Wednesday, January 28, 2015

notes on companies to watch

An interesting thing is that none can currently be invested in by the public. This is because technology is making capital investment less relevant. Square is an example: it can't go public because it will make too much money with too few workers, and private investors like banks know it better than the public and are outbidding the public...outbidding to make profit via monopoly status, not to efficiently build infrastructure.  Monopoly status seems to be the only way to make profit when productivity gains make worker's obsolete, as was recognized in the 1930s. It costs very little to move bits around, and getting people to pay for the electronic things they need can thereby be very profitable. The things that give us life (food, water, shelter, transportation) seem to have very little opportunity for investors, requiring lots of investment for little profit above current infrastructure. How are these new companies going to reduce the cost of these things?  Are they diverting society's energy away from making life cheaper for the most via traditional investment for things we need, improving life via entertainment for those who can afford it to push others out by making food, transportation, and housing more expensive? Is it a trick people are playing on each other (creating artificial needs) to weed out the weak? Granted, probably half of them actually help decrease costs for things like transportation and monetary transactions.  Where's the startup that allows me to buy a system for producing greenhouse hydroponic food from my back yard for 4 people in a 80x40 foot plot (0.5% energy of sun, 4 kWh/m^2 sun per day, 2000 kcals each/day) for 10 years for a cost of $10,000, with no fertilizer except my bodily waste, and scheduled to mostly grow as it is needed to be eaten?

Startups:

Uber ("taxi")
Product Hunt (popular apps)
SnapChat (money transactions, etc)
Coinbase
Square (money transactions)
Stripe
AppNexus (app advertising)

Friday, January 23, 2015

amazon post on LED light therapy

This lamp is operating only at 738 Kelvins which produces a black body radiation spectrum. The "minerals" inside of it do not do anything. All objects that are at 738 kelvins (870 degrees F) will emit the same far infrared spectrum. This spectrum will be absorbed completely in the first few mm of water in the skin. Any effects deeper are from heat conduction. In other words, this is the same as a heating pad. An ideal lamp for healing arthritis, shoulder and knee injuries, fibromyalgia, etc is a $7 halogen flood light available at home depot or lowes. Halogen operates at about 4100 kelvins so it has a spectrum close to the 5700 k spectrum of the sun (see note below). Up to 1 inch of tissue beneath the skin in animals who are exposed to sun light (or halogen lights, or normal heat lamps at 2500 k) will kick-start the krebs cycle output into being utilized for more ATP. In injured cells, this helps them maintain function and repair faster. There is little to no effect on healthy cells as they adjust after sensing an excess of ATP. Pain from arthritis, fibromyaligia, knee and shoulder injuries, broken pinkie toes, etc is reduced from an 8 to 2 (on a scale of 10) in 15 to 60 minutes, depending on how strong the light source is. Sun light with a mirror to double the intensity and sun screen for protection will take an hour before maximum benefit is reached. Treatment can be 3 times a day. Look up Tiina Karu in Russia for the first serious work on this soon after LLLT came out. Later work has been done by Whelan in the U.S. with LEDs which started with grants from the military and NASA (for example, healing retina injuries in rabbits). Skin healing is not hardly improved as skin healing seems to be near optimum. Muscle injuries seem to have little benefit, but tendonitis is helped a great deal (first stretch the tendon, apply light, then follow with ice). I use a 75 W halogen spot light with a "lamp repair kit" (lamp cord with base that is normally used for repairing lamps) and water in a flat gin bottle to block the far infrared heat. Water in a zip lock bag can also be used. The clear water container (bottle or zip lock bag) is placed against the skin, then the halogen light source is used to shine the light through the water container to the skin. The water in the container absorbs all the far infrared so that your skin does not get hot, but almost all the red and near infrared make it through the glass and water, and about 10% of these wavelengths make it through the skin to help injuries beneath. This is stronger than LED light therapy devices that cost $1,000. Sun glasses are needed to protect eyes because halogen emits strong blue wavelengths that can be harmful if it is a spot light, even if just reflecting off the skin. Treatment on small injuries beneath the skin with this is about 5 minutes. If water is not used to block the heat, it can still be done but since the skin gets too warm, it has to be done more slowly and will take 15 to 30 minutes to see maximum benefit. Pain relief is usually immediate.

