4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord.6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.
Unity and Diversity in the Body
12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized byone Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.
15 Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.
what if prayer was color-coded?what if you are equipt to be a “physician”?
when we change ourselves do we do it form our own understanding?why?how do we really know what we are doing?
what is the obssesive identity “labeling” in modern society?
I COULD IDENTIFY AS demi-romantic, demi-sexual, cisgender, non-monogamous and pan-erotic. Or I could just identify as myself. However, it seems that finding new words for expressing people’s sexual, romantic, and gender-oriented identities has become something of national interest, at least here in the United States. Thank Caitlyn Jenner for driving it into the mainstream, but it’s been broadcast via online media now for years. Many of its online champions are also decidedly different from one another and notably un-Caitlynesque, indicating that the movement to significantly shift our perspective on sexuality, romance, and gender is both nuanced and far-reaching, and spans diverse financial and sociopolitical groups that color the issue with shades of their own preexisting ideologies.
The book is split into three parts: • Global ‘sex’ wars – discusses the notion of sexualities, its political landscapes internationally, and the return of religious fervour and extremism. • Epistemological challenges and research agendas – examines modern ‘scientific’ understandings of sexuality, its history and the way in which HIV and AIDS have drawn attention to sexuality. • The promises and limits of sexual rights – discusses human rights approaches to sexuality, its strengths and limitations and new ways of imagining erotic justice.
Let’s start with guilt: not only is it unhealthy, it’s unbiblical. Jesus calls us to lofty goals of love and compassion, yes, but never the burden of guilt. In Matthew 11: 28-30, Jesus frees us from the burdens we place upon ourselves and others: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
wonder what how farming and rest has to do with “peace” in a virtual water and cyberwarfare global war context?
The water footprint shows the extent of water use in relation to consumption of people. The water footprint of a country is defined as the volume of water needed for the production of the goods and services consumed by the inhabitants of the country. The internal water footprint is the volume of water used from domestic water resources; the external water footprint is the volume of water used in other countries to produce goods and services imported and consumed by the inhabitants of the country. The study calculates the water footprint for each nation of the world for the period 1997–2001. The USA appears to have an average water footprint of 2480 m3/cap/yr, while China has an average footprint of 700 m3/cap/yr. The global average water footprint is 1240 m3/cap/yr. The four major direct factors determining the water footprint of a country are: volume of consumption (related to the gross national income); consumption pattern (e.g. high versus low meat consumption); climate (growth conditions); and agricultural practice (water use efficiency).
Those in agriculture are very aware of the cyclical nature of farm profitability and, unfortunately, we’ve entered the challenging phase of the hike. Taking some time to really focus on improving your farm’s financial footing will help ensure that you are positioned to participate in the better financial times likely to come at some point in the future. By sticking to the basics, you can get by – and even prosper – in the future.
The concept of virtual water was first introduced by Allan (1996) to quantify the water required in the production process of an agricultural commodity. This water is embedded in the commodity. Allan (1998) extended the principle of virtual water to other commodities and services by quantifying the water required in the production of these commodities or services.
Virtual water trade (also known as trade in embedded or embodied water) refers to the hidden flow of water if food or other commodities are traded from one place to another. For instance, it takes 1,600 cubic meters of water on average to produce one metric tonne of wheat. The precise volume can be more or less depending on climatic conditions and agricultural practice. Hoekstra and Chapagain have defined the virtual-water content of a product (a commodity, good or service) as “the volume of freshwater used to produce the product, measured at the place where the product was actually produced”. It refers to the sum of the water use in the various steps of the production chain.
Cyberwarfare has been defined as “actions by a nation-state to penetrate another nation’s computers or networks for the purposes of causing damage or disruption,”:6 but other definitions also include non-state actors, such as terrorist groups, companies, political or ideological extremist groups, hacktivists, and transnational criminal organizations.
everyone is part of th e”global warfare” thru money? who but God could be the Healer of that “psychopathy”?
A negative externality is a cost that is suffered by athird party as a result of an economic transaction. In a transaction, the producer and consumer are the first and second parties, and third parties include any individual, organisation, property owner, or resource that is indirectly affected.
A positive externality is a benefit that is enjoyed by a third-party as a result of an economic transaction. Third-parties include any individual, organisation, property owner, or resource that is indirectly affected. While individuals who benefit from positive externalities without paying are considered to be free-riders, it may be in the interests of society to encourage free-riders to consume goods which generate substantial external benefits.
In economics, an externality is the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit. Economists often urge governments to adopt policies that “internalize” an externality, so that costs and benefits will affect mainly parties who choose to incur them.
