Pierre Teilhard De Chardin Information


(1) Science and Christ

(2) Appearance Of Man

(3) Christianity and Evolution

(4) Let Me Explain

(5) The Phenomenon of Man

(6) The Future of Man

(7) Toward the Future

(8) Heart of Matter

(9) Letters to Two Friends

(10) The Divine Milieu

(11) Writings in Time of War

(12) Letters From A Traveler

(13) Human Energy

(14) Hymn of the Universe

(15) Man’s Place in Nature

(16) On Love and Happiness

(17) Vision of the Past

(18) Letters to Lucile Swan

(19) Letters to Leontine Zanta

(20) Activation of Energy

(21) The Making of a Mind

The McAfee guide to uninstalling McAfee Antivirus | John …

Theres days when I see despicable, disgusting shit like this and realize that my 10 years I spent working for a huge corporation would have been much more fun had I worked for John instead, if only my manager knew the proper straw for bath salts, if he had a magical collection of self spawning guns, I might have just, maybepossibly not wasted 10 years of my life..what a shit showanyways, that was like watching a train plow into a huge chicken coop full of babies, I couldnt stop watching, and when it was over, I couldnt stop laughing.

Today WAS a crappy day, today sucked..until I watched that, thanks John, I needed that, your a sick man, I love it when I see someone act out the shit that goes on in my head.

Jason (still trapped in corporate hell, just a smaller corporate hell for 1/2 the money)

Read more:

The McAfee guide to uninstalling McAfee Antivirus | John …

John McAfee Says DOGE Is His Coin of the Week

Tech pioneer and entrepreneur John McAfee just named Dogecoin (DOGE) his “coin of the week” for the week of Jan. 8. That might come as a surprise, but Dogecoin is worth more than you think

Created as a joke by founder Jackson Palmer, McAfee says DOGE is now one of the “most widely accepted and loved cryptocurrencies in the world.”

On its website, Dogecoin lists itself as a fun and friendly Internet currency.

Now, it’s easy to see why DOGE is called a “joke coin.” After all, the company’s mascot is a somewhat-confused-looking Shiba Inu, a Japanese breed of dog.

It also isn’t using blockchain technology to solve specific problems.

That makes Dogecoin seemingly less competitive in a crowded market where coins are expected to go mainstream based on their functions.

While there’s no way of knowing exactly which crypto coins will be used the most in the next five years, consider these examples: Bitcoin could be a storage of value, like gold, Litecoin can be used for daily transactions, and Ethereum could become the payment of choice for smart contracts.

But DOGE shows why hundreds and even thousands of crypto coins can co-exist with each other and still have value

Cryptocurrencies are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them, and that’s why hundreds of thousands of crypto coins could eventually co-exist.

There could be coins created for each and every hobby and industry in the world, and as long as there’s a community there to buy and sell the coin, the cryptocurrency will have a value.

For instance, the Dogecoin community rallies together to support different causes.

In 2014, the Jamaican bobsled team qualified for the 2014 Winter Olympics. Marvin Dixon, the brakeman for the team, revealed that there wasn’t enough money to send the team to Russia.

The Dogecoin community stepped in and raised $36,000 worth of DOGE to help send the Jamaican team to the 2014 Winter Olympics, according to The Los Angeles Times.

DOGE supporters also came together again in 2014, when $55,000 worth of DOGE was raised to sponsor NASCAR driver Josh Wise.

As long as people keep using DOGE, it’s going to have value.

Over the past year, the price of DOGE has climbed from $0.0002 on Jan. 8, 2017, to $0.015 today, for a 7,400% increase.

California is bracing for a tsunami-sized wave of wealth and if you play your cards right, you could make more money from the marijuana markets than you’ve ever seen in your life.

You see, thanks to The Golden State’s complete cannabis legalization, $20.2 BILLION is expected to flood this industry, delivering massive upward momentum to tiny cannabis startups currently trading for pennies apiece.

But as soon as the money starts flowing into these small companies, and their share prices go from $1, to $5, to $20 or more you may never see a chance like this again.

Your first step on the road to marijuana millions starts right here

FollowMoney MorningonTwitter,Facebook, andLinkedIn.

Join the conversation. Click here to jump to comments

Follow this link:

John McAfee Says DOGE Is His Coin of the Week

John McAfee Admits Bitcoin Is A Total Scam – Your News Wire

In a recent CNBC interview, John McAfee inadvertently explained why Bitcoin is a total scam doomed to fail within the next 12 months.

In answering Jamie Dimons claims that Bitcoin is a fraud, McAfee gave an illuminating response:

However, sir you called Bitcoin a fraud. Im a Bitcoin miner. We create Bitcoins. It costs over one thousand dollars per coin to create a Bitcoin. What does it cost to create a U.S. dollar? Which one is the fraud? Because [the dollar] costs whatever the paper costs, but it costs me and other miners over a thousand dollars per coin its called proof of work.

Naturalnews.com reports: The problem with John McAfees explanation, of course, is that it admits Bitcoins can only be created through the practice of computationalwheel spinning operationswhere the difficulty and duration of such wheel spinning is artificially made needlessly complex by the Bitcoin algorithm. In a world where Bitcoins used to be created for less than one pennys worth of computational work, a single Bitcoin now requires over US$1,000 worth of artificial work to be achieved. A rational person must ask McAfee, Why did Bitcoins used to cost just a penny to create, and now they cost a thousand dollars? The 100,000 X increase in complexity for generating a Bitcoin, it turns out, is anartificial work algorithmknown as computational difficulty in mining.

This admission should be shocking to all Bitcoin holders for the simple reason thatif Bitcoin drops below $1,000, mining now becomes unprofitable, rendering a very large part of the entire Bitcoin mining infrastructure instantly obsolete. The only thing keeping Bitcoin mining profitable right now is the bubble pricing of Bitcoin itself, and because all bubbles eventually burst, Bitcoin mining will sooner or later reach a point where its not worth the investment of hardware, electricity and time. (Theres also the 21 million coin limit thats rapidly approaching, by the way, which will spell the end of Bitcoin mining as it is conducted today.)

Furthermore, the artificial work aspect of Bitcoin mining and its artificial computational complexity isthe digital equivalent of paying people to dig ditches and fill them in againwhile claiming the activity boosts economic output. This idea, believe it or not, is the classic economic paradox routinely pushed by left-leaning economic myth-meisters like Paul Krugman. Those of you who follow economic news know that Krugman openly and wholeheartedly believes that government could boost the economy by literally paying millions of people to dig ditches and fill them in again. This artificial work generates real-world abundance, according to economic fools like Krugman. Thats why Zero Hedge rightly posts an article entitled, Why Paul Krugman Should Go Back To 5th Grade.

And yet Paul Krugmans ditch-digging artificial work is actually no different than John McAfees Bitcoin mining artificial work. In both cases, McAfee and Krugman ridiculously claims that work along has intrinsic value, even if little or nothing is actually accomplished in the real world. According to McAfee, computational expenditure automatically equals value, even when the notion is patently absurd to any rational person.If CPU cycles equaled wealth, then no one in the world would ever have to work againbecause people could just run computers all day and let the CPUs create wealth.

Any belief in such a system is, of course, irrational and absurd. There is no such thing as aperpetual wealth-generating machineunless you own the money supply itself and can hoodwink others into trading their effort for your currency. Thats what the Federal Reserve does, of course, and thats the entire con of theBitcoin Ponzi scheme: To recruit as many people as possible into the Bitcoin scheme so that they pay you cash in exchange for your CPU cycles.