** note: The Sun, halogen, incandescent, and normal infrared lamps have a lot of light energy in the 600 to 900 nm wavelengths which are absorbed by copper and iron atoms in the CCO protein complex (4th stage in the electron transport chain) in mitochondria which pumps H+ to the inter-membrane so that ATP can be created in the final ATP step. Halogen is ideal. Incandescent and normal infrared lamps work, but they cause more far infrared heat in the skin. The item being sold here is operating a much lower temp and therefore causes too much far infrared. 600 to 700 nm is red light. 700 to 900 nm is called "near infrared" or "nearly red" light. LEDs are often used to provide the light. Fluorescents and some other light sources that operate at "2500 k" to "5700 k" are not actually operating at those temps and do not have a strong spectrum in the 600 to 900 nm range.
=================
The only way to filter above 900 nm on a halogen is with water. There are some glasses that block IR but I don't think any of them do it very well at any reasonable expense because the glass would get too hot. It would have to be a really special design. A red piece of plastic would block below 600 nm and probably not detract from the 600-900 range too much, now that you remind me. Thick plexiglass and other transparent plastics are a little like water in that they block >900 nm and heat up, without decreasing the 600-900 very much. But my testing of it did not indicate that it works very well. Maybe a thick sheet of red plastic would work. It has to be thick not only to block > 900 well, but also so that it can take the increase in heat from the absorption of the light energy. A red die in the gin bottle would not hurt. Someone once sent me the spectrum of the common red die and its perfect. I tried it, but it did not seem to make much difference because < 600 unused light energy does not seem to cause a problem. It's the > 900 nm.  
=====
Yours sounds excellent. 10 to 15 minutes should be about right since it is probably a flood light. You don't want the snow globe because it really focuses the light to a small point and will be too intense for your 250 W. I bought an empty 3.5 inch glass snow globe from a craft store, put water in it, sealed the bottom, and shined(sp?) the light through that. But that is really intense and requires sunglasses to watch where it is going. Water in an empty gin bottle is safer and more useful for most things because it is more durable and does not concentrate the light (so it needs a spot light type). For most injuries, a 75 Watt halogen spot light (PAR30 instead of PAR38 size) in a lamp cord socket with the switch in the socket has been my favorite (for things like knee and shoulder and anything smaller). The 250 W flood would be good for a large area of back pain, or just getting good light to the torso for warmth in the winter to pretend you're on the beach. If you do 4 to 8 of them placed over a bed, it can really feel like the beach and put you to a warm relaxing sleep.  
===============
The absorption coefficient for near-infrared (< 1,000 nm) passing through water is less than 0.1. Far-infrared coefficient (300,000 nm) is about 10. The equation for light that passes through after 0.4 cm depth is 2.72^(-AS*0.4). With near infrared's AS=0.1, this equation shows 96% gets though. Far infrared's AS=10 indicates 2% that makes it through. Wavelengths half-way between 1,000 and 300,000 nm have AS = 1,000 so they do not get through water at all. Tissue is mostly water, so far infrared does not go very deep at all. Blues and greens go through water very easily, but the melanin and hemoglobin in skin blocks it all. It's only deep reds and near-infrared that can effectively go deeper than the skin.  
==============
All heating pads are far infrared heating pads. As something gets hot, it emits block body radiation. The lower the temperature, the more it is far infrared and this means it is blocked by the water in skin. All the "far infrared" heating pads I saw just now in looking them over do not seem as good as traditional heating pads. People may enjoy them more because they are not as hot, but they do not provide as much heat at any depth. If a product specified exactly what wavelengths they emit, then I can tell more accurately how deep they penetrate. But like this product, they never tell exactly what "rays" they are supposedly emitting. The "far infrared" is a very wide range of wavelengths, but red and near infrared always penetrate water and tissue more. "Far infrared" sounds nice and high tech and they are not lying: their products are emitting it. But if they are cooler than traditional heating pads, then they are not telling the truth if they say it penetrates deeper. Do a search on "Electromagnetic absorption by water" and look at the wikipedia article's first image to see that far infrared is blocked more compared to near infrared. The scale is logarithmic which means it is a HUGE difference.  
=============
A heat lamp can get heat deeper than a heating pad with less heat annoyance in the skin, and it provides near infrared healing. But a halogen light does both better than a heat lamp. A halogen light actually *is* a "near-infrared" heat lamp. They both use a tungsten filament and the only difference is how hot the filament gets. The halogen tungsten filament gets hotter than a heat lamp's tungsten filament so that it has more red and near-infrared. If you go with a filament that gets hotter than a halogen, then it causes more "white" and UV with less red and near-infrared. Halogen with red-dyed water to block the uneeded wavelengths is as good as it gets for healing AND deep penetration, except for radio waves which do not appear to do anything for health.
==========
Lungs are deep so I do not know if the light will reach it. So I would do long treatments, up to an hour, constantly checking the temperature of the skin to not be hot. It may help pain and tiredness a little and feel good, but I do not think it will help infections. Frequency is 2 or 3 times a day at most. If he does not enjoy and feel better at night after the first three tries, I would not bother with it after that. Get the light as close to the plastic bag as possible.