For example, manufacturing activities that cause air pollution impose health and clean-up costs on the whole society, whereas the neighbors of an individual who chooses to fire-proof his home may benefit from a reduced risk of a fire spreading to their own houses. If external costs exist, such aspollution, the producer may choose to produce more of the product than would be produced if the producer were required to pay all associated environmental costs. Because responsibility or consequence for self-directed action lies partly outside the self, an element of externalization is involved. If there are external benefits, such as in public safety, less of the good may be produced than would be the case if the producer were to receive payment for the external benefits to others. For the purpose of these statements, overall cost and benefit to society is defined as the sum of the imputed monetary value of benefits and costs to all parties involved. Thus, unregulated markets in goods or services with significant externalities generate prices that do not reflect the full social cost or benefit of their transactions; such markets are therefore inefficient.
is an example of an externality because the consumption of street lighting has an effect on bystanders that is not compensated for by the consumers of the lighting.
A negative externality (also called “external cost” or “external diseconomy”) is an economic activity that imposes a negative effect on an unrelated third party. It can arise either during the production or the consumption of a good or service. Barry Commoner commented on the costs of externalities:
- Clearly, we have compiled a record of serious failures in recent technological encounters with the environment. In each case, the new technology was brought into use before the ultimate hazards were known. We have been quick to reap the benefits and slow to comprehend the costs (Quoted from).
Many negative externalities are related to the environmental consequences of production and use. The article on environmental economics also addresses externalities and how they may be addressed in the context of environmental issues.
Examples for negative production externalities include:
- Air pollution from burning fossil fuels. This activity causes damages to crops, (historic) buildings and public health.
- Anthropogenic climate change as a consequence of greenhouse gas emissions from burning oil, gas, and coal. The Stern Review on the Economics Of Climate Change says “Climate change presents a unique challenge for economics: it is the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen.”
- Water pollution by industries that adds effluent, which harms plants, animals, and humans.
- Noise pollution during the production process, which may be mentally and psychologically disruptive.
- Systemic risk: the risks to the overall economy arising from the risks that the banking system takes. A condition of moral hazard can occur in the absence of well-designed banking regulation, or in the presence of badly designed regulation.
- Negative effects of Industrial farm animal production, including “the increase in the pool of antibiotic-resistant bacteria because of the overuse of antibiotics; air quality problems; the contamination of rivers, streams, and coastal waters with concentrated animal waste; animal welfare problems, mainly as a result of the extremely close quarters in which the animals are housed.”
- The depletion of the stock of fish in the ocean due to overfishing. This is an example of a common property resource, which is vulnerable to the Tragedy of the commons in the absence of appropriate environmental governance.
- In the United States, the cost of storing nuclear waste from nuclear plants for more than 1,000 years (over 100,000 for some types of nuclear waste) is, in principle, included in the cost of the electricity the plant produces in the form of a fee paid to the government and held in the nuclear waste superfund, although much of that fund was spent on Yucca Mountain without producing a solution. Conversely, the costs of managing the long term risks of disposal of chemicals, which may remain hazardous on similar time scales, is not commonly internalized in prices. The USEPA regulates chemicals for periods ranging from 100 years to a maximum of 10,000 years.
Examples of negative consumption externalities include:
- Sleep deprivation due to a neighbor listening to loud music late at night.
- Antibiotic resistance, caused by increased usage of antibiotics. Individuals do not consider this efficacy cost when making usage decisions. Government policies proposed to preserve future antibiotic effectiveness include educational campaigns, regulation, Pigouvian taxes, and patents.
- Shared costs of declining health and vitality caused by smoking and/or alcohol abuse. Here, the “cost” is that of providing minimum social welfare. Economists more frequently attribute this problem to the category of moral hazards, the prospect that parties insulated from risk may behave differently from the way they would if they were fully exposed to the risk. For example, individuals with insurance against automobile theft may be less vigilant about locking their cars, because the negative consequences of automobile theft are (partially) borne by the insurance company.
- Higher congestion costs and increased accident risks when people use public roads.
- Consumption by one consumer causes prices to rise and therefore makes other consumers worse off, perhaps by reducing their consumption. These effects are sometimes called “pecuniary externalities” and are distinguished from “real externalities” or “technological externalities”. Pecuniary externalities appear to be externalities, but occur within the market mechanism and are not considered to be a source of market failure or inefficiency, although they may still result in substantial harm to others.
is socieopathy(control and conceal) used to “order” civilization under ther own understanding?