To produce artificial work, Bitcoin consumes enormous resources

Bitcoins proof of work, in other words, is nothing more thanartificial work. Yet what is the real world result of such artificial work? While generating absolutely nothing thats real in the real world remember as Steve Quayle says, If you cant touch it, you dont own it the Bitcoin mining processconsumes enormous amounts of electricity, computing hardware and time. Yet in the end, theres nothing to show for all that work except for carbon dioxide emissions and mercury pollution from the Chinese coal plants that power nearly a third of global Bitcoin mining. Bitcoin, in fact, has become one of the key vectors of environmental pollution thats causing hazardous air in Californias cities.

McAfee claims that artificial work is actually proof of work. In reality, its proof of nothing more thanthe incredible stupidity of the mining infrastructurewhich is now burning more electricity than a city of one million people just to keep the Bitcoin blockchain from collapsing.

Surely theres some value in the work that we did to create the coin, McAfee stated. But actually, there isnt any real-world value in it at all.Bitcoin is adigital fiat currency backed by nothing, and all the work used to create Bitcoins is actually artificial work thats made artificially complex for no logical reason other than a crude mechanism for artificial scarcity. Yet even that scarcity is a complete failure, since any person can create and launch their own cryptocurrency alongside Bitcoin, instantly creating a massive new supply of crypto coins that flood the marketplace. (And many newer cryptos are vastly superior in design to Bitcoin. For example, Z-cash)

On top of all that,Bitcoin is clearly not a store of value, and recent research by Princeton scientists found thatBitcoin isnt anonymous, either. Bitcoin is also highly subject to government regulation, as the recent market plunges clearly demonstrated, following the announcement of Chinas largest Bitcoin exchanges closing their doors. Liquidations of Bitcoin by Chinese investors are already underway and will continue through September 30th.

One by one, all the promises we were told about Bitcoin have unraveled: It isnt anonymous, transactions arent instant, transactions arent free, Bitcoin isnt a reliable store of value, it isnt immune to government regulations and so on. Yet John McAfee, in his self-deluded cluelessness, points toartificial workand says, essentially, See? Were expending CPU cycles for all this! Doesnt that have value?

Actually, it doesnt, Mr. McAfee. It has no more value than the GPU calculations of a nine-year-old kid playing a first person shooter on a Saturday afternoon. Yeah, his rig is running all sorts of complex calculations, but at the end of the day, theres nothing to show for it other than Cheetos crumbs that fell between the cushions of the couch.

Computation does not automatically equal value

Computation alone does not equal real-world value. John McAfees attempt to conflate the two ideas only shows how deeply he has deluded himself about the future of Bitcoin. And those who falsely believe that computation equals value are only allowing themselves to be fooled by this non-logic for the simple reason thatthey all own Bitcoin i.e. Bix Weir and others and cant come to grip with reality without admitting they were wrong all along.

The bottom line? Bitcoin is headed for failure, but cryptocurrency is here to stay. The most likely long-term scenario in all this is that well seea cryptocurrency backed by JP Morgan and the government a blockchain with built-in NSA snooping and an identity layer so that all transactions can be tracked by the IRS to enable government confiscation and criminalization as deemed appropriate by the crooks in Washington.

Once this approved blockchain is rolled out, it wont be long before government finds a way to criminalize all unapproved blockchains such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc.

And how hard is it for government to criminalize Bitcoin? Not hard at all: Its a simple matter to run a false flag dirty bomb operation the FBI already masterminds and executes terrorist plots every day across America then make sure the bad guys who are recruited into the sting operation are fully funded by Bitcoin.

A few hours later, the fake news New York Times will declare, CHICAGO DIRTY BOMB TERROR PLOT FUNDED BY BITCOIN. And the house of cards falls like dominoes. The entire media will be directed by the CIA to describe Bitcoin as a currency for terrorists, murderers and drug dealers, and Bitcoin will be targeted in exactly the same way the Silk Road was taken down. A few Bitcoin promoters will be imprisoned, the government will claim its fighting terrorism, and theclueless sheepleof society will applaud the news that they are being protected by authorities.

Seeing all this play out is as clear as day. And why is this so obvious? Becausewe are all living as slaves in a totalitarian society run by fake news, fake terrorism and fake authority.

Will that totalitarian regime allow all their central banks and government currencies to be made obsolete by a libertarian cryptocurrency they dont completely control?Of course not. And anyone who believes Bitcoin will overthrow the globalist money / debt cartels is naive and stupid. Trust me when I say a bunch of geeks arent going to overthrow centuries of globalist money domination that now rules our corrupt world.

Visit link:

John McAfee Admits Bitcoin Is A Total Scam – Your News Wire

Abraham Lincoln on Freedom, Wage labour and Slavery

The liberal tradition is employed by the left and the right to justify their positions concerning contemporary capitalist society. An issue often raised concerns US slavery, whether it made life better for slaves, whether it was better or worse than wage slavery in the north. While weve all heard Noam Chomsky talk about this, its probably a good idea to look for other sources on what 19th century liberals actually thought about freedom. Micheal Sandel has written about Lincolns conception of freedom and how it relates to wage labour and slavery in a book called Democracys Discontent: America in a search for Public Policy. The following quotations are taken from a chapter called Free Labour versus Wage Labour:

Although he shared the abolitionist moral condemnation of slavery, Lincoln did not share their voluntarist conception of freedom. Lincolns main argument against the expansion of slavery rested on the free labour ideal, and unlike the abolitionists, he did not equate free labour with wage labour. The superiority of free labour to slave labour did not consist in the fact that free labourers consent to exchange their work for a wage whereas slaves do not consent. The differences was rather that the northern wage labourer could hope one day to escape from his condition, whereas the slave could not. It was not consent that distinguished free labour from slavery, but rather the prospect of independence, the chance to rise to own productive property and to work for oneself. According to Lincolm, it was this feature of the free labour system that the southern critics of wage labour overlooked: They insist that their slaves are far better off than Northern freemen. What a mistaken view do these men have of Northern labourers! They think that men are always to remain labourers here but there is no such class. The man who laboured for another last year, this year labours for himself. And next year he will hire others to labour for him. (181)

Lincoln did not challenge the notion that those who spend their entire lives as wage labourers are comparable to slaves. He held that both forms of work wrongly subordinate labour to capital. Those who debated whether it is best that capital shall hire labourers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them ot it without consent, considered too narrow a range of possibilities. Free labour is labour carried out under conditions of independence from employers and masters alike. Lincolm insisted that, at least in the North, most Americans were independent in this sense: Men, with their families wives, sons and daughters work for themselves, on their farms, in their houses and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favours of capital on the one hand, nor of hirelings or slaves on the other.

In Lincolns hands, the conception of freedom deriving from the artisan republican tradition became the rallying point for the northern cause in the Civil War. In the 1830s and 1840s, labour leaders had invoked this conception in criticizing northern society; wage labour, they feared, was supplanting free labour. In the late 1850s, Lincoln and the Republicans invoked the same conception in defending northern society; they superiority of the North to the slaveholding South consisted in the independence the free labour system made possible. (183)

The Union victory in the Civil War put to rest the threat of free labour posed by the slave power, only to revive and intensify the threat posed by the wage system and industrial capitalism. Lincoln had led the North to war in the name of free labour and the small, independent producer, but the war itself accelerated the growth of capitalist enterprise and factory production. (183)

In 1869 the New York Times reported on the decline of the free labour system and the advance of wage labour. Small workshops had become far less common than they were before the war, and the small manufactures thus swallowed up have become workmen on wages in the greater establishments, whose larger purses, labour-saving machines, etc., refused to allow the small manufacturers a separate existence. THe article criticized the trend it described in terms reminiscent of the labour movement of the 1830s and 1840s. THe fall of the independent mechanic to wage earner status amounted to a system of slavery as absolute if not as degrading as that which lately prevailed in the South.