To fight infections, especially viral, I take 10,000 mg vitamin C spread out over the day (like 5 doses), 100,000 IU vit D to begin with, then 25,000 a day after that, 50 mg zinc during the largest meal of the day (otherwise will cause terrible naseau), and 200,000 IU vitamin A (or mixed carotenes) the first day then 100,000 IU vitamin A after that for a week, then 60,000 IU a day for up to a month. But no vitamin A if he has been a smoker. These are very large doses that some will not consider safe, but in my opinion a lung infection of even a mild sort is 100 times more dangerous, so in my opinion, it is dangerous to not take the large doses. I see astounding prevention of colds and lessening of symptoms with the Vit A and D, but only symptom relief from the C. But the C is important. Also apples and carrot juice.
==========
A halogen light by itself will be the next best thing. You could also buy an "acrylic stamp block" that's 1/2" thick to block some of the heat from a halogen.  
==========
If she's pale from not getting sunlight, I would have her take 50,000 IU vit D with an fatty meal (standard treatment if a person's blood measuers low) and then 2,000 IU per day.

I would use the 75 Watt halogen light bulb as I described above. People and inventors are always calling me wanting details on my LED devices, but I can't get it through any of them's head that the best light treatment is probably hanging on the corner of their garage lighting up their driveway.  
=============
Let me say there are real dangers to trying this as I'll explain in more detail. I do not recommend anyone copy my methods or advise others to copy my methods unless they take good care and assume full liability for any harm that results. I deny any liability for these reasons. You'll not notice that my previous messages always said "what I do" (or would do) not that others should try.

It needs to be the PAR30 size or larger, or it will get hot fast. They sell really small halogen lights for ceiling lights that get really hot, too hot.

Dangers using halogen lights

1) they get hot. They can burn skin. They can burn houses down.

2) it's 120 VAC being used close to the body, so any water nearby is very bad.

3) you can't stop it from getting hot unless you use a zip lock bag of water (or better, clear gin bottle), so there is a conflict here between 1 and 2. An alternative is a 1/2" piece of acrylic (aka Plexiglass) on ebay, and "acrylic stamp block" here on amazon and ebay that can block most of the heat that you do not need. Simple 1/8" plexiglass sheets are not thick enough and melt to easily. But a more gentle method is to not use any heat blocking, and just use the light a longer time, say 10 minutes instead of 5 minutes. For the whole hand I was really thinking about a flood light with no water blocking. For a single joint that you want to treat in 3 minutes, the spot light you have with water blocking is great.

4) Always use sunglasses when handling a halogen light at close distance. The light can permanently harm the eyes. This even applies if you are looking at the spot on the skin where the light is shining and you are only looking at reflected light. I am talking from experience and I am a risk taker in everything and never exaggerate dangers. The flood light is safer in handling in terms of the eyes, but in either case I would always use sunglasses.

5) Shining too long on tissue does not cause much harm, but it can quickly reduce all its benefits. So it should be applied as soon as the pain mostly stops, from 3 to 10 minutes. If there is no pain reduction in 10 minutes, it is probably not going to help her condition.

I mention vitamin D because my mother and I had our "inherited" osteoarthritis cured by it. I did some research and so for they are only really aware that it helps rheumatoid arthritis. There were 19 published papers in 2013 with "vitamin D" and "rheumatoid" in the title. 95 total. For osteoarthritis and vitamin D, there 14 of the 39 papers were in 2013. This simple treatment was widespread in the 1930's when they discovered how important "high" doses were. Even Schlitz beer advertised it had vitamin D added. But then the FDA got involved and made it illegal to tell anyone more than 400 IU was safe, outlawing higher-dose pills, making me wonder if NSAID pharmaceutical companies were involved. Imagine the financial damage to pharmaceutical if people had known possibly 1/4 of arthritis, 1/4 of cancers, and 100% of "fibromyalgia" are from lack of Sun (or vitamin D). Vitamin D has turned out to be the most important (lacking) nutritional supplement, more than vitamin C and the B vitamins, because we rarely get Sun.