CITIES USED TO grow by accident. Sure, the location usually made sense—someplace defensible, on a hill or an island, or somewhere near an extractable resource or the confluence of two transport routes. But what happened next was ad hoc. The people who worked in the fort or the mines or the port or the warehouses needed places to eat, to sleep, to worship. Infrastructure threaded through the hustle and bustle—water, sewage, roads, trolleys, gas, electricity—in vast networks of improvisation. You can find planned exceptions: Alexandria, Roman colonial towns, certain districts in major Chinese cities, Haussmann’s Paris. But for the most part it was happenstance, luck, and layering the new on top of the old.
what if a community choose not to buy or build into global business inteligence?do communities have a choice?
The Political Externalities of Open Borders
are we heading toward a “global economics of telepathy technology”?what part are hackers playing? how does relationship with money effect its progress?what is “to question money” in a “telepathy economy”?
Pasley says the technology is available to turn this idea into a reality. “The implants transmit the recorded signals to a decoder that converts the signals into movement commands, or in our case, speech.” He wants to develop safe, wireless, implantable interfaces for long-term use.
When you read this sentence to yourself, it’s likely that you hear the words in your head. Now, in what amounts to technological telepathy, others are on the verge of being able to hear your inner dialogue too. By peering inside the brain, it is possible to reconstruct speech from the activity that takes place when we hear someone talking.
Because this brain activity is thought to be similar whether we hear a sentence or think the same sentence, the discovery brings us a step closer to broadcasting our inner thoughts to the world without speaking. The implications are enormous – people made mute through paralysis or locked-in syndrome could regain their voice. It might even be possible to read someone’s mind.
Imagine a musician watching a piano being played with no sound, says Brian Pasley at the University of California, Berkeley. “If a pianist were watching a piano being played on TV with the sound off, they would still be able to work out what the music sounded like because they know what key plays what note,” Pasley says. His team has done something analogous with brain waves, matching neural areas to their corresponding noises.
How the brain converts speech into meaningful information is a bit of a puzzle. The basic idea is that sound activates sensory neurons, which then pass this information to different areas of the brain where various aspects of the sound are extracted and eventually perceived as language. Pasley and colleagues wondered whether they could identify where some of the most vital aspects of speech are extracted by the brain.
The team presented spoken words and sentences to 15 people having surgery for epilepsy or a brain tumour. Electrodes recorded neural activity from the surface of the superior and middle temporal gyri – an area of the brain near the ear that is involved in processing sound. From these recordings, Pasley’s team set about decoding which aspects of speech were related to what kind of brain activity.
Sound is made up of different frequencies which are separated in the brain and processed in different areas. “Simply put, one spot [of neurons] might only care about a frequency range of 1000 hertz and doesn’t care about anything else. Another spot might care about a frequency of 5000 hertz,” says Pasley. “We can look at their activity and identify what frequency they care about. From that we can assume that when that spot’s activity is increasing there was a sound that had that frequency in it.”
You are working on brain-to-brain communication. Can one person’s thoughts ever truly be experienced by another person?
Each brain is different. And while differences in anatomy are relatively easy to account for, differences in function are difficult to characterise. And then we have differences in experience – my idea of flying could be completely unlike your idea of flying, for example. When you think about flying, a bunch of associated experiences come into your mind, competing for your attention. We somehow need to strip away the individual differences to grasp the basic, shared factors.
But it seems possible. Other researchers have been able to use information collected from a group of people to makesurprisingly successful, if basic, predictions about what another individual is thinking.
What do you need to transmit information between brains?
The idea is to record one person’s brain activity using a non-invasive device such as an EEG, which involves wearing a cap of electrodes. A computer program filters out what is thought to be the relevant brain activity, and this is recreated in another person using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) – a non-invasive technique that induces an electrical current in their brain.
Do you think it will ever be possible to convey something as rich and personal as emotion or memory in this way?
The technology for implantable devices is becoming available, and at prices that make such systems very cost effective. Three stages of introduction of such devices can be delineated. The earliest adopters will be those with a disability, who will use this as a more powerful prosthetic device.
The next stage, represents the movement from therapy to enhancement, and it is at this point that ethical evaluation becomes imperative. One of the first groups of non-disabled “volunteers” will probably be the professional military, where the use of an implanted computing and communication device with new interfaces to weapons, information, and communications could be lifesaving. The third group of users will probably be those involved in very information intensive businesses, who will use these devices to develop an expanded information transfer capability.
As intelligence or sensory “amplifiers”, the implantable chip will generate at least four benefits:
1) it will increase the dynamic range of senses, enabling, for example, seeing IR, UV, and chemical spectra;
2) it will enhance memory;
3) it will enable “cyberthink” — invisible communication with others when making decisions, and
4) it will enable consistent and constant access to information where and when it is needed. For many these enhancements will produce major improvements in the quality of life, or their survivability, or their performance in a job.
