The subject line is an interesting point of view that deserves some analysis.
A core concept of my digital, uniquely serialized, dollar each with a value of one dollar is that the virtual dollar is static. The dollar does not move in a transaction. Only the owner of each single fixed central dollar record with a value of one dollar changes.
This concept is an extension to the thoughts in recent prior blog entries. However it looks at the concept from a more fundamental view point.
Things in the real world move. It is an essential physical property behavior of every Thing in the ObjectClass:RealThing. We perceive things with this property of behavior called Move. Some things move at a greater rate than others and become more perceived and defined in terms of their movement from place to place by most people.
Things in the virtual world of our minds are our conceptual representations of the real world and conceptual abstractions of things that do not have real world physical substance. Perhaps all we know them by is their behavior. I walk around with the virtual representation of the real and conceptual world not just on my mind but in my mind. I move but it does not. Thoughts my float around in my mind but they are messages from one thing in my mind to another transmitted over connectors.
What if I made a paradigm shift from thoughts racing around in my head from place to place to viewing thoughts as granular thing fragments at the lowest level but structured to higher levels of abstraction that talk to each other by passing messages between them. Sounds like talking to myself!
Bingo! Did I just discover the Object Oriented Paradigm? Or did it just shift to a new paradigm view of it where everything is perceived in a totally different way. Did the face that shifted to a face then shift to another thing that emerged in an instant (instance) of shift?
The new thing I now see?
Virtual conceptual abstract things do not move. Their behavior associstions change based on messages passed between them and the current state of the thing.
For example: Email is a virtual conceptual high level of abstraction thing. "Sending" an email is the perception of going from one place to another which is the common view email. The paradigm shift is that email is a conceptual object that is not sent anywhere. Once created it resides only in my sent file. What the receiver sees is a mirror image and only a mirror image as a function of communication. The email itself never moved. Essentially, an instantaneous view of the email I created was granted to recipient and that snapshot view was captured and retained. In that same instant my email communicated a new state to my email program by state change from draft to sent. It never "went' from my draft to sent file. It never really went anywhere. Virtual objects in a conceptual world never move!
A new way of looking at things but what secret sauce does this paradigm shift bring to the party?
A new system architecture model for an object oriented M2 monetary system. A model where money does not move but the messages that it receives and sends do. It only receives and sends messages with an equally uniquely identified Account that it is associated with. The power of money is therefore conveyed by an action from account to account. That is the "flow theory of money". Money as an object is not conveyed from account to account. Money itself does not flow but the crucial flaw in the system is that we view the virtual object of money as changing hands locked with its conceptual representation. As tightly locked as the binding between a physical paper object dollar bill and its conceptual identity. Paper dollar bills go hand in hand with their conceptual identity from hand to hand of owners. Virtual digital serialized debt free dollars do not move. They have no association with a physical object and therefore are logically detatched from that attribute of physical things. They do not have to move to do what they do because of what they essentially are: Conceptual abstract objects.
Our monetary system is as old school as data processing where movement of processing was first and foremost. Information Age is data processing version 3.0 where Object Orientation dominates Processing Orientation. It is a paradigm shift that the monetary system has yet to make.
Bankster had the object oriented view of money not moving and established the model long ago. The gold stays in their vaults. An account associated with that gold had fractional relationship to it. Never let the gold out of the vault. Gold was the power, not its numerical value association expressed in an account. Now all power of money is invested in the account. The M2 Money account. The only "thing" in the vault is a conceptual representation of money called debt at the macro level.
This is a fact: Savings in all M2 accounts equals National debt (plus or minus some categorical lesser qualifications that do not otherwise make this basic statement false, it is much more true than false).
National Debt is in fact "money in the bank" but not in any bank vault. Money held hostage by the banksters system that put it in the hands of bond holders where it is not M2 money but its "to the dollar" counter part in a different account because money was "moved" from one account to another as a function of a debt/asset "state"change. Like hostage taking in the recent government debt crises where Republican politicians are bankster proxies to a greater extent than the Democrat proxies.