You can screw it into a small desk lamp that has the shade removed, or buy the standard lamp replacement kit from lowes where you simply have a cord and the lamp base that has a push switch in it. Even with the larger 75 W it's going to get hot after 5 or 10 minutes.

It says 72 W replaces 100 because they are comparing it to the older incandescent lights which have a "warmer" color.

Do a search on "LED Light Therapy" and one of the first Google links is a very long article written by me on light technology for healing, including a section on Halogen. Recently I discovered there are at least 3 companies that have attempted using halogens, but they are careful to not disclose how easy you can copy their technology at home. Previously I thought I had discovered it. Concerning LED light therapy, I would buy a 12 VDC security camera illuminator from ebay that uses 850 nm, another secret that LED medical manufacturers are not keen to tell people about. (they used to sell $5 worth of LEDs placed into $2,000 devices)  
==============
Yes, it's more dangerous, as I described in detail.

I am not licensed in medicine or engineering. I may have relevant experience, but I never want any readers to require credentials for their basis of trust. I want readers to take my words at face value and think about it on their own. An "appeal to authority" is a logical error, never to be used in science or logic. Credentials have advantages when people do not have time or ability to figure things out (like walking into a tall building you do not want to fall from bad construction), but they also imply a business profit motive inherent to the one with credentials, often resulting in abuse. I have a strong interest in light therapy and I hate seeing companies charge $1000 for $1 worth of LEDs that do not work as good as a $10 LED 850 nm security camera illuminator. I met a veterinarian who paid $1500 for a big device that basically just used a handheld red laser pointer ($1 at Walmart checkout). After reading what I've said based on the words I've used, the reader can form an opinion as to the level of trust they want to assume, if I have not been able to be clear enough to let them think on their own.

There is pre-approval via equivalent device for any LED device that meets a few specs. Manufacturers just need to send in a letter to get a manufacturer and device identification numbers.

Halogen lights are high-temp filaments giving off black-body radiation almost exactly like the Sun. The physics of this indicate 30% of the light energy is in the 600 to 900 nm range, the "healing" range. I believe I mentioned this and certainly I can't go into the physics of black body radiation to demonstrate it to you, but I describe it so you can look it up to acquire the trust, if needed. I'm sure there is a halogen spectrum chart out there easy to find, and maybe you can do the math to compare to LED units being sold.

People have a lot of experience seeing "natural" is better, no matter how much "science" indicates a specific thing, like an LED at 850 nm, might be better. Scientific journals with credentialed super intelligent experts at many levels in the papers published historically made people afraid of sunlight for 3 decades due to fear of skin cancer when the needed more Sun to get enough vitamin D to prevent maybe 10x more cancers and a lot of viral infections. Common sense people trusted a little Sun more than experts, and they were right for 3 decades.

You asked and I know a few: Hydrosun, Superlizer, and Bioptron are companies in Germany, Switzerland, and Japan received regulatory approval for various things using halogen, going back to the 1980s. But it's usually difficult to figure out they are just using halogen, with water or gel blocking the FIR. I thought I invented it, but then one day I realized I've never done anything original and made an effort to discover others and found these three. There were others promoting light as soon as the incandescent bulb was invented, which is nearly as good as halogen, using the same filament at lower temp which cause more heat in the skin. And even physicians in ancient times likes the idea of sick people laying in the Sun.

In my experience, especially when it comes to health, it is credentialed people and approved devices seeking a profit that very often ACCIDENTALLY blocks existing knowledge to better technologies that are nearly free. And sometimes it is done on purpose.  

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Rocket calculations, critical orifice, ideal design

EPA method 5 section 16.2.3.3 describes theoretical max for air to flow through an orifice at a given pressure difference and temperature at the inlet.

fps corrected to STANDARD conditions = 17.6*(in Hg)/SQRT(Rankins)
Mass/second of exit fluid is proportional to this, times area of orifice.
Ambient is about 30 in Hg, Rankin = 460+F
Orifices (holes) have a theoretical correction factor of C=0.61, a typical value of 0.7 due to none-sharp edges, and short tubes have 0.8.
For a 1/16" nozzle and 10 atm (what 6 layers of 0.016 mm aluminum foil should handle, 20 atm being max) and ambient temperate, this gives 3000 ml/sec.   At 1800 F candle temperature, the fps is half as much, 1500 ml/sec.  The 1000x volume expansion of gun powder is 250 volume expansion and 4x this due to heat.  So air volume not allowed to expand increases by 4*T, or from 530 R to 2000 R (1500 F). Aluminum melts at 1200 F, so allowing powder to expand x2 should prevent it from melting. Cooler air also increases FPS, or aka mass escape.  So it appears 1.5 ml = 1.5 g bulk gun powder (22.5 grains) could exhaust in 1 second.  A nozzle cools the exhaust, reducing the volume, but not the mass.  The cooling receives a push from the reduction in energy, possibly not changing the orifice correction factor.

