 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
The defensive weapon scenario plays out very well in my mind, as a story line, since the actual device already exists in the form of accurate perception.
Someone who is well aware of impending injury can avoid it entirely.
Along with the same device I want to illustrate in the Novel is the concept of a lie detector.
So the device in mind is a Cell Phone.
The Cell Phone records any confrontation a person may have with any other person.
Think in terms of a Duel.
There is a famous Duel in American History between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton.
There are many fictional Duels between Characters in Movies like The Outlaw Josey Wales.
Person A has time to realize that Person B will injure Person A, and Person A has the means to defend him, or her, self.
Person A is armed with a sharp knife, or a gun, or a sniper rifle, or a Drone, or a Suitcase Nuke, or an Intercontinental Balistic Missle with multple Warheads containing Dirty Bombs and a few Biological Weapons of Mass Destruction thrown in.
Person A uses the Cell Phone first, and the aggressor/defender with the Nuke is motionless for 1 hour.
The entire Duel is recorded and uploaded onto the Web, like one of those Dash Cams.
Like this:
Obey, without question
In every case where this is any future altercation, of any kind, whereby the combatants include one person who is using the new device, the event is recorded, uploaded, and insured.
I want to describe the uses of insurance too.
Insurance in this case is a competitive policy purchased by the insured so as to minimize the costs of insurance against attack by aggressor, whereby the aggressor may be wielding a sharp knife, gun, rocket, suitcase nuke, or those ICBMs.
You two do not think with my brain, so you have not traveled down the roads I travel down, in this type of thinking.
The insured, for example, may or may not reduce their own costs by agreeing to also have one of those chips implanted in a secret place, so that if the insured is captured by the Police, or by some Outlaw, and whisked away to some dungeon, Extraordinarily Rendered, or otherwise captured, tortured, and then murdered, the competitive insurance provider can map your progress all along the way.
The concept with the book is to turn everything back right-side-up.
If you don't get it, then that just tells me I need to write the book, and if you read the book and you still want to argue, or ask questions, then that would mean you still don't get it.
That is OK by me.
I get it.
The concept of less work and more benefit is not something that inspires me to argue, it is merely a demonstrable fact, so why argue about it?
If we do not share the meanings of words, then there are ways to work toward sharing the meanings of words, like the word work, for example, as a test case: if we want to share the meaning of the word work, we can work to reach that goal.
If we don't want to reach that goal, then no amount of work expended in not reaching that goal will reach that goal.
Quote time (since no other means is available for me to work toward understanding the meaning of the words quoted, as far as I know):
I would say that with time work can only take more time eventually taking up all time so no time is wasted on damaging activities and everything one does is productive more than damaging in one way or another. There is no race to some ultimate deadline - is exactly the reason for it not to sit on one's hands and waste time. Nothing will ascend one except one oneself so there is no reason to wait for anything.
I don't know who spoke about waiting, or racing to meet an ultimate deadline, so this argument that is going on, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with me.
I was speaking about a book, and in the book I was speaking about the condition of life where many people are working very hard for most of their lives, and the benefits of their work are transferred to people who then use those benefits to steal more benefits from those who do that work, now, and in the book those transfers of those benefits are no longer being transferred in that way, so those who work productively get to keep their benefits for working productively, and that is accurately measurable as working less, and having more kept, controlled, used, employed, by those who work productively.
Where the subject turns into an argument appears to be contained in the words quoted. I can only guess.
My guess is that we have no way in which to communicate meanings of words to each other, for some reason.
Perhaps a good start would be to start with the meaning of the words Productive Work.
I can begin by saying that the meaning I intend to convey with the words Productive Work is such that a person begins the day with X amount of useful things and ends the day with X + Y amount of useful things.
Ending the day with X - Y useful things measures as a reduction in useful things for that day, and I'm not saying that there are no other things going on in that day, I'm just saying that X + Y is measurable as production for that day, and X - Y is not measurable as production for that day.
Some days can be spent consuming production in ways that are understood as investments; whereby the rate of production may increase dramatically, such as a day spent building a tool.
I do not argue. I see no point in it, and here we may be having more difficulty with the meanings of words. My use of the word ARGUE is a meaning that intends to convey the concept of one perspective intending to defeat another perspective without any concern for accurate measures of perception.
I don't know if my work that intends to build an agreeable meaning of words will bear fruit, but I have done my work in the words above, seeking that goal.
And considering the state of society as of today I'd say institutionalized education will be required most assuredly to get through important problems humanity faces.
I may have misspoke due to a perception of the need to be brief, and while I wrote the brief list of things to be worked into the book I thought about the competitive advantage of institutionalized learning centers, as complimentary additions along side of very competitive individual teachers working to teach individual students.
My first attempt at this book was a scene in which the main character meets one teacher, and I introduced another character in the same scene as that one teacher held a class with two students.
I believe that the following words are demonstrably accurate:
And considering the state of society as of today I'd say institutionalized education will be required most assuredly to get through important problems humanity faces.
For purposes of the book, and the goal I am working toward, the concept of acknowledging that demonstrably accurate perception above can be incorporated into the book, but I'm not sure, since the book has not been written yet, other than a few chapters that are now lost on an old hard drive.
I think the subject of planned osolescence is more suited to on one side show competition going wrong way and on the other show industry specifics as competition leading to obvious benefits, but eventually made into counter-intuitive decision thanks to social parasites.
A major theme in the book will be this concept of how monopoly (with such things as planned obsolescence) works, or did work, before Liberty Day, before the War on Falsehood was won. The book intends to include a History Teacher who explains to a modern day student, how things worked in Monopoly Power.