The 1870 census, the first to record detailed information about Americans occupations, confirmed what many workers already knew. Not withstanding a free labour ideology that tied liberty to ownership of productive property, American had become a nation of employees. (183)

Like Loading…


Go here to see the original:

Abraham Lincoln on Freedom, Wage labour and Slavery

My Journey to Escape Wage Slavery | Just another WordPress …

Forward, ho!

Deep in the forest a call was sounding, and as often as he heard this call, mysteriously thrilling and luring, he felt compelled to turn his back upon the fire and beaten earth around it, and to plunge into the forest, and on and on, he knew not where or why; nor did he wonder where or why, the call sounded imperiously deep in the forest.- Jack London- Call of the Wild

I have this quote stuck up at my desk at eye level and I read it several times during my work day. Call of the Wild is one of my favourite books and when things seem not quite right in life, I can pick it up and read it to soothe whatever angst I am feeling. I love the style of Londons writing as much as the content and themes of the book- his colourful characters and perfectly abbreviated descriptions of nature can lead me to a land of daydreams and lustful desire for wilderness and wildness. The books central theme of heeding the call within reminds me of what I love and why I do it. I dont believe in fate, pre-destined paths and soul mates but I do think each of us has something, or even several things, that feel like home to us. The thing that when we do it or perhaps even think about it, brings us a sense of calmness, completeness and dispels that gnawing feeling in the gut that accompanies those tasks, thoughts and people that are not innately right for us. The best (and probably least imaginative) explanation I have is that it comes from the big formative years of our lives- our childhood and youth. I think that finding what this call is within ourselves is one of the first steps to reclaiming our happiness and taking responsibility for it.

My call that is sounding is of the soil, seeds and leaves which makes my horticulture course feels right. One by one all of the aspects of my life are shifting into place and I truly believe that it is because I am doing what I am meant to be. The happiness and confidence that is coming from doing what nourishes me is overflowing into other areas. The biggest difference by far is that I feel awake. And being awake means feeling alive. Being alive means not being another loser going through the motions on autopilot, thinking about, but never acting on those niggling thoughts that something is out of place and there must be more to life.

Its only been about eight months since the inception of this blog and the main themes of escaping wage slavery and living a more deliberate and meaningful life are already coming to fruition. I use the word fruition in a loose sense, as I am coming to learn my major goals are ongoing and unlikely to ever cease in my life. I currently dont need to earn a full time income to support my needs (although saving money is not an easy task) and virtually all of my time is spent on activities that I find meaningful and add value to my life and hopefully others. Im busy but my days and nights are not loaded with useless busyness, tasks to fill in gaps, doing things to kill time.

Killing time. The thought inspires a horrible sense of dread in me. We all have the same number of hours in the day and life is way too open handed with opportunities to comfortably entertain the idea of killing time. Wasted time, money and food used to be my top personal criticisms and it is the economy and salvation of those in between and once passive moments of time that have been the biggest beast to conquer. If you finding you are killing time waiting for someone or something find ways to use that time. Creatively daydream, write, read, listen to a podcast- please, please, please dont kill your time.

The main problem with this great obsession for saving time is very simple: you cant save time. You can only spend it. But you can spend it wisely or foolishly. Benjamin Hoff- The Tao of Pooh

My 40 Before 40 list feels like it is going slowly, but this is only because so many of the items on the list are really, really big and require a long term commitment (something I have never excelled at). In the last week alone I have worked on the following items:

I have also adjusted the list to better fit me by changing Run a half marathon (I actually dont enjoy running at all) to Hitchhike 10,000kms and Visit Every Continent (this is implicit in the other items) to Attend Burning Man. I figure a couple of changes as I grow is not only permissible but something to be encouraged. Having strict goals and ideals often puts blinkers on life and prevents us from seeing the other opportunities that arise.

Be flexible and spend your time wisely.

Read the original:

My Journey to Escape Wage Slavery | Just another WordPress …

8 Signs You’re a Slave Instead of an Employee

Literal slavery is a horrible practice that still persists into the modern age. But, I want to talk about another form of human exploitationemployment slavery, which can also ruin a persons life. Generally, I consider this a self-inflicted slavery because its ultimately a persons choice to work under such conditionsbut I also understand that brainwashing can occur, creating the illusion that theres no way out.

Slavery (in general) exists because of the inclination among people to obtain the benefits of human resources, while providing little (or nothing) in return. Human work is the most intelligent, efficient way to create a system of wealth and power. For the morally bankrupt, such benefits are sought for free.

Employment, in the best case scenario, is a business deal of mutual benefit. But in other instances, the company is expending such minimal resources that they are taking advantage of you. In the worst case scenario, through a combination of slave-driving principles and psychological techniques to break you down, such a job can morph into something very similar to actual slavery.

If you dont know any better, its easy to fall into slavery conditions. Here are signs that your sense of freedom in life is totally gone:

Because of the way employers conveniently ignore yearly inflation, todays minimal wage is not enough to maintain any semblance of a normal lifestyle. Minimal wage makes some sense in small businesses just starting out. But, In America, $8.25 an hour, or less, from a large, billion-dollar corporation is inexcusable. In this case, your annual wages cost a second of the companys hourly profits. In other words, your hard work is a very bad deal for you, and a killer opportunity for the suits upstairs.

Youre lucky you even have a job! is a psychological taunt that bad employers use to try and keep their wage-slaves from believing they can do any better. Such statements are made to maintain a sense of control. Understand, voluntary slavery is not a rare phenomenon. It happens when a person is brainwashed into the belief that they have nowhere else they can go.

If your manager uses psychological put-downs like this to denigrate your professional abilitiesunderstand that its being done for a reason.

The idea of getting a raise and a promotion may be dangled in-front of you, but youve seen no evidence to suggest that it really happens. In fact, only a very small percentage of your co-workers ever obtain this goal, and they tend to be the cronies of upper-management. If this is the case, then what exactly is your reason for working at this company?

Inconvenient hours are inevitable in jobs, but some companies will abuse the system. This ranges from illegally denying overtime pay, to scheduling month-long bouts of cloping (working until closing hours late at night, then opening hours the next morning) that leaves the employee physically and emotionally drained.

An employee in this system may feel the intense pressure by the bosses to conform to abusive hours, under the threat of being denied promotions or even getting fired for seeking better treatment.

Americas two-week annual vacation time is one of the weakest in the Western world, and American workers tend to not even use it. This is because many employers will hint that vacationers are likely to end up on the shit-list of not getting promoted. They may even hint that unruly vacation-seekers will be the first to get laid-off or fired at the earliest opportunity.

A system of slavery does not allow free-time for individuals to maintain their own lives outside of their work. This could cause dissent and break the system of total control. An unspoken methodology among abusive managers is to destroy the lifestyles of employees so, instead of tending to family or hobbies, they work at full capacity.

Feeling motivated based on high-standards and being scared to go below those standards is one thing, but being genuinely scared of the people youre working for is another.

Slave-masters maintain systems of fear, to break down their subjects and perhapsin timebuild them back up. For the best example of thisplease see Theon Greyjoy in Game of Thrones.

Psychological and verbal abuse is usually what occurs. An abusive employer understands exactly what strings to pull to generate feelings of shame or guilt, and theyll use the professional context to destroy a subjects sense of self-worth, perhaps by implying worthlessness at the vocation theyve devoted their life to.

In other instances, the abuse is very overt and could include yelling, tantrums and even physical assaults. But the outcome is the same: the employee living in a constant state of paranoia, fear, and subservience.

Read carefully the ten warning-signs youre in a cult by the Cult Education Institute. Some of these that could be very applicable to a workplace include: absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability, no tolerance for questions or critical inquiry, the leader (boss) is always right, and former followers (employees) are vilified as evil for leaving.

If the job feels less about, you know, getting the job doneand is more about the influence, charisma and infallibility of the bossthen get the heck out of there. This means the person in charge is getting a side-benefit to running or managing the workplace: power and dominance.