There really is no money "Object" in our monetary system. What we perceive of "money" is only the state of a number in an account in a balance sheet accounting system where the two states are debit and credit and by virtue of the nature of debt on which the system model is based they are always equal.
In the debt free model I propose the total of all debt free M2 monetary units with a value of one in the "virtual vault" equals their associated value as the total of all on hand balances in all Accounts. Money never moves nor does Account. Money and Account only pass messages based on transactions that are a function of the User of money documented by account.
Ultimately all users of the power of the on hand balance of M2 money in their account are also interfacing with a Money record that is a fixed total money consolidation check and balance record that keeps track of who thru account all the money power is associated with.
The Money Model is the debt free serialized dollar each with a value of one. That is the focus of Money Model logic. There is no power in the medium of exchange.
What Money does, the power of money at the disposal of a User Owner, is the focus of the Account Model logic.
Money in the vault is Money.
Money in the bank is an Account.
In the current monetary system there is no money in the vault. The vault is the National Debt. The National Debt must be converted to the National Asset in order to make Money an object to be managed in an Object oriented Model rather than a conditional debt relationship that is the foundation for a Process Oriented Model.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Lavabit - Dark Email--Digital Debt Free money--
This story says Lavabit intends to release its encryption source code as open source. nd using Kickstarter to do it!
"NSA: You will get my encryption key when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"
Where is the NRA mentality protecting our right to privacy.
NSA: You will get access to my finger print protected computer only with my cold dead finger!
A victory for Open Source! Like a weapon everyone owns. Used for better or for worse. The only thing the NSA could do is outlaw its use by private citizen.
The Right to Bear Encryption?
Our Monetary System, the Medium of Exchange we call US Dollars (M2) must be an Open Source system allowing private money systems based on a central source of debt free digital M2 dollars that may be re-branded and services added by anyone that wishes to enter the M2 money accounting market.
The "Dark Email" code would be excellent for money transactions in private money systems.
"NSA: You will get my encryption key when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"
Where is the NRA mentality protecting our right to privacy.
NSA: You will get access to my finger print protected computer only with my cold dead finger!
A victory for Open Source! Like a weapon everyone owns. Used for better or for worse. The only thing the NSA could do is outlaw its use by private citizen.
The Right to Bear Encryption?
Our Monetary System, the Medium of Exchange we call US Dollars (M2) must be an Open Source system allowing private money systems based on a central source of debt free digital M2 dollars that may be re-branded and services added by anyone that wishes to enter the M2 money accounting market.
The "Dark Email" code would be excellent for money transactions in private money systems.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
OSI--MAC -- IP and Digital Money
Open Systems Interconnection Model OSI defined here by Wikipedia. It is a communications system with many layers. Understanding it requires some homework at Wikipedia. Read it and return. If you really want to know all about it then spend years and return. Adequacy is sufficient. Adequacy is the top of climbing a tree to the moon. Beyond that progress is very slow. OSI is a taller tree! Actually the only tree in this forest like the Home Tree in Avatar. We all conceptually live in it. To me it is an object oriented metaphor but that is my orientation to everything.
Media Access Control MAC defined here by Wikipedia.
Internet Protocol IP defined here by Wikipedia
In the previous blog entry I linked to an explanation of the relationship between Mac and IP:
"one can think of IP addressing as supporting the software implementation and MAC addresses as supporting the hardware implementation of the network stack. The MAC address generally remains fixed and follows the network device, but the IP address changes as the network device moves from one network to another"
MAC is the key to all the real physical world, (logical by virtue of nature and natural law) electrical hardware systems of physical electrical structures and processes.
IP is the key to all the conceptual software world, (logic by virtue of human concept creation and definition of conceptual logic law) software systems composed of purely conceptual structures and processes.