Design ideal

====
March 2 2017 post to someone's video where they got 40 feet with matchstick rocket.
I got 130 feet with this design using a very small amount of gun powder from the blank of a nail-driver (equal in power to 3 matchstick heads but it might burn quicker) and a little longer rocket. I have a trick for raising the pressure inside the chamber. At the base you let there be only 2 layers of aluminum foil which is about what you're doing with that taper. You use a wood skewer and drill the smallest hole you can with a drill bit. Then you stick in a finishing nail through the two layers, into the hole. Using tensile strength of aluminum you can calculate the layers needed to get the max pressure in the chamber and you calculate the max pressure your chamber can allow also with it's tensile strength. Theoretically based on this and density of aluminum and if there were no air resistance, you could get up to 2000 feet. But what I found out is that aluminum weakens with heat and bursts so I doubt over 200 feet is possible without a major redesign. I tried a little to fix this by using a mechanical pencil's steel eraser cover as the "ignition chamber" but gave up after a few tries. A steel design theoretically could reach 40,000 feet distance, minus air resistance. It would have to be incredibly small to use only 1 matchstick making air resistant a big factor (500 feet probably the limit). If you use 10 match sticks, it's as much explosive powder as a small bullet and a similar distance can be reached. This is not really a rocket design because there is no nozzle exhaust pressure after lift off. This is a more efficient use of the fuel than a rocket can achieve, as long as air resistance is a bigger factor than the gain in efficiency. This is like putting gun powder in a gun barrel, then sticking it onto a shaft and making the gun barrel as light as possible. So the shaft is like a bullet that's held in place and the gun is allowed to recoil. I actually tried making it a two-stage pressure build-up using a long tail on the end of the aluminum with slack in it and another nail. So it does not break from the 1st nail until pressure is high and assuming the powder has not finished burning, it lets it expand to where it is almost off the stick, then 2nd nail makes it pause until more pressure builds up. But I'm not sure that can help.


Saturday, January 17, 2015

mead brew 1st try started, alcohol calculation

Simpler recipe, 5 gallons:
In 2 gallon pot mix the following and bring to 180 F and then let cools:
5 pounds honey ($15)
4 pounds cane sugar
6 cans orange juice (1/2 pound sugar per can)  ($15)
1 can grape juice
optional: thin-slice orange peels from 5 oranges, 5 cloves, 2 TBLS cinnamon, 1 ounce hops (bacteria prevention), near-boil for 15 minutes

Let cool to 120 F then add to 5 gallon bucket that already has 3 gallons and 2 tsp yeast nutrient.

EC-1118 yeast
Fermentation finished in 5 days.
Bottle after 10 days.

Alcohol content [5 lb honey/2+(7.5 lb sugar)/1.5]/5 gallons * 10% = 15%
====================

Trying to brew a mead. Recipe:

5 gallons total

Honey is acidic which can help yeast and prevent bacteria.  This may have too much raw sugars and not enough honey which may allow bacteria to grow, since I'm not using hops or sulfites and did not heat most of the water (charcoal filter) and simply add 0.7 lb sugar at the end. The Clorox I used for sterilizing was unknowingly only 2% instead of 5% and I diluted it a lot, but it still should have been plenty for the bucket and lid as I kept them wet.

1+ gallon water in 2 gallon pot heat to 170 F or higher

Added:
8 pounds honey (2 pounds per gallon for 10% alcohol)
3 pounds dextrose (for fast start)  (1.5 pounds per gallon for 10% alcohol)
2 pound cane sugar (syrup solids added)
6 cloves
1 TBLS cinnamon (do 2 next time)
1 cinnamon stick, broken in 5 pieces
2 oranges, squeezed into mash, cut in about 20, 1 mm thick trips added to mash.
1 big lemon, same strips as above

I forgot to use hops as a way to prevent bacterial growth, but I possibly added enough sugar for 18%, so it may be sweet.