The first prototype devices for these improvements in human functioning should be available in five years, with the military prototypes starting within ten years, and information workers using prototypes within fifteen years; general adoption will take roughly twenty to thirty years.
The brain chip will probably function as a prosthetic cortical implant. The user’s visual cortex will receive stimulation from a computer based either on what a camera sees or based on an artificial “window” interface.
Not every computer scientist views such prospects with equanimity. Michael Dertouzos writes, “even if it would someday be possible to convey such higher-level information to the brain — and that is a huge technical “If” — we should not do it.
Bringing light impulses to the visual cortex of a blind person would justify such an intrusion, but unnecessarily tapping into the brain is a violation of our bodies, of nature, and for many, of God’s design.”
This succinctly formulates the essentialist and creationist argument against the implantable chip. Fears of tampering with human nature are widespread; the theme that nature is good and technology evil, that the power to recreate oneself is overreaching hubris, and that reengineering humanity can only result in disaster, is a familiar response to each new control that man exercises.
The mystique of the natural is fueled by the romantic world view of a benign period when humans lived in harmony with nature. However attractive, it is probable that this vision is faulty inasmuch as man has always used technology to survive, and to enhance life; the use of technology is natural to man. Thus this negative response to the prospect of implantable chips is certainly inadequate, although it points to a need to evaluate the technology in terms of the good or evil possibilities for its use by men, or governments.
The call not to “play God” is also familiar, and suffers from the same difficulties articulated by David Hume. This critique relies on a religious sense that improving on the design of creation insults the Creator. In particular, it proposes that attempts to alter the functioning of the brain for purposes of creating a superior human being can be decried as usurping God’s power. To be persuasive this argument must depend on a restrictive, even for religionists, view of creation, one that sees no role for human creativity.
Brain-machine interface (BMI) technology has finally gotten a taste of mainstream attention in the form of movies like Transcendence and Edge of Tomorrow. The silver screen attention is mirrored by the burgeoning startup companies in the BMI space. The Muse headband is taking the positioning of being a kind of brain-training tool to encourage calmness and tranquility, while the versatile Emotiv BMI aims to allow for telekinetic control control of virtual environments with thoughts and facial expressions.
Women in computer science have a role model in Grace Hopper. She and Howard Aiken designed Harvard’s Mark I computer, a five-ton, room-sized machine in 1944. Hopper invented the compiler that translated written language into computer code and coined the terms “bug” and “debugging” when she had to remove moths from the device. In 1959, Hopper was part of the team that developed COBOL, one of the first modern programming languages.
Full Definition of soul
1: the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
2a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universeb capitalized Christian Science : god 1b
3: a person’s total self
4a : an active or essential partb : a moving spirit : leader
5a : the moral and emotional nature of human beingsb : the quality that arouses emotion and sentimentc : spiritual or moral force : fervor
6: person <not a soul in sight>
7: personification <she is the soul of integrity>
8a : a strong positive feeling (as of intense sensitivity and emotional fervor) conveyed especially by black American performersb : negritudec : soul musicd : soul foode : soul brother
what happens with the data of our “soul”?
Ever since the 1960s, folk music and campus protests have gone together hand in glove. The dulcet harmonies and vapid lyrics of many ’60s folk tunes provided the perfect mood music for the simplistic tantrums that engulfed American universities during that turbulent decade. Take a nostalgic listen sometime to the cringe-worthy lyrics of such songs as “If I Had a Hammer” and “Big Yellow Taxi” to sample the rather callow spirit of the age. It was tempting to hope that the era of such preening lyrical fluff met its end when John Belushi unceremoniously smashed into a wall the folk singer’s guitar in the 1978 movie Animal House, a statement that seemed to punctuate the demise of folk rock the same way that Disco Demolition Night at Chicago’s Comiskey Park spelled the end of disco in 1979. And though popular music continues to evolve, not always for the better, the same hackneyed campus discontent continues to flare up from the embers of the self-indulgent sit-ins and hyperbolic demands of 1960s protest culture, as new generations of impressionable students arrive on campus to fuel the flames of social unrest.
what does it mean to “organize a protest” in a “synthetic telepathy economy”? who owns the data? who owns the tech to decifer it? who owns our soul? is it even a question in an synthetic telelpathy global economy”?
7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healingby that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.
Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”
is this question mor than a question of tech/science vrs faith? is it about how we are honest and how we perceive each other being honest? knowing versus faith? does science ever know in a process toward truch? does faith releigons have definitive truths that people “arugue” or complian over that in front of others “discredit the organized part of it”?
is to question money to question technology?