Get more traffic and free publicity by submitting articles
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:56:03 -0500 (CDT) Get more traffic and free publicity by submitting articles Many writers are thrashing about with the decision of whether or not to write "for free" - however - unless you are a wealthy, professionally published author - there are many advantages to writing articles and offering them for free publication online. Writers can truly benefit from submitting their articles to online databases for publishers. Some of the Advantages of Offering Articles are: 1. You'll make a good name for your website, business, and yourself when you submit articles to internet. Include your contact information when submitting the articles in the article resource box. 2. Others will consider you an expert on the subject of your articles. This will result in your business gaining an even more favorable reputation which will provide you an edge over your competitors and also lot of popularity and profit and yes very important valuable traffic. 3. You could allow e-zine publishers to publish your articles in their free e-books. Since people give them away, your advertising could multiply all over the internet. 4. There is the possibility the e-zine publisher will place your article on their home page. This will provide you with additional revelation if each issue is available on their home page. 5. You will get your article published all over the web when you submit it to an e-zine publisher that has a free content directory on their web site. They'll allow their visitors to republish your article and so you get more visitors and more traffic. 6. There is the potential for you to gain additional exposure if the publisher of the e-zine stores back issues on their website. People may resist subscribing to the e- zine until they read past issues, so dont stop writting.Write usefull and relevant and yes unique articles. 7. You will obtain gracious advertising. You can use the money you save to advertise your business using other methods. You could, for example, buy ad space in e-zines that don't accept your article submissions and can then submit your articles. 8. You can offer e-zine publishers the opportunity to publish your article submissions within the e-books they offer for free. People tend to share these kinds of books and this could lead to your ads being spread across the whole Web. In summary, The first, most obvious benefit to you as a writer, is the opportunity to get your work published. The second reason is FREE PUBLICITY! - Most article databases online allow you to include a "resource box" at the end of your article. Anil Vij specializes in Internet traffic generation through Articles and Links . For more information on how to increase your traffic by 400%! Visit www.blastarticles.com Today. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: RSSA / ASSA / Single Mind Theory
Short comments to Jason, Marc and John. Jason, I agree with the answers given by Russell and Stathis to your "one person idea" or single mind theory. The "one person idea" (a recurring theme of the list) is still coherent with comp, but most probably undecidable, and above all not relevant for testing comp (deriving the comp-physical laws). Lee Corbin (I think in both the FOR list and the EVERYTHING list), but also David Chalmers (personal communication), were arguing that, after a Washington-Moscow duplication (with annihilation of the original in Brussels), they are simultaneously in W and in M. Honestly this could be just a matter of taste. But I told them that if we are in both W and M, then we most probably are *all* disconnected incarnation of the same person, going thus in your single mind theory direction. But here Lee and David seemed to disagree without justification. I think Lee changes his mind, or at least did understand the non-relevance of the single mind theory for the derivation of the physical laws from comp (or other "many-OMs" theories. Single mind? Why not, indeed. It makes true one feature of Plotinus theory of evil, where all the bad you do to someone will be done to you. It is the good/bad conservation law. Plotinus dares to say: if a man rapes a woman, he will be reincarnated into a woman just to be raped. The one-person theory makes Plotinus principle true trivially without the need of explicit temporal-like reincarnations. I do like this idea. But this is irrelevant for deriving the physical laws from the comp hyp, where you have to justify probability of families of result-experiences from what you guess about your actual state. In that case, you have to take into account the 1-3 person points of view distinction so that you can infer things like the fact that the probability of self-localization in Washington is 1/2, ... in the same way that you infer that the probability that your coffee will be cold is near one if you add enough cold milk. All that could be sort of illusions, but deriving the physics from comp consists justly in that: explaining where such illusions come from and why they are stable, and why does it hurt, etc. Marc, I will comment Tegmark diagram asap. John, I am still working on some of your posts, but I'm a bit busy, and I ask you to indulge for my lateness. Thanks. Bruno Le 21-avr.-07, à 05:52, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > > > On 4/21/07, Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (quoting Brent Meeker): > >> >> > >> >> This seems to be a good definition for a person, but how does the >> definition handle duplication thought experiments or the infinite >> breadth of experiences across the multiverse which connects us all? >> Personhood becomes fuzzy and a truly object treatment of conscious >> experience might do well to abandon the idea of personal identity >> altogether. I agree there is not an extra-OM that experiences OMs, >> but that seems to be what sampling assumptions imply. > I think of both personhood and personal identity as emergent > phenomena. It is necessary and sufficient for the existence of a > person that there exist a set of related moments of consciousness. > "Related" normally means that they arise in sequence as a result of > activity in a particular brain, but duplication thought experiments > suggest that a stream of consciousness can survive fragmentation of > the physical substrate. A person gets into teleportation machine A, is > destroyed, and a new person is created at receiving station B who > claims to be the same individual. This is simply a description of what > would happen if the experiment were performed, and "continuity of > personal identity" is a phrase commonly used to describe the > phenomenon. > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: A sequel to my 1996 "ultimate ensemble theory" paper
Max skrev: Hi Folks, After a decade of procrastination, I've finally finished writing up a sequel to that paper that I wrote back in 1996 (Is "the theory of everything'' merely the ultimate ensemble theory?) that's been the subject of so much interesting discussion in this group. It's entitled "The Mathematical Universe", and you'll find it at http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646 and http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe.html - I'd very much appreciate any comments that you may have. I have now read your new paper more carefully, and I have then found one error in it. I the top of page 6 you write: But there is a length scale "1" of special significance in our physical space, namely the Planck length: meter. And there is a time period of special significance, namely the Planck time: . (Source: Wikipedia.) So when you look for the mathematical system that is our universe, you have to look at the mathematical systems that have a special unit length and a special unit time. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