Note: Natural world ecologist would probably say that our conceptually created conceptual eco system environment is based on the same logic as the natural world...or should be if we are to ever get it right! True to a great extent. We conceptualize systems from the basis of the natural world ecosystem. However, even within the pureness of the real natural world we apply our own conceptualizations of that real world to confuse it. For example: Electricity does not move. We think of it as physically moving. Only the energy of electricity moves. Perhaps it is just the natural inclination of most people to think in terms of movement as the explanation of an object in terms of what it does rather than what it is. Exactly like the way we view money. The way we conceptualize electricity however does not define what it is, the way we conceptualize money however defines both what it is and what it does. The factor that underlies the progress of computer systems is the separation of the tight binding between the physical and conceptual logic of a thing into two increasingly independent but related domains of related of an objects physical and related conceptual properties.
Perhaps money does not move. That is exactly the foundation core idea of my monetary system architecture. The energy of money moves from account to account. Money is a static thing granting energy to the account that currently "owns" it!!! More on that later.
MAC an IP are what bind together at a joining point the physical and conceptual worlds. Each has their objects with properties and behaviors. MAC and IP is where physical world meets and interacts with conceptual world in the Information System Structure. I initially wrote this using the term "logical" but changed it to "conceptual" which is more precise. The physical world has its own logic locked into what a real physical thing is. So does the conceptual word of computer software program have its own type of "logic" locked into the nature of a what a conceptual thing is. (just a subset language child of a higher class object called Program). Perhaps a small point of clarity but an important one.
MAC is the identifier of a unique instance of a real physical object. Like a serial number on a paper piece of currency called a dollar bill. Like a license plate on a car or a house address that is also associated with street and town. Every computer device on the communication system has one assigned by the manufacturer. Like we all have names given at birth, but perhaps not unique. We can deal with that. Computer hardware and software cannot.
The IP number might be viewed a MAC number that has made a Declaration of Independence! It is a MAC number that said it does not have to be hardwired to another computer device with its own MAC number and told to communicate only with the MAC number of the other machine over the single wire connecting one to the other. A Mac number with an attitude says it can chose any logical route it wants to get to another MAC numbered machine. Freed from the physical chains that determined its strict physical path it became born again as an IP number to get where it wants to go. Its logical abilities were no longer constrained by its tight binding to physical properties and behaviors. It can choose its own best path. A victory for freedom!
In our monetary system money has likewise made its Declaration of Independence of its physical nature from its logical nature. Its logical properties that were once tightly bound to its physical properties were unchained over time. Initially money expanded its power based on logic relationship that remained associated to it prior physical binding to something like gold. Then it declared its independence of binding to any physical thing or an physical restrictions imposed on it limiting the logical power of money. Even the limitations of fractional reserve. A fractional reserve does not have to be existent prior to the creation of money in the form of a loan. The reserve is sought after the loan is created.
Money is debt in our debt based money system. The logical end of a progression of freeing the logic properties of an object from the physical properties to the extent that there exists no connection at all is.....total freedom! In human beings that would be called death....In our computer system technology it is impossible, there must always be an inter relationship association between the real world of physical properties and behaviors working hand in hand with conceptual properties and behaviors to make the system work. Every logical concept must have a physical counterpart with means of implementation in order for the entire system to operate. It is like we could not think if there were no electrical/chemical capacity in our brains to facilitate it, as free as our minds may be to roam.
Debt money is an absence based conceptual structure where, by virtual of absence, presence is created. It has no fundamental connection to anything other than absence which is nothing.
Conceptually the binary basis of computing can be defined as the presence or absence of an electrical charge. However, the physical electrical charge itself is not defined by the presence or absence of an electron but their state of charge, positive or negative. Binary computing is built on what computing is all about, being able to manipulate concepts that are detached but essentially related to realities of states of natural existence presence.
Debt money is creating money out of nothing in an instant as a functional product of a contractual agreement that goes back to nothing over time as the loan is repaid.
Debt free virtual money currency is created by virtue of giving each instance of digital money a unique identity and unit value and associating it to its first ownership account. Money as currency is a static entity. It does not move, flow or change hands. It stays in one place and only the owner account of a unit of money changes. An account is the power of money measured in total units at the disposal of the owner of the account. Once debt free money currency is created and becomes associated with its first account it is born and lives forever. Money itself does not go out of existence until there is no need for it.