The number one sign youre a slave and not an employee is that youre working an unpaid internship, and its not for college credit. You may be promised great benefits and valuable connections, at what amounts to harsh workplace conditions, long hours, and zero pay.

A huge mistake I see young professionals make, and it really irks me, is naivety about peoples intentions. I went to film school for my bachelors, and many students I knew lusted after top internships at film studios or with big names in the entertainment industry. Such internships are often offered regardless of college credit.

When a person is blindsided by their desire to make it and get in with big names, they are likely to make bad decisionsand unscrupulous employers will prey on this desire.

Internships are great IF its part of a students actual curriculum. It means hands-on work and real experience versus useless classrooms. But, the questionable non-credit internships I warn about also exist to lure young people into systems of slavery. Its gotten so bad these types of arrangements are quickly becoming illegal in California.

The reality of such internships is that the slave-drivers only desire one thing: unpaid work. There is NO promise that you will move up or land any type of a paid job. When your internship finishes, they will discard you and find the next victim.

The biggest reason to avoid internships is the mentality behind the deal. Imagine a law firm or a film studio that is a multi-billion dollar operation. How hard would it be to throw their new recruit at LEAST minimum wage? The fact such a company would, despite their huge profits, still desire unpaid labor is indicative of a slave-driving mentality that funnels wealth to the top at the expense of the people on the bottom making it possible.

As a professional, it would be best for you to avoid doing any type of business with any individual or company that possesses a philosophy like this.

Employment-slavery situations are common. Very common. But ultimately, the biggest factor in determining how bad it is, is a single question: are you happy?

If you are happy at $8.25 an hour with no benefits, because you like the people you work with, you like the nature of the work, and you feel its moving you somewhere you want to bethen its not slavery. Youre making an investment thatll either pay off, or it wontbut at least you enjoy what youre doing.

However, if you are miserable in your current conditions, its quite possible that the uneasy feeling in your gut is your intuition telling you that someone is taking advantage of you.

Employment is supposed to be a business contract, and an exchange of services. Never a system of control. Sometimes, just the willingness to walk away is your strongest defense against a terrible job situation.

For more about avoiding systems of employment-slavery, please see my short books: Freedom: How to Make Money From Your Dreams and Ambitions, and How to Quit Your Job: Escape Soul Crushing Work, Create the Life You Want, and Live Happy.

(For more books, also check out the Developed Life bookstore, http://www.developedlife.com/bookstore).


View post:

8 Signs You’re a Slave Instead of an Employee

Automation.com – News & Resources for Manufacturing, Factory …

Manufacturing in America 2018 March 14, 2018 – March 15, 2018

Detroit , MI, United States

Siemens and Electro-Matic invite you to join over 2600 manufacturing executives, engineers and enthusiasts on March 14-15, 2018 at Manufacturing in America 2018 inside Ford Field in downtown Detroit. Learn about the newest technologies, share best practices and ideas, and be a part of advancing the future of manufacturing.

Read the original:

Automation.com – News & Resources for Manufacturing, Factory …


The core experience of the game is the Grand Campaign. In this game mode, spanning from 1946 to 2020, you start your enterprise from scratch and try to become one of the most renowned car companies in the world. Many roads can potentially lead to success: catering to the masses with small, affordable cars, being an exclusive supercar manufacturer, or focusing on big luxurious flagship cars for the few.

Conquer niches with targeted marketing, or diversify while keeping an eye on brand awareness, brand reputation and prestige to build a loyal following. Compete in ever-shifting regional and global dynamic markets that come with various regulations, featuring many different market segments and buyer demographics.

Set up and manage your factories, expand your production capabilities and improve your cars by investing into research and development to get an edge over your competition. High quality cars and good quality assurance might cost a fortune, but may pay for themselves in the long term. Like in real life, in Automation car design and marketing is full of compromises.

To build and maintain a core team of leading engineers helping you shine in different areas of expertise is just as much part of running a successful business as to properly manage your finances. Keep track of commodity and stock markets and invest your hard-earned cash.

Multiplayer Campaign mode will be available, allowing you to cooperate or compete with other players.

View original post here:


Chess Engines Chess Tech

Chess engines are the brains of any chess program. Most modern engines come as separate entities to be added to your favorite GUI (Graphical User Interface). This post is aimed at helping you get some free chess engines and prepare them to install in your favorite GUI. Ill cover the GUI installation in separate posts.

How do you know what engines are the best?

Here is a list of the top rated free engines. http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/rating_list_pure_free.html

Where can I get these engines? Well you can Google them by name. Komodo Chess Engine for example. Just Google Komodo and youll get a lot of links to the lizard.

Below are links to the current top three free engines. After you download them. You will need to unzip them. I recommend keeping them in their own folder. First I would make a folder called chess engines somewhere easy to find. Because you may want to use these engines in more than one program. Example c:chess enginesFire5

Komodo https://komodochess.com/Stockfish https://stockfishchess.org/Fire https://chesslogik.wixsite.com/fire

The engines will often come in 32 bit and 64 bit versions. They may have both versions inside the zipped file. If you have to select at the time of download you need to know which kind of computer you have. This is how you can tellhttps://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch001121.htm.

So there may be a x32 (32 bit) version a x64 (64 bit) version. Also you may see bmi2 and popcnt versions. These additional versions are compiled to take advantage of special features built into specific microprocessors. The speed gained by running these versions are small but feel free to try them. If they dont run just switch back to the plain version. The BMI version may require changing settings in your computer bios. If you you want to do that here is a thread on that topic.http://www.chess2u.com/t10505-bmi2-or-popcnt

All about chess engines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_engine

Like Loading…


See the article here:

Chess Engines Chess Tech

Free Chess Engines

Users browsing this forum: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 3 Guests

Users browsing this forum: None

Permissions in this forum:You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum

Permissions in this forum:You can post new topics in this forumYou can reply to topics in this forum

See more here:

Free Chess Engines

Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI)

Latest Journal CE and Journal SAMS:Just Released!Radiation Safety+ Review and Essentials

The new Radiation Safety+ Review and Essentials program provides a comprehensive overview of all aspects of radiation safety for nuclear medicine technologists preparing to take the NMTCBs Radiation Safety Certification Examination. This 5 module/7.75 credit coursealso includesa 150 question mock exam lets you assess what you’ve learned!Learn More

CT+ Review and Essentials provides you with the comprehensive didactic education you need to succeed, whether you’re looking to buildyour general CT knowledge, or preparing to sit for the ARRT (CT) and/or NMTCB (CT) exam(s). This 18 module/17 credit course also includesa post-course mock exam lets you assess what you’ve learned!Learn More

View Scientific Abstract Oral and Poster Presentations from SNMMI’s2017 Annual Meeting.Learn More

Access synchronized slides, audio and embedded video from 100 of the most popular sessions from SNMMIs 2017 Annual Meeting.Learn More

SNMMI’s online nuclear medicine review course coversadult and pediatric medicine, PET/CT and nuclear cardiology plus imaging protocols, interpretation and limitation.Learn More

SNMMI/ACNM MRI Case Reviews: AbdominalSNMMI and ACNM have partnered to bring you the first-ever set of online MRI teaching modules as an introduction to interpreting MRI.Learn More

Mid-Winter Meeting CT Case ReviewsThis offering provides a comprehensiveCT Case Reviewfor nuclear medicine professionals. Review and interpret up to 100 CT studies.Learn More

Annual Meeting CT/MRI Case ReviewsRecorded at the Annual Meeting, this online offering provides the opportunity to review and interpret 52 CT studies and 48 MRI case studies.Learn More

Free Journal SAM/CE accessis available exclusively for SNMMI Members. Take advantage of this great benefit and meet your certification requirements.Learn more

Fee recently reduced! The PET Online Review Workshop is designed to prepare technologists for the NMTCB’s PET Exam.Learn More

The rest is here:

Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI)

Home | Cellular & Molecular Medicine

Congratulations to Gregory Rogers, PhD, who was recently awarded a 4 year, $1.2 million grant from the Nation Institute of General Medicine Sciences (NIGMS). His grant entitled Inherent mechanism that govern centrosome function and duplication focuses on dissecting evolutionarily conserved mechanisms that control the behaviors of centrosomes — processes that, when dysfunctional, contribute to ciliopathy, birth defects and tumorigenesis.

