This text dates originally from the 24th of october 2004 and as you will read, I had some troubles with pain at the time, as a consequence of having ibc. Thats dimished now, the pain is gone, but other things aren’t. Thats life, you learn to live with it.
This is a test on language insight. You will not be judged on skincolor, proffesion, or religion. Except if your religion would be to kill everybody on this planet. I will answer no questions about what certains words mean, or about the text itself.
Subisidies equals governement aid [money]
The test is very simple:
What is the idea described here ?
And what has the rest of the text to do with it ?
Both questions should be answered correctly to qualify. The test will be closed in one month.
Although I might make a fool of myself, doing this, I need to know how good this text is, so that I can use some of the basics used in here to write a more complex form. If possible 25 to a 100 times as complex. If one doesn’t risk anything, one will never know.
Virulent mime completed.
I would say that one of my ideas, is a very powerful mime, not thought about for the first time, nor do I think it would be appropriate to say it would be originally mine. As certain text well over a century old, and from more know persons like e.g. Thomas Jefferson point partly in the same direction. I agree with him, but not completely.
I see no reason to cancel or stop using the patent system. That would bring utter chaos, and disruption, and would only do harm. It might damage society in such a way, that the harm done, cannot be undone. As read regarding a complex system, the first and most important rule should be: ” Do No Harm. ”
Rather I would say that the patent system is useful and should stay, but that an additional system should be put in place as not to stop or stiffen invention, and the likely hood of new ideas being pronounced, as we currently seem to be doing.
The new system should be for unlikely applications like traditional building styles, and life necessary applications like e.g. devices to catch rainwater.
People are afraid of change, but change is necessary, otherwise, our culture will come to a stand still and will go in decline. That would be a very bad outlook socially as well as economically. One to be avoided.
Perhaps the best solution or possible solution is to change the way we have been working and promoting ourselves. A skilled workforce is still one of our benefits but so it is for other countries around the world at a lesser costs. Nor should we put all our bets on one horse, we should not develop an economy based one major player and some sub players.
Better would be a more diverse economy where agriculture old and modern has it role, as well as other industries and services. We should remember than even in a unified Europe it would be not wise to give out of hands certain basic industries as food supply. If we loose them we also loose certain knowledge old practices that wood take time to regain, and might be lost forever, as is happening around the world.
In a unified Europe, it should be made clear that certain regions will be able to produce more at cheaper cost, and that this is not necessarily bad. But instead of just allowing this, and not seeing the cost this creates to indigenous agriculture and society, the unease, anxiety it creates, we should acknowledge this and limit it to a minimum by offering other alternatives.
Perhaps the ‘subsidies’ [to use a Dutch word] that are currently being issued should in my view be replaced by others to encourage the existence of agriculture. One point often forgotten it seems, is that agriculture has shaped our landscape, and made the way we know it now. It has been a slow process and has taken many centuries. But without it, where I live would still be a swamp.
I would personally subscribe and agree to a ‘subsidies’ that would encourage and reward farmers for the care they take for our landscape and it grounds. This seems to have risen to attention more recently as it should have. Continuing to give subsidies to agriculture in the way we are doing now, and have been doing, will only prolong the problems. We should acknowledge them and deal with hem. We no longer live in a non-global economy. Still change should not be swift but gradually, allowing people to adapt. And creating as little as anxiety as possible.
This could be augmented to allow for small water works, so that water could be cleansed more rapidly. This would also be better for the animals and in the end would benefit population as a whole. Also, personally I do not like empty grasslands with any animals on it, so ‘subsidies’ should be given to keep animals and to care for them. The products like e.g. milk could be used more on the local markets, that would cut costs, and would allow to sell extra’s to other markets. Also the land should be used if possible in a more laidback way so the grounds are not degraded too much, or not at all.
Quality rules are an issue here, but it should not be undoable. Perhaps this will be awkward and difficult, if not impossible to fully implement in Europe, but it could be a model, from which the base or parts could be implemented in e.g. Africa. or Europe. Asia, America,. .. well not Antarctica of course.. 😉
The same actually goes for electricity and the grid structure. As it is currently, there are a number of power plants including nuclear ones, which deliver the power for the entire country, and excess is sold on the international market. If we want to close the nuclear centrals than we should find and use an alternative to supply the same amount of power, because without it, we would surely suffer setbacks. I would research the likely hood of using local power systems, wind, solar, and other techniques, to instead as it is now, to make a house or a flat block more self providing.
Now we build a house and we connect it to the electricity, gas, water, sewer,… network, and without that most houses would loose much of their value and usability. In future a house should be build using a slightly different concept. Instead of making them totally depended of the existing grids, they should become partly indepent, with the ability to sell excess to the grid, or store it for later use. This costs more when initially build, and so ‘subsidies’ will be needed to start this revolution, but on long term, there will be less costs, as one becomes less depended on the grid, and energy distribution becomes more energetic. By this I mean, that the dealings and fluctuations will be more energetic, there will me more energy going and coming, and the amounts should not be as large as they are now. A grid structure is necessary, but the existing grids are ripe for adaptations. Everything needs to evolve. Perhaps we should let a computer program run different scenarios so we could skip some steps, and directly go to the process that works the best. e.g. using 2 separate tubes to deliver drinkable water, and non-drinkable water. That would slash costs, for households as well as the state. Rainwater could even be used for the toilet, making houses more self-providing. Rainwater should not enter the sewer that is a waste; it should enter a separate channel and be transferred back to nature or to depots in case of too much.
If e.g. major centrals are still allowed to exist, they could supply extra energy, and also supply energy necessary to compensate brake downs. This is doable in Europe although it will require a long-term view, taking one step at a time. This will be easier to set up in a country with a poor grid or non-existing grid. e.g. as in a number of African countries. It will also allow producing less exhaust and help getting to the Kyoto levels. It could even for an economic long-term growth, when developing new technologies and a new framework.
