every thought has a frequency

[lavender1]

www.sueddeutsche.de/digital/start-ups-im-silicon-valley-kiffen-ist-das-naechste-grosse-ding-1.2484735

[lavender1]

[lavender1]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD
www.city-data.com/forum/religion-spirituality/338690-will-there-sexual-relations-afterlife.html

We get information from our environment through two pathways . . . left brain (thinking) and right brain (feeling). By ignoring one of the pathways you open yourself up to being blind-sided. Everything we can measure and test using our science comprises less than 5% of our total reality. Yet you are restricting your perceptions to that 5% and ignoring the other 95+%. A logical, left-brain oriented approach is typically unable to deal with the diversity and incoherence in reality and must be supplemented with a disciplined and practiced right-hemisphere involvement, heavily weighted toward intuition and insight. Unfortunately, especially here in the West, we do not develop nor do we respect that form of analysis. A particularly cogent description of the problem can be found here from "The Tao of Power":

. . . The brain accepts all types of information from all stimuli simultaneously, and the mind processes it in the form of emotional responses, intuitive feelings, and logically formulated analyses. In the West, we rely almost exclusively on logical analysis. . . . These logical functions, according to neurological research, are performed by the left hemisphere of the brain. At the same time, we learn to discount aesthetic or intuitive information - a right hemisphere function - because it is considered less valuable to our culture. Thus we find ourselves primarily concerned with measuring events and analyzing their meaning, rather than creating and directing their flow. We are taught to ignore the intuitive or irrational, no matter how strong these 'gut feelings' might be. As these right-hemisphere feelings are repressed, we lose touch with our intuitive mind and our insights become increasingly rare. . . . The fact is, each of us knows far more about reality --- past, present, and future --- than we are able to understand and express rationally. And whether or not we work on our inner development, we all experience, with our intuitive minds, the most profound truths about our world and our destiny. What we must do, then, is use our analytical, logical mind to bring this potentially vital information to the surface, where we can use it. . . . And, in doing so, we achieve the fulfillment that comes from leaving what we touch with our minds a little more evolved than we found it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od0rAFWauGc
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSYuK77eKWzHz9_N_WgOy51iKaFyPQiPmY32kllGulRONU8pAeTUw

[lavender1]

wishing Stuart Pringle a very happy birthday today, and continued blessings upon your mission ....





\!!

[lavender1]

\!!





www.poemhunter.com/poem/in-broken-images/

[lavender1]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_of_Things

www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2014/05/13/simple-explanation-internet-things-that-anyone-can-understand/

The “Internet of things” (IoT) is becoming an increasingly growing topic of conversation both in the workplace and outside of it. It’s a concept that not only has the potential to impact how we live but also how we work. But what exactly is the “Internet of things” and what impact is it going to have on you if any? There are a lot of complexities around the “Internet of things” but I want to stick to the basics. Lots of technical and policy related conversations are being had but many people are still just trying to grasp the foundation of what the heck these conversations are about.

Let’s start with understanding a few things.

Broadband Internet is become more widely available, the cost of connecting is decreasing, more devices are being created with wifi capabilities and censors built into them, technology costs are going down, and smart phone penetration is sky-rocketing. All of these things are creating a “perfect storm” for the IoT.

internet-of-things-2So what is the Internet of things?

Simply put this is the concept of basically connecting any device with an on and off switch to the Internet (and/or to each other). This includes everything from cell phones, coffee makers, washing machines, headphones, lamps, wearable devices and almost anything else you can think of. This also applies to components of machines, for example a jet engine of an airplane or the drill of an oil rig. As I mentioned, if it has an on and off switch then chances are it can be a part of the IoT. The analyst firm Gartner says that by 2020 there will be over 26 billion connected devices…that’s a lot of connections (some even estimate this number to be much higher, over 100 billion). The IoT is a giant network of connected “things” (which also includes people). The relationship will be between people-people, people-things, and things-things.

How does this impact you?

The new rule for the future is going to be, “anything that can be connected, will be connected.” But why on earth would you want so many connected devices talking to each other? There are many examples for what this might look like or what the potential value might be. Say for example you are on your way to a meeting, your car could have access to your calendar and already know the best route to take, if the traffic is heavy your car might send a text to the other party notifying them that you will be late. What if your alarm clock wakes up you at 6 am and then notifies your coffee maker to start brewing coffee for you? What if your office equipment knew when it was running low on supplies and automatically re-ordered more? What if the wearable device you used in the workplace could tell you when and where you were most active and productive and shared that information with other devices that you used while working?

\!!

www.theguardian.com/culture-professionals-network/culture-professionals-blog/2014/may/05/art-internet-of-things-education-society

www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/24/internet-of-things-centralisation-dominance

The grand vision of the internet of things is currently an exercise in imagination. It is about what happens when more and more of the real, physical world comes online, as devices and sensors proliferate, connecting everything.

The promise is that the internet of things won’t just connect our homes, hospitals, schools and streets – it will enable whole new ranges of interactions, services and efficiencies. It’s not just about the things, in other words – it’s about the people and environments that animate them.

This wider vision of the internet of things is still evolving, with considerable excitement from tech firms, entrepreneurs and governments. But it’s far from fully realised yet. And like any evolutionary process, a heady brew of nature and chaos will determine its outcomes.