View post:

Home | Cellular & Molecular Medicine

MH-Hannover: MD/PhD Program "Molecular Medicine"

Fully accreditated in 2009 as the first PhD program in Germany according to European standards (ECTS), the Hannover Biomedical Research School features an interdisciplinary curriculum leading to a PhD thesis after 3 years.

The program is a joint venture between thefollowing institutions:# Hannover Medical School# TheUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Hannover# The Leibniz UniversittHannover# TheFraunhofer Institute ITEM Hannover# The FriedrichLffler Institute Mariensee# The Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research (HZI) Braunschweig # TwinCore (Hannover)

PhD topicscover abroad spectrum, including the following areas:# Immunology & Infection# Molecular & Cell Biology# Hematology & Oncology# Biochemistry & Structural Biology# Genetics# Stem Cell Research

Potential PhD students: Holders of an M.Sc. or equivalent degree in Medicine,Veterinary Medicine, Biology, Biochemistry, Biotechnologyor Molecular Biology.

Medical students/graduates are invited to check MD/PhD education for more clinical training options. Please note that we only award a PhD title (not an “MD/PhD”)

What we offer: In-depth basic science seminars for the first two years. And all are welcome to attend lectures of the Biomedicine or Biochemistry Master programmes.

Next application deadline: April 1st, 2018. Online application from December1st 2017 at http://www.hbrs-application.de

See the rest here:

MH-Hannover: MD/PhD Program "Molecular Medicine"

Golden Rule – Wikipedia

The Golden Rule (which can be considered a law of reciprocity in some religions) is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated. It is a maxim of altruism that is found in many religions and cultures.[1][2] The maxim may appear as either a positive or negative injunction governing conduct:

The Golden Rule differs from the maxim of reciprocity captured in do ut des”I give so that you will give in return”and is rather a unilateral moral commitment to the well-being of the other without the expectation of anything in return.[3]

The concept occurs in some form in nearly every religion[4][5] and ethical tradition.[6] It can also be explained from the perspectives of psychology, philosophy, sociology, human evolution, and economics. Psychologically, it involves a person empathizing with others. Philosophically, it involves a person perceiving their neighbor also as “I” or “self”.[7] Sociologically, “love your neighbor as yourself” is applicable between individuals, between groups, and also between individuals and groups. In evolution, “reciprocal altruism” is seen as a distinctive advance in the capacity of human groups to survive and reproduce, as their exceptional brains demanded exceptionally long childhoods and ongoing provision and protection even beyond that of the immediate family.[8] In economics, Richard Swift, referring to ideas from David Graeber, suggests that “without some kind of reciprocity society would no longer be able to exist.”[9]

The term “Golden Rule”, or “Golden law”, began to be used widely in the early 17th century in Britain by Anglican theologians and preachers;[10] the earliest known usage is that of Anglicans Charles Gibbon and Thomas Jackson in 1604.[1][11]

Possibly the earliest affirmation of the maxim of reciprocity, reflecting the ancient Egyptian goddess Ma’at, appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 20401650 BC): “Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do.”[12][13] This proverb embodies the do ut des principle.[14] A Late Period (c. 664323 BC) papyrus contains an early negative affirmation of the Golden Rule: “That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.”[15]

In Mahbhrata, the ancient epic of India, there is a discourse in which the wise minister Vidura advises the King Yuddhihhira

Listening to wise scriptures, austerity, sacrifice, respectful faith, social welfare, forgiveness, purity of intent, compassion, truth and self-controlare the ten wealth of character (self). O king aim for these, may you be steadfast in these qualities. These are the basis of prosperity and rightful living. These are highest attainable things. All worlds are balanced on dharma, dharma encompasses ways to prosperity as well. O King, dharma is the best quality to have, wealth the medium and desire (kma) the lowest. Hence, (keeping these in mind), by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself.

Mahbhrata Shnti-Parva 167:9

In the Section on Virtue, and Chapter 32 of the Tirukkua (c. 200 BC c. 500 AD), Tiruvalluvar says: “Do not do to others what you know has hurt yourself” (K. 316.); “Why does one hurt others knowing what it is to be hurt?” (K. 318). He furthermore opined that it is the determination of the spotless (virtuous) not to do evil, even in return, to those who have cherished enmity and done them evil. (K. 312) The (proper) punishment to those who have done evil (to you), is to put them to shame by showing them kindness, in return and to forget both the evil and the good done on both sides (K. 314)

The Golden Rule in its prohibitive (negative) form was a common principle in ancient Greek philosophy. Examples of the general concept include:

The Pahlavi Texts of Zoroastrianism (c. 300 BC1000 AD) were an early source for the Golden Rule: “That nature alone is good which refrains from doing to another whatsoever is not good for itself.” Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5, and “Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others.” Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29[20]

Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BC65 AD), a practitioner of Stoicism (c. 300 BC200 AD) expressed the Golden Rule in his essay regarding the treatment of slaves: “Treat your inferior as you would wish your superior to treat you.”[21]

According to Simon Blackburn, the Golden Rule “can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition”.[22]

A rule of altruistic reciprocity was first stated positively in a well-known Torah verse (Hebrew: ):

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

Hillel the Elder (c. 110 BC 10 AD),[23] used this verse as a most important message of the Torah for his teachings. Once, he was challenged by a gentile who asked to be converted under the condition that the Torah be explained to him while he stood on one foot. Hillel accepted him as a candidate for conversion to Judaism but, drawing on Leviticus 19:18, briefed the man:

What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.

Hillel recognized brotherly love as the fundamental principle of Jewish ethics. Rabbi Akiva agreed and suggested that the principle of love must have its foundation in Genesis chapter 1, which teaches that all men are the offspring of Adam, who was made in the image of God (Sifra, edoshim, iv.; Yer. Ned. ix. 41c; Genesis Rabba 24).[24] According to Jewish rabbinic literature, the first man Adam represents the unity of mankind. This is echoed in the modern preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[25][26] And it is also taught, that Adam is last in order according to the evolutionary character of God’s creation:[24]

Why was only a single specimen of man created first? To teach us that he who destroys a single soul destroys a whole world and that he who saves a single soul saves a whole world; furthermore, so no race or class may claim a nobler ancestry, saying, ‘Our father was born first’; and, finally, to give testimony to the greatness of the Lord, who caused the wonderful diversity of mankind to emanate from one type. And why was Adam created last of all beings? To teach him humility; for if he be overbearing, let him remember that the little fly preceded him in the order of creation.[24]

The Jewish Publication Society’s edition of Leviticus states:

Thou shalt not hate thy brother. in thy heart; thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him. 18 Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.[27]

This Torah verse represents one of several versions of the Golden Rule, which itself appears in various forms, positive and negative. It is the earliest written version of that concept in a positive form.[28]

At the turn of the eras, the Jewish rabbis were discussing the scope of the meaning of Leviticus 19:18 and 19:34 extensively:

The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I the LORD am your God.

Commentators summed up foreigners (= Samaritans), proselytes (= ‘strangers who resides with you’) (Rabbi Akiva, bQuid 75b) or Jews (Rabbi Gamaliel, yKet 3, 1; 27a) to the scope of the meaning.