We have the technological capacity to design and implement a monetary system like that now. The system model would not be much different conceptually from the Information Age computer system we now have. If we do not do it now then we will have to do it after the dust of monetary collapse settles. If done then we can call the digital debt free dollars Phoenixes. If we still have the technology system we have now to do it.
Media Access Control MAC defined here by Wikipedia.
Internet Protocol IP defined here by Wikipedia
In the previous blog entry I linked to an explanation of the relationship between Mac and IP:
"one can think of IP addressing as supporting the software implementation and MAC addresses as supporting the hardware implementation of the network stack. The MAC address generally remains fixed and follows the network device, but the IP address changes as the network device moves from one network to another"
MAC is the key to all the real physical world, (logical by virtue of nature and natural law) electrical hardware systems of physical electrical structures and processes.
IP is the key to all the conceptual software world, (logic by virtue of human concept creation and definition of conceptual logic law) software systems composed of purely conceptual structures and processes.
Note: Natural world ecologist would probably say that our conceptually created conceptual eco system environment is based on the same logic as the natural world...or should be if we are to ever get it right! True to a great extent. We conceptualize systems from the basis of the natural world ecosystem. However, even within the pureness of the real natural world we apply our own conceptualizations of that real world to confuse it. For example: Electricity does not move. We think of it as physically moving. Only the energy of electricity moves. Perhaps it is just the natural inclination of most people to think in terms of movement as the explanation of an object in terms of what it does rather than what it is. Exactly like the way we view money. The way we conceptualize electricity however does not define what it is, the way we conceptualize money however defines both what it is and what it does. The factor that underlies the progress of computer systems is the separation of the tight binding between the physical and conceptual logic of a thing into two increasingly independent but related domains of related of an objects physical and related conceptual properties.
Perhaps money does not move. That is exactly the foundation core idea of my monetary system architecture. The energy of money moves from account to account. Money is a static thing granting energy to the account that currently "owns" it!!! More on that later.
MAC an IP are what bind together at a joining point the physical and conceptual worlds. Each has their objects with properties and behaviors. MAC and IP is where physical world meets and interacts with conceptual world in the Information System Structure. I initially wrote this using the term "logical" but changed it to "conceptual" which is more precise. The physical world has its own logic locked into what a real physical thing is. So does the conceptual word of computer software program have its own type of "logic" locked into the nature of a what a conceptual thing is. (just a subset language child of a higher class object called Program). Perhaps a small point of clarity but an important one.
MAC is the identifier of a unique instance of a real physical object. Like a serial number on a paper piece of currency called a dollar bill. Like a license plate on a car or a house address that is also associated with street and town. Every computer device on the communication system has one assigned by the manufacturer. Like we all have names given at birth, but perhaps not unique. We can deal with that. Computer hardware and software cannot.
The IP number might be viewed a MAC number that has made a Declaration of Independence! It is a MAC number that said it does not have to be hardwired to another computer device with its own MAC number and told to communicate only with the MAC number of the other machine over the single wire connecting one to the other. A Mac number with an attitude says it can chose any logical route it wants to get to another MAC numbered machine. Freed from the physical chains that determined its strict physical path it became born again as an IP number to get where it wants to go. Its logical abilities were no longer constrained by its tight binding to physical properties and behaviors. It can choose its own best path. A victory for freedom!
In our monetary system money has likewise made its Declaration of Independence of its physical nature from its logical nature. Its logical properties that were once tightly bound to its physical properties were unchained over time. Initially money expanded its power based on logic relationship that remained associated to it prior physical binding to something like gold. Then it declared its independence of binding to any physical thing or an physical restrictions imposed on it limiting the logical power of money. Even the limitations of fractional reserve. A fractional reserve does not have to be existent prior to the creation of money in the form of a loan. The reserve is sought after the loan is created.
Money is debt in our debt based money system. The logical end of a progression of freeing the logic properties of an object from the physical properties to the extent that there exists no connection at all is.....total freedom! In human beings that would be called death....In our computer system technology it is impossible, there must always be an inter relationship association between the real world of physical properties and behaviors working hand in hand with conceptual properties and behaviors to make the system work. Every logical concept must have a physical counterpart with means of implementation in order for the entire system to operate. It is like we could not think if there were no electrical/chemical capacity in our brains to facilitate it, as free as our minds may be to roam.
