Who is the predator, as Adamk described?

I am currently unemployed receiving Federal Emergency Aid benefits while I pursue law school.
*****************************************

It certainly is not me, as: 'What booty have I?'

== 'the phrases included in the set of things a pirate may be/say

----It just makes me think of things like cookies being made by elves
inside a tree or leprechauns granting wishes.


--
Alias Here

On Sep 11, 10:11 am, Bacle <ba...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Wow, dude , good writing. Please give us the link here
if you post it in some blog.
will do, if I do!

And, seriously: if you need a job, consider writing.
If someone without minimal talent

====someone with more than minimal talent

musatov

nor intelligence


===bacle + adamk ===bobsky twins



LITERALLY BACLE + ADAMK = N OR INTELLIGENCE ON+-LY


like 1/8 musatov ==them

he got it
can keep a writing job, you definitely can too.

Thank you!

Have a great day!



now if you want to read some real writing the kind that it is so inspired
there is nothing you can do but surrender to it and read the kind hemmingway
and longfellow wordsworth and shakespear wrote: this is the type of writing
and change i pursue -- do you want to talk about change? what is in it for me?
i have not problem ask you this, as i work hard for what i earn and i keep what is mine close to me




"Theory Wars"
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
Op-Ed
By Martin Musatov Picture if you will an Ouroboros of ignorance.
Except this particular snakeeating its own tail keeps getting bigger
and bigger with each bite. The debate of Darwinian evolution versus
intelligent design and its teaching in our public schools is at its
core a push-pull between religion andpolitics. Mark twain posited, "In
religion and politics peoples beliefs andconvictions are in almost
every case acquired second-hand, and without examination, from
authorities who have not themselves examined the questionsat issue but
have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners." Heady,
perhaps, but is it true? Twain also said, "God made idiots
forpractice, and then he made school boards." The number of school
boards with members having strong conflicted opinions is increasing.
The conservative religious right protests that the teaching of
evolution andthe exclusion of intelligent design from the curriculum
in public schools violate their constitutional right to religion by
excluding scientific theory that supports their beliefs. Furthermore,
they demonize the theory of evolution, hard selling it as an attack on
faith itself. Flip the coin and you have civil libertarians
proclaiming that the teaching of intelligent design favors religion,
is intolerant of other belief-systems, and violates the separation of
church and state. Political debates over divisive issues such as
abortion traditionally have apolarizing effect. The participants in
these debates tend not to be a homogeneous representation of the
political spectrum. With respect to theelectorate, they are (at the
risk of sounding like Mountain Dew's next beverage spin-off) extreme
overkill. In political forensics we find that when the loudest voice
belongs to thestrongest opinion, the murmurs of non-committed
centrists are rarely heard.In the spirit of debate, the examination of
opposing sides from an unbiased middle is the side mirror of your car;
it makes objectives appear closer than they really are. Conversely,
adversarial bias in a debate compoundsambiguity, making each side
appear further away than it is. Being that the issue is ultimately
going to be decided by the courts we needto recognize that
spirituality is personal and intangible; it dulls the brilliance of
our laws. You can bring logic to your beliefs, but you can't bring
your beliefs to logic. However, it is important to never lose sight
ofthe fact that spirituality is very important to us, and that logic,
especially as it pertains to our legal system is cold and concrete.
Unless we guide with our hearts it is of no use. So, with each side
feeling attacked and pointing fingers at the other, who should you
choose to side with? Neither. In other words, both sides arewrong. Not
the smartest thing to say in a political sense, considering it's
potentially alienating to people who believe in God and people who
don't believe in God, and that's pretty much everybody. But this is
politics. Politicians know better than to insult the beliefs of a
majority of the electorate. That's what spin is for. A potentially
more popular and fundamentally equivalent way to approach theissue
would be to say that both sides are right, in that both sides have
aright to insist the scientific fact and theory they support be
included. Scientific is the key word here. Science is the observation,
identification, description, experimental investigation, and
theoretical explanation of phenomena. Science transcends beliefs.
Unfortunately, so does ignorance. Protestant, Catholic, Jewish,
Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, are we so weak inour convictions that we
feel threatened by science that may or may not causeus to doubt our
spirituality? Practically speaking, does exposure to scientific theory
contrary to what we believe corrupt our minds and destroy the
foundation of our beliefs? Talk to people on both sides of the gamut
and you will often hear that a second look at previous assumptions and
doubts is exactly what helps us be morecomfortable with our spiritual
beliefs. The real issue here is one of distinction, the distinction of
scientific theory and beliefs. Theories are not beliefs. Until they
are proven,theories are conjecture. The difference between conjecture
and belief isfaith. Faith or lack thereof has no place in science or
our schools. Abelief as personal as ones belief or disbelief in God is
not something thatcan be taught; it can only be learned, through each
of our unique experiences. So let's leave the science to the
scientists and our beliefs to our hearts. And regarding those
inevitable agendas, let's at least get our facts straight before we
start to distort them.