On the verse, “Love your fellow as yourself,” the classic commentator Rashi quotes from Torat Kohanim, an early Midrashic text regarding the famous dictum of Rabbi Akiva: “Love your fellow as yourself Rabbi Akiva says this is a great principle of the Torah.”[29]

Israel’s postal service quoted from the previous Leviticus verse when it commemorated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on a 1958 postage stamp.[30]

The “Golden Rule” was given by Jesus of Nazareth, who used it to summarize the Torah: “Do to others what you want them to do to you.” and “This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets”[31] (Matthew 7:12 NCV, see also Luke 6:31). The common English phrasing is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. A similar form of the phrase appeared in a Catholic catechism around 1567 (certainly in the reprint of 1583).[32] The Golden Rule is stated positively numerous times in the Hebrew Pentateuch as well as the Prophets and Writings. Leviticus 19:18 (“Forget about the wrong things people do to you, and do not try to get even. Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”; see also Great Commandment) and Leviticus 19:34 (“But treat them just as you treat your own citizens. Love foreigners as you love yourselves, because you were foreigners one time in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.”).

The Old Testament Deuterocanonical books of Tobit and Sirach, accepted as part of the Scriptural canon by Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Non-Chalcedonian Churches, express a negative form of the golden rule:

“Do to no one what you yourself dislike.”

Tobit 4:15

“Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind your own dislikes.”

Sirach 31:15

Two passages in the New Testament quote Jesus of Nazareth espousing the positive form of the Golden rule:

Matthew 7:12

Do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets.

Luke 6:31

Do to others what you would want them to do to you.

A similar passage, a parallel to the Great Commandment, is Luke 10:25-28

25And one day an authority on the law stood up to put Jesus to the test. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to receive eternal life?”

26What is written in the Law?” Jesus replied. “How do you understand it?” 27He answered, ” Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Love him with all your strength and with all your mind.(Deuteronomy 6:5) And, Love your neighbor as you love yourself. ” 28″You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do that, and you will live.”.

The passage in the book of Luke then continues with Jesus answering the question, “Who is my neighbor?”, by telling the parable of the Good Samaritan, indicating that “your neighbor” is anyone in need.[33] This extends to all, including those who are generally considered hostile.

Jesus’ teaching goes beyond the negative formulation of not doing what one would not like done to themselves, to the positive formulation of actively doing good to another that, if the situations were reversed, one would desire that the other would do for them. This formulation, as indicated in the parable of the Good Samaritan, emphasizes the needs for positive action that brings benefit to another, not simply restraining oneself from negative activities that hurt another. Taken as a rule of judgment, both formulations of the golden rule, the negative and positive, are equally applicable.[34]

In one passage of the New Testament, Paul the Apostle refers to the golden rule:

Galatians 5:14

14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The Arabian peninsula was know to not practice the golden rule prior to the advent of Islam. “Pre-Islamic Arabs regarded the survival of the tribe, as most essential and to be ensured by the ancient rite of blood vengeance” [35]

However, this all changed when Muhammad came on the scene: “Fakir al-Din al-Razi and several other Qur’anic commentators have pointed out that Qur’an 83:1-6 is an implicit statement of the Golden Rule, which is explicitly stated in the tradition, “Pay, Oh Children of Adam, as you would love to be paid, and be just as you would love to have justice!” [36]

“Similar examples of the golden rule are found in the hadith of the prophet Muhammad. The hadith recount is believed to have said and done, and traditionally Muslims regard the hadith as second to only the Qur’an as a guide to correct belief and action.” [37]

From the hadith, the collected oral and written accounts of Muhammad and his teachings during his lifetime:

“A Bedouin came to the prophet, grabbed the stirrup of his camel and said: O the messenger of God! Teach me something to go to heaven with it. Prophet said: “As you would have people do to you, do to them; and what you dislike to be done to you, don’t do to them. Now let the stirrup go!” [This maxim is enough for you; go and act in accordance with it!]”

“None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”

“Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself, that you may be a believer.”

“That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.”[39]

“The most righteous person is the one who consents for other people what he consents for himself, and who dislikes for them what he dislikes for himself.”[39]

Ali ibn Abi Talib (4th Caliph in Sunni Islam, and first Imam in Shia Islam) says:

“O’ my child, make yourself the measure (for dealings) between you and others. Thus, you should desire for others what you desire for yourself and hate for others what you hate for yourself. Do not oppress as you do not like to be oppressed. Do good to others as you would like good to be done to you. Regard bad for yourself whatever you regard bad for others. Accept that (treatment) from others which you would like others to accept from you… Do not say to others what you do not like to be said to you.”

The Writings of the Bah’ Faith encourages everyone to treat others as they would treat themselves and even prefer others over oneself:

O SON OF MAN! Deny not My servant should he ask anything from thee, for his face is My face; be then abashed before Me.

Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself.

And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself.

Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not.

One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to ones own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires.

By making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself[50]


Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama, c. 623543 BC)[51][52] made this principle one of the cornerstones of his ethics in the 6th century BC. It occurs in many places and in many forms throughout the Tripitaka.

Comparing oneself to others in such terms as “Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I,” he should neither kill nor cause others to kill.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter.

Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.

Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.[53]

The Golden Rule is paramount in the Jainist philosophy and can be seen in the doctrines of Ahimsa and Karma. As part of the prohibition of causing any living beings to suffer, Jainism forbids inflicting upon others what is harmful to oneself.

The following quotation from the Acaranga Sutra sums up the philosophy of Jainism:

Nothing which breathes, which exists, which lives, or which has essence or potential of life, should be destroyed or ruled over, or subjugated, or harmed, or denied of its essence or potential.

In support of this Truth, I ask you a question “Is sorrow or pain desirable to you?” If you say “yes it is”, it would be a lie. If you say, “No, It is not” you will be expressing the truth. Just as sorrow or pain is not desirable to you, so it is to all which breathe, exist, live or have any essence of life. To you and all, it is undesirable, and painful, and repugnant.[54]

A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated.

Sutrakritanga, 1.11.33

In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.

Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara

Saman Suttam of Jinendra Varni[55] gives further insight into this precept:-

Just as pain is not agreeable to you, it is so with others. Knowing this principle of equality treat other with respect and compassion.

Suman Suttam, verse 150

Killing a living being is killing one’s own self; showing compassion to a living being is showing compassion to oneself. He who desires his own good, should avoid causing any harm to a living being.

Suman Suttam, verse 151

Precious like jewels are the minds of all. To hurt them is not at all good. If thou desirest thy Beloved, then hurt thou not anyone’s heart.

Guru Arjan Dev Ji 259, Guru Granth Sahib

The same idea is also presented in V.12 and VI.30 of the Analects (c. 500 BC), which can be found in the online Chinese Text Project. The phraseology differs from the Christian version of the Golden Rule. It does not presume to do anything unto others, but merely to avoid doing what would be harmful. It does not preclude doing good deeds and taking moral positions, but there is slim possibility for a Confucian missionary outlook, such as one can justify with the Christian Golden Rule.

The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful.

Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.

If people regarded other peoples states in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own state to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself. If people regarded other peoples cities in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own city to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself. If people regarded other peoples families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself. And so if states and cities do not attack one another and families do not wreak havoc upon and steal from one another, would this be a harm to the world or a benefit? Of course one must say it is a benefit to the world.


Mozi regarded the golden rule as a corollary to the cardinal virtue of impartiality, and encouraged egalitarianism and selflessness in relationships.

Here ye these words and heed them well, the words of Dea, thy Mother Goddess, “I command thee thus, O children of the Earth, that that which ye deem harmful unto thyself, the very same shall ye be forbidden from doing unto another, for violence and hatred give rise to the same. My command is thus, that ye shall return all violence and hatred with peacefulness and love, for my Law is love unto all things. Only through love shall ye have peace; yea and verily, only peace and love will cure the world, and subdue all evil.”