Debt money is an absence based conceptual structure where, by virtual of absence, presence is created. It has no fundamental connection to anything other than absence which is nothing.
Conceptually the binary basis of computing can be defined as the presence or absence of an electrical charge. However, the physical electrical charge itself is not defined by the presence or absence of an electron but their state of charge, positive or negative. Binary computing is built on what computing is all about, being able to manipulate concepts that are detached but essentially related to realities of states of natural existence presence.
Debt money is creating money out of nothing in an instant as a functional product of a contractual agreement that goes back to nothing over time as the loan is repaid.
Debt free virtual money currency is created by virtue of giving each instance of digital money a unique identity and unit value and associating it to its first ownership account. Money as currency is a static entity. It does not move, flow or change hands. It stays in one place and only the owner account of a unit of money changes. An account is the power of money measured in total units at the disposal of the owner of the account. Once debt free money currency is created and becomes associated with its first account it is born and lives forever. Money itself does not go out of existence until there is no need for it.
We have the technological capacity to design and implement a monetary system like that now. The system model would not be much different conceptually from the Information Age computer system we now have. If we do not do it now then we will have to do it after the dust of monetary collapse settles. If done then we can call the digital debt free dollars Phoenixes. If we still have the technology system we have now to do it.
IP Address And MAC Address And Money
I previously wrote in this blog about IP address here and here and touched on it in several other blog entries.
I previously wrote about MAC addresses in this blog.
Wikipedia explains IP address and it explains MAC address. There are standards that define each protocol. IP protocol here and Mac protocol here.
This explains the relationship between IP and MAC addresses in a computer network.
MAC vs. IP Addressing
Whereas MAC addressing works at the data link layer, IP addressing functions at the network layer (layer 3). It's a slight oversimplification, but one can think of IP addressing as supporting the software implementation and MAC addresses as supporting the hardware implementation of the network stack. The MAC address generally remains fixed and follows the network device, but the IP address changes as the network device moves from one network to another. IP networks maintain a mapping between the IP address of a device and its MAC address. This mapping is known as the ARP cache or ARP table. ARP, the Address Resolution Protocol, supports the logic for obtaining this mapping and keeping the cache up to date.
DHCP also usually relies on MAC addresses to manage the unique assignment of IP addresses to devices.
A computer network system is perhaps the best model upon which to build a monetary system. It is in fact what my model for digital serialized dollars is based on but I have not previously specifically said that in this blog. I have only blogged about various methodologies like object oriented and information structures and functions in the Computer/Information domain.
More exact comparisons between the existing Technology system and the structure of my proposed monetary model can be made to not only explain it in terms of computing technology but to apply the high level architectural design model of computer systems to the monetary system. The more I look at it the more the shoe fits!
The monetary system currently exists on top of the computer system. However the structure and application of the computer model and extension of its rigorous integrated logic to the highest level of the monetary system the logic crashes into a brick wall where the logic of an illogical monetary system begins.
This is why the monetary system is failing: Essentially, the current monetary system uses the computer system only to the extent that it serves the purpose of the monetary system dominated by banks. Beyond that banks must impose their own "System Logic" (which is not logical nor rational) for high level structure and implementation. Computers systems are based on even higher level models like mathematics. Banks are also users of match and stop its logical structure and application at a brick wall to impose their own logic. For example the math logic of geometric progression.
A system designed to fail, will fail. The debt money banking monetary system is failing.
I have attempted in this blog to discover what money is and what money does. The two big questions. My attempt at explanation has been empirical like Darwin looking at nature comprehending its logic and figuring out the rules of evolution that apply the rules to process. The natural system is better organized and integrated from bottom to top and top to bottom than the monetary system! There is no end to try to figure it out. It is simply illogical and must be restructured.
The best model for compete and fundamental restructuring the monetary system right under (or in front of) our noses. Information technology. The same technology the built the hardware and software structure of our computer based Information Systems today.