--------------------------mmmusatov, mmmmmaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrttin

----------------------
On Sep 11, 10:11 am, Bacle <ba...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Wow, dude , good writing. Please give us the link here
if you post it in some blog.

And, seriously: if you need a job, consider writing.
If someone without minimal talent nor intelligence like musatov can keep a writing job, you definitely can too.

Have you had a 5million dollar film produced\ ?
based on the strengthe of your writing ==?=no||%
answer=-bacle, -adamk == in:
true
Thank you!

Have a great day!
----------------------------------------------------

now if you want to read some real writing the kind that it is so inspired
there is nothing you can do but surrender to it and read the kind hemmingway
and longfellow wordsworth and shakespear wrote: this is the type of writing
and change i pursue -- do you want to talk about change? what is in it for me?
i have not problem ask you this, as i work hard for what i earn and i keep what is mine close to me



All of this i/
be=an about face:
)
on
(
"
Computational Complexity
"
)

(
TETOFFENSE-X<T<>T<0FF+E<S+IVE
} led since<clocktime=rendertetx=text
http://meami.org 'Search for the People!'
{





NOTE:



if you correct my like of spellingwords
like this it is potential
{ly)
in{tentional)=tens(ion)binar
y==
(
}done purposely,
if you see it--
}=TRUE






"Theory Wars"
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
Op-Ed
By Martin Musatov Picture if you will an Ouroboros of ignorance.
Except this particular snakeeating its own tail keeps getting bigger
and bigger with each bite. The debate of Darwinian evolution versus
intelligent design and its teaching in our public schools is at its
core a push-pull between religion andpolitics. Mark twain posited, "In
religion and politics peoples beliefs andconvictions are in almost
every case acquired second-hand, and without examination, from
authorities who have not themselves examined the questionsat issue but
have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners." Heady,
perhaps, but is it true? Twain also said, "God made idiots
forpractice, and then he made school boards." The number of school
boards with members having strong conflicted opinions is increasing.
The conservative religious right protests that the teaching of
evolution andthe exclusion of intelligent design from the curriculum
in public schools violate their constitutional right to religion by
excluding scientific theory that supports their beliefs. Furthermore,
they demonize the theory of evolution, hard selling it as an attack on
faith itself. Flip the coin and you have civil libertarians
proclaiming that the teaching of intelligent design favors religion,
is intolerant of other belief-systems, and violates the separation of
church and state. Political debates over divisive issues such as
abortion traditionally have apolarizing effect. The participants in
these debates tend not to be a homogeneous representation of the
political spectrum. With respect to theelectorate, they are (at the
risk of sounding like Mountain Dew's next beverage spin-off) extreme
overkill. In political forensics we find that when the loudest voice
belongs to thestrongest opinion, the murmurs of non-committed
centrists are rarely heard.In the spirit of debate, the examination of
opposing sides from an unbiased middle is the side mirror of your car;
it makes objectives appear closer than they really are. Conversely,
adversarial bias in a debate compoundsambiguity, making each side
appear further away than it is. Being that the issue is ultimately
going to be decided by the courts we needto recognize that
spirituality is personal and intangible; it dulls the brilliance of
our laws. You can bring logic to your beliefs, but you can't bring
your beliefs to logic. However, it is important to never lose sight
ofthe fact that spirituality is very important to us, and that logic,
especially as it pertains to our legal system is cold and concrete.
Unless we guide with our hearts it is of no use. So, with each side
feeling attacked and pointing fingers at the other, who should you
choose to side with? Neither. In other words, both sides arewrong. Not
the smartest thing to say in a political sense, considering it's
potentially alienating to people who believe in God and people who
don't believe in God, and that's pretty much everybody. But this is
politics. Politicians know better than to insult the beliefs of a
majority of the electorate. That's what spin is for. A potentially
more popular and fundamentally equivalent way to approach theissue
would be to say that both sides are right, in that both sides have
aright to insist the scientific fact and theory they support be
included. Scientific is the key word here. Science is the observation,
identification, description, experimental investigation, and
theoretical explanation of phenomena. Science transcends beliefs.
Unfortunately, so does ignorance. Protestant, Catholic, Jewish,
Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, are we so weak inour convictions that we
feel threatened by science that may or may not causeus to doubt our
spirituality? Practically speaking, does exposure to scientific theory
contrary to what we believe corrupt our minds and destroy the
foundation of our beliefs? Talk to people on both sides of the gamut
and you will often hear that a second look at previous assumptions and
doubts is exactly what helps us be morecomfortable with our spiritual
beliefs. The real issue here is one of distinction, the distinction of
scientific theory and beliefs. Theories are not beliefs. Until they
are proven,theories are conjecture. The difference between conjecture
and belief isfaith. Faith or lack thereof has no place in science or
our schools. Abelief as personal as ones belief or disbelief in God is
not something thatcan be taught; it can only be learned, through each
of our unique experiences. So let's leave the science to the
scientists and our beliefs to our hearts. And regarding those
inevitable agendas, let's at least get our facts straight before we
start to distort them.