The Way to Happiness expresses the Golden Rule both in its negative/prohibitive form and in its positive form. The negative/prohibitive form is expressed in Precept 19 as:

19. Try not to do things to others that you would not like them to do to you.

The positive form is expressed in Precept 20 as:

20. Try to treat others as you would want them to treat you.

The “Declaration Toward a Global Ethic”[62] from the Parliament of the Worlds Religions[63][64] (1993) proclaimed the Golden Rule (“We must treat others as we wish others to treat us”) as the common principle for many religions.[65] The Initial Declaration was signed by 143 leaders from all of the world’s major faiths, including Baha’i Faith, Brahmanism, Brahma Kumaris, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Indigenous, Interfaith, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American, Neo-Pagan, Sikhism, Taoism, Theosophist, Unitarian Universalist and Zoroastrian.[65][66] In the folklore of several cultures the Golden Rule is depicted by the allegory of the long spoons.

Many different sources claim the Golden Rule as a humanist principle:[67][68]

Trying to live according to the Golden Rule means trying to empathise with other people, including those who may be very different from us. Empathy is at the root of kindness, compassion, understanding and respect qualities that we all appreciate being shown, whoever we are, whatever we think and wherever we come from. And although it isnt possible to know what it really feels like to be a different person or live in different circumstances and have different life experiences, it isnt difficult for most of us to imagine what would cause us suffering and to try to avoid causing suffering to others. For this reason many people find the Golden Rules corollary “do not treat people in a way you would not wish to be treated yourself” more pragmatic.[67]

Read more:

Golden Rule – Wikipedia

Versions of the Golden Rule in dozens of religions and …

Religious informationMenu

A photoshopped “Golden Rule Bus”

This bus image was altered to display “The Golden Rule” on its front.The side of the bus was photoshopped to contain the upper part of Scarboro Missions’ Golden Rule poster, which is shown below

A statement by Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, which is the fifth largest world religion after Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Chinese traditional religion:

“Resolve to be tender with the young,compassionate with the aged,sympatheitic with the striving.and tolerant with the weak and wrong.

The core beliefs of every religion


Sponsored link

The Ethic of Reciprocity — often called the Golden Rule — simply states that all of us are to treat other people as we would wish other people to treat us in return.

Almost all organized religions, philosophical systems, and secular systems of morality include such an ethic. It is normally intended to apply to the entire human race. Unfortunately, it is too often applied by some people only to believers in the same religion or even to others in the same denomination, of the same gender, the same sexual orientation, etc.

See the original post here:

Versions of the Golden Rule in dozens of religions and …

Golden Rule Funeral Homes

Our members are independently owned and operated funeral homes dedicated to exceptional service.

Founded in 1928, OGR’s mission is to make independent funeral homes exceptional. We do this by building and supporting member interaction, information exchange and professional business development through a wide range of programs, services and resources. Our Standards of Ethical Conductguide our members’ business practices and philosophy, allowing them to provide unsurpassed care to families “by the Golden Rule.”

Continue reading here:

Golden Rule Funeral Homes

Golden Rule (fiscal policy) – Wikipedia

The Golden Rule is a guideline for the operation of fiscal policy. The Golden Rule states that over the economic cycle, the Government will borrow only to invest and not to fund current spending. In layman’s terms this means that on average over the ups and downs of an economic cycle the government should only borrow to pay for investment that benefits future generations. Day-to-day spending that benefits today’s taxpayers should be paid for with today’s taxes, not with leveraged investment. Therefore, over the cycle the current budget (i.e., net of investment) must balance or be brought into surplus.

The core of the ‘golden rule’ framework is that, as a general rule, policy should be designed to maintain a stable allocation of public sector resources over the course of the business cycle. Stability is defined in terms of the following ratios:

If national income is growing, and net worth is positive this rule implies that, on average, there should be net surplus of income over expenditure.

The justification for the Golden Rule derives from macroeconomic theory. Other things being equal, an increase in government borrowing raises the real interest rate consequently crowding out (reducing) investment because a higher rate of return is required for investment to be profitable. Unless the government uses the borrowed funds to invest in projects with a similar rate of return to private investment, capital accumulation falls, with negative consequences upon economic growth.

The Golden Rule was one of several fiscal policy principles set out by the incoming Labour government in 1997. These were first set out by then Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown in his 1997 budget speech. Subsequently they were formalised in the Finance Act 1998 and in the Code for Fiscal Stability, approved by the House of Commons in December 1998.

In 2005 there was speculation that the Chancellor had manipulated these rules as the treasury had moved the reference frame for the start of the economic cycle to two years earlier (from 1999 to 1997). The implications of this are to allow for 18billion – 22billion more of borrowing.[1]

The Government’s other fiscal rule is the Sustainable investment rule, which requires it to keep debt at a “prudent level”. This is currently set at below 40% of GDP in each year of the current cycle.

As of 2009, the Golden rule has been abandoned.

In France, the lower house of parliament voted in favour of reforming articles 32, 39 and 42 of the French constitution on 12 July 2011.[2] In order to come into force the amendments need to be passed by a 3/5 majority of the combined upper and lower houses (Congress).

In 2009 articles 109, 115 and 143 of Germany’s constitution were amended to introduce the Schuldenbremse (“debt brake”), a balanced budget provision.[3] The reform will come into effect in 2016 for the state and 2020 for the regions.

On 7 September 2011, the Spanish Senate approved an amendment to article 135 of the Spanish constitution introducing a cap on the structural deficit of the state (national, regional and municipal).[4] The amendment will come into force from 2020.

On 7 September 2011, the Italian Lower House approved a constitutional reform introducing a balanced budget obligation[5] to Article 81 of the Italian constitution. The rule will come into effect in 2014. That reform is rooted in the European Stability and Growth Pact and in the s.c. fiscal compact. It has led to the abandonment of the ideological neutrality that characterized the Italian fiscal constitution in favor of a cleary neoclassical inspiration[6].

See the original post:

Golden Rule (fiscal policy) – Wikipedia

Golden Rule | Definition of Golden Rule by Merriam-Webster

A common principle in all of the world’s great religions, the golden rule shows itself in every facet of the business world. It is the essence of what many call square dealing.

From a fiscal policy perspective, a government follows the golden rule when its tax revenues for the current year equal or exceed its day-to-day spending for the current year. Borrowing is allowed, but only for investments such as infrastructure projects, research projects, or other projects that benefit future generations.

See the original post:

Golden Rule | Definition of Golden Rule by Merriam-Webster

Superintelligence – Wikipedia

A superintelligence is a hypothetical agent that possesses intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human minds. “Superintelligence” may also refer to a property of problem-solving systems (e.g., superintelligent language translators or engineering assistants) whether or not these high-level intellectual competencies are embodied in agents that act in the world. A superintelligence may or may not be created by an intelligence explosion and associated with a technological singularity.

University of Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom defines superintelligence as “an intellect that is much smarter than the best human brains in practically every field, including scientific creativity, general wisdom and social skills”.[1] The program Fritz falls short of superintelligence even though it is much better than humans at chess because Fritz cannot outperform humans in other tasks. Following Hutter and Legg, Bostrom treats superintelligence as general dominance at goal-oriented behavior, leaving open whether an artificial or human superintelligence would possess capacities such as intentionality (cf. the Chinese room argument) or first-person consciousness (cf. the hard problem of consciousness).

Technological researchers disagree about how likely present-day human intelligence is to be surpassed. Some argue that advances in artificial intelligence (AI) will probably result in general reasoning systems that lack human cognitive limitations. Others believe that humans will evolve or directly modify their biology so as to achieve radically greater intelligence. A number of futures studies scenarios combine elements from both of these possibilities, suggesting that humans are likely to interface with computers, or upload their minds to computers, in a way that enables substantial intelligence amplification.