It is therefore easier for me to comprehend and explain my proposed digital dollar debt free monetary system in terms of the structure of our Information System. It is this same system in which all applications operate. Fundamentally they all operate on and in the same Operating System. The only problem is that the concept of Operating System emerged from narrow definition as applied to computers. However its generic meaning is much broader today to a higher level of information structure today.
We all live in a Yellow Object System! Money must live in that system too, otherwise it is a fungus vampire that feeds upon it by extraction through a system that is not logical, rational in design and therefore destructive and dysfunctional in application.
Why anyone that professes to be a Information Systems Engineer cannot clearly see the obvious failure of the debt money banking system is beyond me. They should be the first and foremost in proclaiming that the king has no clothes.
I am not an information architect. I understand object oriented concepts and the general structure of our information model. I just wander in the woods and occasionally climb a tree to the moon to get some better view and understanding from the top of a tree. I use words and concepts in this blog that I really only have a shallow knowledge of but feel that my intuition tells me are fundamentally correct. Pretty much my same idea of life.
MAC and IP might be the best model to use in order to explain my concepts of serialized digital dollars. They are equivalently the same objects in the information system world.
Money is just information used as a social media decision making tool. It is (should be) just another problem domain round peg that fits the greater and higher level domain in which similar problems find common "look alike" solutions. They "look alike" because they are all Children of the same higher level Parent Class inheriting all the attributes and behavior of that Parent Class.
The highest level Parent Class? It is Logic. Logic existing in a three part relationship of Logic, Language and Structure. Our Information System computer based society is based on this. It is our general purpose problem domain solution tool. One of the last things it will solve is Money.
In conclusion: I will attempt in subsequent blog entries to express my concepts for a debt free monetary system in terms of our broad design and application of modern computer based technology. As usual I will often digress when the fishing is better or at least more interesting elsewhere but always fishing out of the same big ocean where everything is related to what I seek in some way.
I previously wrote about MAC addresses in this blog.
Wikipedia explains IP address and it explains MAC address. There are standards that define each protocol. IP protocol here and Mac protocol here.
This explains the relationship between IP and MAC addresses in a computer network.
MAC vs. IP Addressing
Whereas MAC addressing works at the data link layer, IP addressing functions at the network layer (layer 3). It's a slight oversimplification, but one can think of IP addressing as supporting the software implementation and MAC addresses as supporting the hardware implementation of the network stack. The MAC address generally remains fixed and follows the network device, but the IP address changes as the network device moves from one network to another. IP networks maintain a mapping between the IP address of a device and its MAC address. This mapping is known as the ARP cache or ARP table. ARP, the Address Resolution Protocol, supports the logic for obtaining this mapping and keeping the cache up to date.
DHCP also usually relies on MAC addresses to manage the unique assignment of IP addresses to devices.
A computer network system is perhaps the best model upon which to build a monetary system. It is in fact what my model for digital serialized dollars is based on but I have not previously specifically said that in this blog. I have only blogged about various methodologies like object oriented and information structures and functions in the Computer/Information domain.
More exact comparisons between the existing Technology system and the structure of my proposed monetary model can be made to not only explain it in terms of computing technology but to apply the high level architectural design model of computer systems to the monetary system. The more I look at it the more the shoe fits!
The monetary system currently exists on top of the computer system. However the structure and application of the computer model and extension of its rigorous integrated logic to the highest level of the monetary system the logic crashes into a brick wall where the logic of an illogical monetary system begins.
This is why the monetary system is failing: Essentially, the current monetary system uses the computer system only to the extent that it serves the purpose of the monetary system dominated by banks. Beyond that banks must impose their own "System Logic" (which is not logical nor rational) for high level structure and implementation. Computers systems are based on even higher level models like mathematics. Banks are also users of match and stop its logical structure and application at a brick wall to impose their own logic. For example the math logic of geometric progression.
A system designed to fail, will fail. The debt money banking monetary system is failing.
I have attempted in this blog to discover what money is and what money does. The two big questions. My attempt at explanation has been empirical like Darwin looking at nature comprehending its logic and figuring out the rules of evolution that apply the rules to process. The natural system is better organized and integrated from bottom to top and top to bottom than the monetary system! There is no end to try to figure it out. It is simply illogical and must be restructured.