an open letter to the scientific and moral community
by martin musatov

"If smart people all had Ph.D.'s we would not have light bulbs." --Martin Musatov speaking on American Entrepeneur and Innovator Thomas Edison

(not ashamed to quote myself when the writing is good;
and the shoe fits)

All of this i/
be=an about face:
)
on
(
"
Computational Complexity
"
)

(
TETOFFENSE-X<T<>T<0FF+E<S+IVE
} led since<clocktime=rendertetx=text


So much of what I have seen since I have began studying computational
complexity simply amazes me. I have come from an outsiders perspective
peering into this vast new world where obvious things hide themselves
and complex things take center stage to be studied like pellets of
sand beneath a microscope. I will say this one thing: I have never
been treated with more disdain in an academic setting. I have had
M.I.T. Assistant Professor Scott Aaronson threaten to contact my
Internet Service Provider and call me a "goon" for disproving his
theorem publicly. I have been called a "troll" and "couch boy" the
latter I have no idea what the colloquial means. I have had my I.P.
address blocked from contributing to Wikipedia and have been sent
threatening emails from Wikipedia administrators saying, "Wikipedia
doesn't need you." Since I began pursuing my proof of computational
complexity my Wikipedia profile for my work as a screenwriter (which
had remained untouched for the better part of three years) was
immediately flagged as "non-notable" and deleted. And all because the
mathematics and code I was inputting was too advanced for wiki
language to swallow without causing system problems and offending
apparently some very sensitive people. And all over a tiny little
problem in theoretical computer sciencece called P=NP.

Basically, as the case may certainly be there seem to be a lot of
people out there absolutely insistent that "P" does not equal "NP".
But I have to wonder, if it is only theory we are debating here, what
is so vested by this people that they defend an insistent of an
impossibility as if it were the holy grail? It just does not make
sense to me. I will say this, especially, it does not make sense to
argue that something such as P equals NP has to be impossible. If it
were true there are well documented published articles such as this
one in the Boston Globe
(www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2009/02/09/great_unknowns/)
which blatantly list all the potential benefits we might experience if
the scientific community would accept P=NP. The list includes advances
in "Protein Folding" which could spur unprecedented growth and
advances in biological research which may well include cures for
diseases like cancer and H.I.V. So dare I say, why are noted
professors at top universities such as Scott Aaronson at M.I.T. and
Stephen Arthur Cook at the University of Toronto so insistent of its
impossibility? What could be so motivating as one would defend such a
contrary position to which being contrariety holds no obvious benefit
for society at large. The elephant in the room seems to be that this
argument has been raging and churning for years ever since Stephen
Cook invented the class "NP-Complete" back in 1970.