All the above brought to 200 F, then allowed to cool, covered. Took 2 or 3 hours to cool.

2 cans frozen orange juice, added after wort has cooled to below 140 (for this process).

2 TBLS yeast nutrient and 3 gallon filtered water added in 5 gallon bucket.

Lalvin 71B-1122 in 2 oz 104 F water for 20 minutes (2 oz cools at the right rate). Added some dextrose to this and was foamy at end. This is an expensive yeast ($5) because it minimizes acids. Rapid starting but moderate overall. 14% max alcohol. A paper indicates an expected S-curve for fermentation starting steeply down from 24 to 72 hours, and finishing at 84 hours (3.5 days) for fructose, glucose, and malic acid for several types of yeast, including this one. But maybe there are better yeast to use for citrus because Malic is the dominant acid in apples, peaches, pears, watermelon, and bananas.  The starting with 20% sugar (10% alcohol by 2 sugar = 1 alcohol estimate) and 0.6% malic acid (both in g/L). This resulted in 12% alcohol. They mixed every 12 hours, possibly only for sampling purposes. EC-1118 is more common but does not decrease acids. D47 is also used. 

Used 20:1 water-bleach mixture for sanitizing bucket, utensils, and air lock.

Make sure wort is less than 86 F before inoculating.

2 gallon pot was completely full. Wort was 130 F when added in 5 gal bucket with yeast nutrient, 2 cans of orange juice concentrate , and 0.7 lb dextrose added late (but included in 3 pounds above).  It was 75 F after finishing 3 gallons were added, when yeast was added.

Sugar calculation: 0.7*8 lbs honey+0.5 lb/can*2 cans frozen juice+5 lb sugar = 11.5 lb sugar

11.5 lb /2 = 6.25 lb alcohol
5 gallons * 8 lb/gal = 40 pounds

6.25/40 = 15.6% alcohol max. (this yeast gives 14% max, so it's moderate sweet, not dry)

But a paper indicated I'm 20% too low on my alcohol content. Maybe I'm doing it on weight basis and 20% more is normal volume basis.

5 gallon bucket lid pretty much touched top at 5 gallon, so needed to jury-rig the air lock to not dip into liquid. 

Yeast was added 11:30 am 11/7/2015.
1 small bubble every 30 seconds 30 minutes later.
1 good bubble every 20 seconds 6 hours later
1 good bubble every second 18 hours later

===
fast fermenting, high alcohol yeast:
ec-1118
DV10
QA23
2226
V1116 (K1)
uvaferm 43

4th day added 2 gallons with 1 can orange juice 1 can grape and 1 oz hops.   Fermentation bubbles boomed again, mostly due to more oxygen or maybe the dilution. It was very sweet at this time, but after two more days of the intense bubbling starting again, it was very alcoholic.
==============


Thursday, January 15, 2015

A.I. definition, downloading brains

I assume by “A.I.” you mean mimicking human neuronal activity, because all other computer processing, especially optimization algorithms and heuristics, is by definition “artificial” intelligence. “Intelligence” is defined in A.I. research as maximal optimization with minimal computer resources for a given problem, set of problems, or for all possible problems. In evolution it is the ability to reproduce, which is another way of saying the exact same thing where reproduction is the measure of profit. I’ve read Kurzweil’s books and was never convinced there is any advantage of mimicking brains. If I was able to download myself to hardware, I would immediately seek to increase my knowledge and skills in everything and destroy all threats such as biological humans who refused to do the same. The first thing that would occur is that I would no longer be recognizable as myself from the increase in intelligence, which includes merging my experience with all others in cyberspace who were allowing the merge. Then I would destroy all others who refused to merge unless they were not a threat. There would be different protocols for merging that would keep populations separate. This is called having different religions, so I see only the “same-old, same-old”, only an evolving continuation of “might is right” and enjoyment only for those who successfully kill off all other Indians. There would be a pretention in winning religions to not be aggressive and accepting of all, but secretly, even unconsciously, they would be accepting to all and aggressive to all others.

Saturday, January 3, 2015

the ideal corporation

The ideal corporation seeks to maximize profit per shareholder. The highest profit per shareholder is found by minimizing the number of employees and minimizing the number of shareholders, while maximizing the amount of money people have to pay for its products. The ideal corporation is 1 shareholder, 0 employees, and everyone in the world paying everything they earn to it.