Perhaps a book should be written by one person or more who have worked in the building industry for a while, that study’s and talks about best practices, common made mistakes, and things to look out for as well as e.g. describe in detail and comment on a number of basic house designs. Showing layouts and commenting on the benefits of them and there wrongdoings. There is a market for it, I think, and it would be of great help. Not just for architects but for everyone who’s interested.
If new technologies are allowed to be used next to traditional techniques, villages could be made to be partly self-providing regarding water and electricity, and this would allow for a less costly grid. Also the traditional energy centrals could be less build, and nuclear centrals would be needed less or not at all. Enough technologies exist to allow the building of a house, the set-up of a village so that it becomes self-supplying, and still stays connected to a grid. In countries like e.g. Afghanistan, India,.. This is an option witch has already be quoted and is worth following trough.
In the west, energy consumption of certain appliances should be smashed, or definitively made less, e.g., computers, but e.g., using led’s for lighting could slash the amount of electricity used already. Same as using led’s for lighting on roads could slash the electricity bill used, and further usage of techniques used in nuweiba[, synai desert, Egypt] on e.g. 10 -15 -20 -100 lamp poles at a time, could slash the electricity bill even more. Freeing money for other purposes.
In a country, continent where the classic grid structures is less well existing or partly nonexistent, the benefit would even be greater, as a conversion would not be needed. That means cost not to be made. On the other hand in a country where the grid is already well built, changes could be made slowly but steadily, starting in villages as well as in cities, and studding, researching the effects this will have on the way houses are built and should be build as well as the effects on regulatory rules.
To provide for our future, we should research efficient ways of dealing with knowledge from different sources and subjects, by e.g. using micro theories. This would allow checking first if certain research has already been done, and to stop doing duplicate research, also it would also to progress faster, and then is currently possible. This could be done using grid software, computer labs, and so on. The usage of micro data in KB articles should be strictly forbidden, except if one wants to hide certain information inside a normal looking article without clearly marking it, or changing the words. The danger however is that the data will get lost, as no body will know what is written there exactly. It’s a good way to make the knowledgebase useless. Micro data is the layer I have added to language, allowing to hide knowledge into a text without changing any of the surface structure [as described by Noam Chomsky] and not really changing the dept structure used. Just by adding one that people do not know about. Not necessarily that of an entire sentence, just that of a word. That will do. The perfect way of encrypting data in to text without showing it in any way. Only somebody who knows micro data and therefore the knowledge of certain words will be able to read what is really written there. Used in text like this, it could change the meaning of the text completely as could other techniques. Micro data flows out of experiments with language philosophy and linguistics. None of them originally invented by me, but learnt over time. An efficient cross-disciplinary knowledgebase should be constructed, and all known data should be put in there. We probably already know more than we are aware of that we do.
After a toilet break, the burning pain has stopped for a while, so I can add some more now. I wonder if the pain has anything to do with stomach acid leaking into the intestines [darmen] and so causing the burning feeling all the way down. But thoughts about that are not to be written here. The sequence of addition is necessary and important to a certain point.
Micro theories would and should allow filtering out any garbage, and rubbish brought up, by using a kind of artificial intelligence. Reporting capabilities and a search engine should be built in as well. If used together with the electronic book as first described in the new scientist between 4 and 6 years ago, this should allow to be a powerful much needed tool and an economic advantage.
As well as all this, we should also carefully research and layout the plan to follow for bringing out new technologies. Instead of speeding things up like we are doing now, we should slow down, so we can think about the consequences and work out technology at it fullest. This is not always possible but should well be considered for certain technologies applications instead of rushing forward, without fully understanding of what we are doing. We should consider all consequences off a technology, not just the positive ones. So that we know what we start with before we actually do so.
But in order to be even able to do this, the flow of ideas should be as open as possible, and that means still using the patent system, as well as the complementary system. A system that would allow registering ideas legally without anyone really owning that idea. Allowing finding back the name of the person who first registered the idea, but as described before without owning the idea, not even for a short while. Finding the names back of those who modified the ideas. Allowing for changes to be made to the originally idea, to be moved in as a subsequent node of the original idea, linked to the original idea, well documented and available to everybody. This would be of most use, to legally protect traditional building and other practises, and should not be used for weapons design, definitively not for mass weapons design. Ideas could be placed like nodes in each other, like Russian puppets adding layers every time when needed, building on the first as a base structure. Considering this, if the fundament would be well built, it would allow a school of thought, a separate branch on the evolution of ideas, to emerge and allow for less aniexity when dealing with, creating new ideas. This would lower social and cultural anxiety, nervousness, and would indirectly benefit health also. It could even allow to register medieval designs, and work out new designs from that point on, or even use the old designs. In no way should this be allowed to conflict whit patent law, as in doing so it would render it inactive, and would fail to survive for a consistent space of time. Any idea registered in this way that was already patented, except when written allowance was given and being legally ok, could Not be registered under the complementary system. A well working example of this already exists, although that example is missing a vital part, namely cohensence. But iniatives are under way to rectify that. In the system described above and before, cohensence should be integrated from the start, allowing for as little disruption as possible. This will never take over patent system, as they both have separate goals, and usages.
Have to stop, pain is coming back with peaks.
Never thought that words could behave in such a form and spread like wildfire, like a virus, that cannot be contained if well designed. So design is important and nearing completion, when released it will spread slowly but steadily, and then speeding up, making sure it is hear to stay. Already just a rumour will make it inevitable for it to emerge in one form or another, that is the nature of ideas.Powered by Sidelines