolution isn’t

It’s really not good approbation to eliminate social dialogue altogether just because discovery may happen to lead to explanations. The complications that exist justify reference even if there could be some “perfect plan” saved from whatever peril of inspection. Since complications far, far exceed availability of the hypothetical “perfect plan,” what should be clear were that by failing to address emerging threats to the peace as such prove emergent; and with diligent attention to relevant detail; that anyone might be at a loss to find necessary answers in time to save life and limb.

We need address of grievance now, before it were too late, without self-burying in wasted speculation on the problem being due solely to human ideosyncracy that exists under the shroud of continuity that makes up wishful thinking and that may deal punitive or damaging ideas in pursuit of ideals that have long been eroded due to excess repressed by obedience to the un-orthodoxy of being a captive audience. Bridging the learning gap can help reduce problems outstanding to their constituent parts and, possibly, to available solutions. (Redress of grievances were that other, quantifiable matter best reserved for problems that have no solution.)

Blaming yourself can be too easy, what with being a captive audience and induced to accept multimedia, with all of its consequences, as the only hope for uncompromising “peace.” Multimedia does aim to alienate or divide, does aim to antagonize, and perhaps does even aim to persecute; and must be held accountable as an equal entity for its deranged role in contributing poor conduct as matter of its veritable influence conferred upon the community. Collectively, and in context of being imposed by electrical power as described earlier in this text, any poor conduct makes a lot of difference next to the comparative chaos of watching cable tee vee or home video that exists as an isolated and unharmonized incident somewhere off the forced guidance of the proximate map of perception made useful.

It’s actually very simple, to reduce the power to become non-binding, and to return its supervision to willing critics. The existence of the spark that indicates amplitude modulation may well be one of the greater subtleties of the modern way of life, but it is not least among the foibles of managing a mature grasp between practical living and managing communication while attempting to enjoy, to appreciate, to retain values for living and reciprocate any socially-constructive token of esteem. Let’s not grow witches out of this spark but rather eviscerate its chimera of distress and pin it to its earned place in the bestiary of uncharitable electrical phenomena somewhere on the order of vicious circles.

Somewhere, and throughout quadrillions of diversions throughout our universe, there were an uncomplicated Hors d’ouerve disheartened by its visceral toothpick, similarly awaiting discovery en parallel.

Live a little, learn, put new unsavory challenges to rest.

Disturbed grapes, distressed mind, and GMO

Yesterday were obtained some red grapes, purchased at Kroger. Tonight after taking a look at them, they seemed to be unusual somehow. The general appearance seemed less a fruit and somehow more human, sort of thicker than one might expect, and with the sort of character that matched its density as if anemic, despite the ruddish, purply skins. Beneath the skins these grapes were green.

Overall, the grapes were undeniably denser and clung to their stems in something of a more determined way. Was that wax clinging to them or something of a modified trait?

Also notable were something of absence.

It wasn’t for certain, but going by first impressions there were some horrors that flashed through my mind about how they looked almost human. That was possibly their density,  how tight they clung to the stem together with a more unusual, waxy demeanor. 

I’d not be inclined to buy this sort of thing again, because I don’t like the impression that I’m eating a grape modified by human hemoglobin. The whole idea seems too canniblistic, and yet hemoglobin was the general appearance.

Here’s what the Information Center for Sickle Cell and Thalassemic Disorders at Harvard University has to say about hemoglobin:

Hemoglobin is made from two similar proteins that “stick together”.

 

 Whether or not that was our grape, it gives something of a creepy, eerie feeling and possibly portrays hemoglobin in an anemic way. Not that hemoglobin contains iron, but rather that, at least in human anatomy, it were surrounded by red blood platelets that contain iron and that, therefore, are-not-anemic. Let’s take a look at another quote from the site:

The composition of hemoglobin is the same in all people. The genes that code for hemoglobin are identical throughout the world. Occasionally, however, one of the genes is altered by any of a variety of “accidents” that can occur in nature. 

Now that rather seemed to leave the difficulty that if eating enough genetically-modified food, that there might be any sort of distinguishment to make. In essence, we’d be lab rats who, if suffering for any reason because the food were too similar to human DNA, nonetheless weren’t informed in the first place of how and with what the food were genetically modified, at point-of-sale.

No; these grapes were obtained from the grape bin, put in a plastic bag, rung up, and brought home.

After eating a few to sample them, because I was hungry, I also noticed how the seemed to cling to the vine like swollen little ticks, with such determination that was also disgusting. The other effect was something like seeing a bunch of plastic grapes. Some plastics can be repulsive for containing bisphenol-A, although those grapes were at no risk of being plastic, and the bag they were in was probably not a factor since other grapes do not yield that impression after having been in that type of bag. They were reminiscent of the sort of thickening of features that could be associable with human development.

Lots of thoughts ran through my mind about how much the general appearance did not correspond in any way to grapes of record and how their characteristics deviated somewhat from any food.

It seems to me that thing I detest the most about GMO were that it can do these very sorts of things by stealing the genes from animal or human. But it’s plain that they are not human, not born of woman and on their way, but rather more like eating raw meat at the worst, only without any internal worms. At least — I hope that there is nothing in GMO grapes that can attract intestinal worms. 

Perhaps these were not GMO grapes and that these impressions come from the new comet that has been cooling our atmosphere and bringing us a cooler July, when these grapes were probably harvested.

It’s quite possible that it was nothing but the weather making these grapes firm up like artificial grapes. But the questions going through my mind were the sorts that reveal the sorts of fears that I think deserve to see print. Because ultimately, we won’t know where genetic modifications came from originally unless explicitly disclosed, and may find that we could be eating something that damages the sorts of distinctions that hold human life in high regard for being regarded as untampered with by dangerous minds.

Hmm, I guess it must be the jelly …

Key: GMO = Genetically Modified Organism