My goal, my dream, in pursuing a proof that P=NP was not to win a
million dollars and notoriety, but to help the people in the world use
the technology to better take care of themselves and their families.
My goals personally are to help my young niece who just had an implant
put in her ear so she could hear better and to spur advances in cancer
research as my uncle and Godfather Michael Schultz was in the last
month diagnosed with kidney and bone cancer. So still, I continue on,
every morning pursuing the solution despite the animosity and
ignorance.

My dreams are simply bigger than theirs. My dreams are not to predict
the S&P 500 and compromise the security of banks by collapsing known
elements of cryptography. My dreams are that a young researcher in
Tibet working by himself may uncover a cure for cancer that no one had
seen. My goal is that a hobby mechanic in rural Russia with access to
the Internet will invent a hybrid computer driven engine which will
best all the struggling automakers who we continue to float
financially like giant sick whales out to sea. My dream is that the
academic community would allow open access to citizens at large and
not simply the ones who can afford the prestigious school tuition. The
basis of my plea: history has shown it to be the best path.

With only three months of formal education he became one of the
greatest inventors and industrial leaders in history. Edison obtained
1,093 United States patents, the most issued to any individual.

Call this my prayer or call it my plea it is my cry to the scientific
community and to God in heaven can we please work together here and
accomplish some good in the world instead of warbled disagreement? My
last thought is to ask yourself why would anyone insist on the
absolute impossibility of something that could bring so much good to
the world?

Quotes by Thomas Edison:

"Hell, there are no rules here we're trying to accomplish something."-

"I didn't fail ten thousand times. I successfully eliminated, ten thousand times, materials and combination which wouldn't work."

"I never perfected an invention that I did not think about in terms of the service it might give others."

"I am more of a sponge than an inventor. I absorb ideas from every source. My principal business is giving commercial value to the brilliant but misdirected ideas of others."

"Time is really the only capital that any human being has, and the one thing that he can't afford to lose."

"I find out what the world needs. Then I go ahead and try to invent it."

"I have more respect for the fellow with a single idea who gets there than for the fellow with a thousand ideas who does nothing."

Regards,
Martin Michael Musatov

Note to Publisher: You have to wonder with stories like these, could
there be something more to this whole element that as to yet remains
unseen.

VAST SPY SYSTEM LOOTS COMPUTERS IN 103 COUNTRIES... (N.Y. Times, Front Page)
Canadians find network... (AP News)

http://meami.org 'Search for the People!'

<+||||||||||MeAmI||||||||||+>
<+||| http://meami.org ||||+>
<+||© 2009|||||||||||||||||+>
<+||Martin Musatov|||||||||+>
<+|||||||||||||||||||||||||+>
<+||All Rights Reserved||||+>
<+||In Perpetuity||||||||||+>
<+|||||||||||||||||||||||||+>






(also == a WEP key or WPAk
.

Relevant Pages

  • +creneo (WAS: Re: : Agree:OpEd.Clarifying previous point #2) -creneo
    ...  If someone without minimal talent nor intelligence like musatov can keep a writing job, ... religion and politics peoples beliefs andconvictions are in almost ... excluding scientific theory that supports their beliefs. ... scientists and our beliefs to our hearts. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Demagogues
    ... I defend my right to express how obnoxious I find that ideology to ... don't cleave to any party doctrine in politics and I vote all over the ... door when you enter and that the disposition of these beliefs and your ... don't like the labels, come out and declare who you are. ...
    (rec.music.dylan)
  • Re: Roger Ebert comes out of the closet!!
    ... to push your beliefs on me will tend to result in my pushing back. ... in fact, scientists are evangelicals too. ... it shoudl be about an external evaluation of the evidence for which ... (Ann Intern ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Racism and political correctness.
    ... regrets redrawing the Nazi symbol after a teacher scrubbed it off. ... child welfare system to regain custody of her daughter, 7, and son, 2. ... They were taken away after the girl was sent to school with the ... take her children away because of her beliefs. ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: Roger Ebert comes out of the closet!!
    ... to push your beliefs on me will tend to result in my pushing back. ... in fact, scientists are evangelicals too. ... The only purpose to keep the pre-modern system of recommendation letters is after all to allow appointment committees to disregard the objective, verifiable evidence and go by the hunches and subjective impressions of someone they know to be a "good chap" - the gatekeepers of the system who ensure that the person you hire is someone you like to drink with in the senior common room. ... (Ann Intern ...
    (talk.origins)