Some researchers believe that superintelligence will likely follow shortly after the development of artificial general intelligence. The first generally intelligent machines are likely to immediately hold an enormous advantage in at least some forms of mental capability, including the capacity of perfect recall, a vastly superior knowledge base, and the ability to multitask in ways not possible to biological entities. This may give them the opportunity toeither as a single being or as a new speciesbecome much more powerful than humans, and to displace them.

A number of scientists and forecasters argue for prioritizing early research into the possible benefits and risks of human and machine cognitive enhancement, because of the potential social impact of such technologies.

Philosopher David Chalmers argues that artificial general intelligence is a very likely path to superhuman intelligence. Chalmers breaks this claim down into an argument that AI can achieve equivalence to human intelligence, that it can be extended to surpass human intelligence, and that it can be further amplified to completely dominate humans across arbitrary tasks.

Concerning human-level equivalence, Chalmers argues that the human brain is a mechanical system, and therefore ought to be emulatable by synthetic materials. He also notes that human intelligence was able to biologically evolve, making it more likely that human engineers will be able to recapitulate this invention. Evolutionary algorithms in particular should be able to produce human-level AI. Concerning intelligence extension and amplification, Chalmers argues that new AI technologies can generally be improved on, and that this is particularly likely when the invention can assist in designing new technologies.

If research into strong AI produced sufficiently intelligent software, it would be able to reprogram and improve itself a feature called “recursive self-improvement”. It would then be even better at improving itself, and could continue doing so in a rapidly increasing cycle, leading to a superintelligence. This scenario is known as an intelligence explosion. Such an intelligence would not have the limitations of human intellect, and may be able to invent or discover almost anything.

Computer components already greatly surpass human performance in speed. Bostrom writes, “Biological neurons operate at a peak speed of about 200 Hz, a full seven orders of magnitude slower than a modern microprocessor (~2 GHz).” Moreover, neurons transmit spike signals across axons at no greater than 120 m/s, “whereas existing electronic processing cores can communicate optically at the speed of light”. Thus, the simplest example of a superintelligence may be an emulated human mind that’s run on much faster hardware than the brain. A human-like reasoner that could think millions of times faster than current humans would have a dominant advantage in most reasoning tasks, particularly ones that require haste or long strings of actions.

Another advantage of computers is modularity, that is, their size or computational capacity can be increased. A non-human (or modified human) brain could become much larger than a present-day human brain, like many supercomputers. Bostrom also raises the possibility of collective superintelligence: a large enough number of separate reasoning systems, if they communicated and coordinated well enough, could act in aggregate with far greater capabilities than any sub-agent.

There may also be ways to qualitatively improve on human reasoning and decision-making. Humans appear to differ from chimpanzees in the ways we think more than we differ in brain size or speed.[10] Humans outperform non-human animals in large part because of new or enhanced reasoning capacities, such as long-term planning and language use. (See evolution of human intelligence and primate cognition.) If there are other possible improvements to reasoning that would have a similarly large impact, this makes it likelier that an agent can be built that outperforms humans in the same fashion humans outperform chimpanzees.

All of the above advantages hold for artificial superintelligence, but it is not clear how many hold for biological superintelligence. Physiological constraints limit the speed and size of biological brains in many ways that are inapplicable to machine intelligence. As such, writers on superintelligence have devoted much more attention to superintelligent AI scenarios.

Carl Sagan suggested that the advent of Caesarean sections and in vitro fertilization may permit humans to evolve larger heads, resulting in improvements via natural selection in the heritable component of human intelligence.[13] By contrast, Gerald Crabtree has argued that decreased selection pressure is resulting in a slow, centuries-long reduction in human intelligence, and that this process instead is likely to continue into the future. There is no scientific consensus concerning either possibility, and in both cases the biological change would be slow, especially relative to rates of cultural change.

Selective breeding, nootropics, NSI-189, MAO-I’s, epigenetic modulation, and genetic engineering could improve human intelligence more rapidly. Bostrom writes that if we come to understand the genetic component of intelligence, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis could be used to select for embryos with as much as 4 points of IQ gain (if one embryo is selected out of two), or with larger gains (e.g., up to 24.3 IQ points gained if one embryo is selected out of 1000). If this process is iterated over many generations, the gains could be an order of magnitude greater. Bostrom suggests that deriving new gametes from embryonic stem cells could be used to iterate the selection process very rapidly. A well-organized society of high-intelligence humans of this sort could potentially achieve collective superintelligence.

Alternatively, collective intelligence might be constructible by better organizing humans at present levels of individual intelligence. A number of writers have suggested that human civilization, or some aspect of it (e.g., the Internet, or the economy), is coming to function like a global brain with capacities far exceeding its component agents. If this systems-based superintelligence relies heavily on artificial components, however, it may qualify as an AI rather than as a biology-based superorganism.

A final method of intelligence amplification would be to directly enhance individual humans, as opposed to enhancing their social or reproductive dynamics. This could be achieved using nootropics, somatic gene therapy, or braincomputer interfaces. However, Bostrom expresses skepticism about the scalability of the first two approaches, and argues that designing a superintelligent cyborg interface is an AI-complete problem.

Most surveyed AI researchers expect machines to eventually be able to rival humans in intelligence, though there is little consensus on when this will likely happen. At the 2006 AI@50 conference, 18% of attendees reported expecting machines to be able “to simulate learning and every other aspect of human intelligence” by 2056; 41% of attendees expected this to happen sometime after 2056; and 41% expected machines to never reach that milestone.[18]

In a survey of the 100 most cited authors in AI (as of May 2013, according to Microsoft academic search), the median year by which respondents expected machines “that can carry out most human professions at least as well as a typical human” (assuming no global catastrophe occurs) with 10% confidence is 2024 (mean 2034, st. dev. 33 years), with 50% confidence is 2050 (mean 2072, st. dev. 110 years), and with 90% confidence is 2070 (mean 2168, st. dev. 342 years). These estimates exclude the 1.2% of respondents who said no year would ever reach 10% confidence, the 4.1% who said ‘never’ for 50% confidence, and the 16.5% who said ‘never’ for 90% confidence. Respondents assigned a median 50% probability to the possibility that machine superintelligence will be invented within 30 years of the invention of approximately human-level machine intelligence.

Bostrom expressed concern about what values a superintelligence should be designed to have. He compared several proposals:

Responding to Bostrom, Santos-Lang raised concern that developers may attempt to start with a single kind of superintelligence.

Learning computers that rapidly become superintelligent may take unforeseen actions or robots might out-compete humanity (one potential technological singularity scenario).[22] Researchers have argued that, by way of an “intelligence explosion” sometime over the next century, a self-improving AI could become so powerful as to be unstoppable by humans.[23]

Concerning human extinction scenarios, Bostrom (2002) identifies superintelligence as a possible cause:

When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person who asked the question.

In theory, since a superintelligent AI would be able to bring about almost any possible outcome and to thwart any attempt to prevent the implementation of its goals, many uncontrolled, unintended consequences could arise. It could kill off all other agents, persuade them to change their behavior, or block their attempts at interference.[24]

Eliezer Yudkowsky explains: “The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else.”[25]

This presents the AI control problem: how to build a superintelligent agent that will aid its creators, while avoiding inadvertently building a superintelligence that will harm its creators. The danger of not designing control right “the first time”, is that a misprogrammed superintelligence might rationally decide to “take over the world” and refuse to permit its programmers to modify it once it has been activated. Potential design strategies include “capability control” (preventing an AI from being able to pursue harmful plans), and “motivational control” (building an AI that wants to be helpful).

Bill Hibbard advocates for public education about superintelligence and public control over the development of superintelligence.

See the rest here:

Superintelligence – Wikipedia