Order in chaos

The chaotic evolution of the internet of things gives fuel to every utopian and dystopian imagining. The enthusiasts argue that it will be transformative; bringing convenience, efficiency and services never before imagined. Others see hackable vulnerabilities and a dark world of consumerism, inequality and surveillance.

But within these competing visions, one evolutionary truth is clear: the internet of things currently favours dominance.

One of the factors contributing to the reinforcement of dominant firms and silos is the difficulty of developing and integrating internet of things applications. Functionality in highly distributed, ubiquitous computing environments involves many moving parts coming together in a coordinated, but on-the-fly way.

All the complex things

Compared with traditional software and systems like social media, web services and mobile apps, there is a huge leap in complexity when you move to internet of things applications.

Part of this is due to the focus on customisation: accommodating the infinite diversity in what people like, how they interact, and how they use things. In the same way that each of our homes, things and choices are different, we all have different preferences for connectivity, and what we want out of it.

This complexity is compounded by the variety of deployment environments. Take a motion sensor, for example. It might be used in a car, phone, house or any number of other places. As well as the individual user’s preferences about its use, each scenario has different data access concerns, resource requirements (power, connectivity), functional constraints, and other integration needs. Things can be mobile or fixed; always on, or sometimes on. And there’s data – lots of data. All of this needs management.
Programming for the unpredictable

It is difficult for those developing and designing internet of things components to effectively predict and accommodate all this variability. Compare it to the web, where the endless and colourful variety of the web is realised through well-established standards and methods for access. We all use much the same software and services, in the same, predefined ways. The grand vision of the internet of things is different – it explodes the bounded universe.

To deal with this unpredictability, today’s developers tend towards one of three approaches. The first is to build “closed” systems: X’s sensing home, or Y’s health monitoring system. This is a somewhat old-fashioned, limiting view of the internet of things – where components are built for very specific purposes, and any customisation or management must be designed into the system by the developers themselves. This impacts scalability, limiting the integration of other components.

The second alternative is building things to be part of a particular technical ecosystem, such as a platform like Apple’s HomeKit, Google’s Nest and Brillo, or AllJoyn by the AllSeen Alliance. These offer developers tools, services and other components – most of which are offered by those who control the ecosystem – to assist in the development and management of the components they build. The downside is that the interoperability regime itself can create network effects and potential lock-in with the big players.

A third approach is to build things to be generically accessible or “open”. Here, developers don’t deal with the specifics of deployment, usage and runtime operation, instead offloading these concerns to the system integrators, who bring together and manage ranges of components. Currently, integration tends towards globally accessible, cloud-based services; that is, those who aggregate (which is important given the volumes, rates of data and ranges of source), and make data accessible and searchable – the Googles of this world.
Centralisation and counterpower

For the moment, all these approaches tend towards centralisation – whether towards operators of closed systems, controllers of particular ecosystems, or systems integrators for “open” systems. Data flows too, tend to be centralised, even when they needn’t be. So it seems that concerns about dominance, power, and control in the internet of things are based on solid ground – the end-user’s controls are left to whoever controls the centralised environment.

The internet of things - the next big challenge to our privacy

So, is there a way out? Perhaps, given the internet of things is still evolving. But the path to countering the strong forces favouring dominance is far from easy.

From a technical standpoint, it is possible to leverage and build upon existing mechanisms for interoperability to achieve a more decentralised internet of things. To incentivise this, what is needed is robust legal, ethical and commercial recognition that the success of the internet of things depends on users having much greater and more meaningful control over data flows than they have had before, especially when they concern fundamental rights.

www.zdnet.com/article/five-reasons-internet-of-things-development-will-take-longer-than-expected/#ftag=RSSbaffb68

[lavender1]

\!!



yeah.paleo.ch/en/video/33663

[lavender1]

enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.de/2011/12/leonardo-boff-on-shamanic-dimension.html

\!!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUofVIHCja4

www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3433900019.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_Boff

traductina.wordpress.com/

www.opednews.com/Podcast/Ratzinger-Hounded-then-De-by-Rob-Kall-130214-95.html

[lavender1]

\!!

[lavender1]

soundcloud.com/hpmartsandculture/stuart-hinds-and-overtone

\!!

www.cute-calendar.com/event/beginning-of-meteorological-autumn/9949-northern-hemisphere.html

www.calendardate.com/labor_day.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season

[lavender1]

john/14-2: taking a broader view on lucid dreaming ....

www.spiegel.de/karriere/berufsleben/stress-am-arbeitsplatz-wir-verwechseln-gelassenheit-mit-entspannung-a-1052574.html

www.denkraeume.net/10-0-Buecher.html

www.tgdaily.com/web/134086-rich-fans-want-to-get-the-concorde-back-in-the-air

\!!

[lavender1]

earthsky.org/todays-image/brief-beautiful-circumzenithal-arc

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/09/22/say-goodbye-to-summer-as-daylight-dwindles-the-fall-equinox-is-on-wednesday/


\!!

[lavender1]

\!!

[lavender1]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtgLklXZo3U

\!!

[lavender1]

\!!


earthsky.org/tonight