The best model for compete and fundamental restructuring the monetary system right under (or in front of) our noses. Information technology. The same technology the built the hardware and software structure of our computer based Information Systems today.
It is therefore easier for me to comprehend and explain my proposed digital dollar debt free monetary system in terms of the structure of our Information System. It is this same system in which all applications operate. Fundamentally they all operate on and in the same Operating System. The only problem is that the concept of Operating System emerged from narrow definition as applied to computers. However its generic meaning is much broader today to a higher level of information structure today.
We all live in a Yellow Object System! Money must live in that system too, otherwise it is a fungus vampire that feeds upon it by extraction through a system that is not logical, rational in design and therefore destructive and dysfunctional in application.
Why anyone that professes to be a Information Systems Engineer cannot clearly see the obvious failure of the debt money banking system is beyond me. They should be the first and foremost in proclaiming that the king has no clothes.
I am not an information architect. I understand object oriented concepts and the general structure of our information model. I just wander in the woods and occasionally climb a tree to the moon to get some better view and understanding from the top of a tree. I use words and concepts in this blog that I really only have a shallow knowledge of but feel that my intuition tells me are fundamentally correct. Pretty much my same idea of life.
MAC and IP might be the best model to use in order to explain my concepts of serialized digital dollars. They are equivalently the same objects in the information system world.
Money is just information used as a social media decision making tool. It is (should be) just another problem domain round peg that fits the greater and higher level domain in which similar problems find common "look alike" solutions. They "look alike" because they are all Children of the same higher level Parent Class inheriting all the attributes and behavior of that Parent Class.
The highest level Parent Class? It is Logic. Logic existing in a three part relationship of Logic, Language and Structure. Our Information System computer based society is based on this. It is our general purpose problem domain solution tool. One of the last things it will solve is Money.
In conclusion: I will attempt in subsequent blog entries to express my concepts for a debt free monetary system in terms of our broad design and application of modern computer based technology. As usual I will often digress when the fishing is better or at least more interesting elsewhere but always fishing out of the same big ocean where everything is related to what I seek in some way.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Money, Transaction Accounting the User (buyer/seller) and "Private Money"
Continuing from the prior post which concluded that the model I propose defining what debt free digital money is opens up the door for a multitude of things digital money can do.
All uniquely serialized digital dollars with a value of one exist in a single virtual repository to simplify the model. (sliced and diced physically and virtually for whatever reasons that provide systemic integrity)
There are 10 trillion dollars in the repository. It is the nations digital spending money called US Dollars. The medium of exchange of the USA to buy/sell and use as legal tender for settling debts. Every single dollar is related to a single unique account that currently "owns" it. The registered owner of that account is the owner of each and every unique digital dollar in the repository that is associated with that unique user account identifier.
The National Currency Digital Dollar Repository Custodian is responsible for the custody and security of all Digital Dollars and responsible for the system operations that change account ownership of Digital Dollars held in the Repository . (Delightfully located at Fort Knox) Between the User and their Digital Dollars in the repository is a Account Administrator that provides accounting clearance services necessary for medium of exchange transactions. These services include receiving as a central processing point all transactions from Monetary System Accounting entities and passing up to the Repository all account transaction information necessary to change ownership of Digital Dollars in the Repository. The Account Administrator is also responsible for passing down confirmation to the appropriate Monetary System Accounting entities necessary to update their account on hand balances. The National Money System Account Administrator is the sole government chartered clearing house entity and subject to rules, regulations and operation in accordance with applicable laws. This opens the door for free private enterprise to compete to provide Monetary System Accounting services to Users and reporting account transactions the N. Unless they deal only in paper currency and coins all Users must have a relationship with a Monetary System Accounting entity of their choice that maintains their digital cash accounts with on hand balances and forwards/receives total individual account transaction amounts from the Account Administrator for application to the user account.
Total amount of dollars owned by an account in the Digital Dollar repository always equals the total on hand balance in the account held by a User's Monetary System Accounting Service.
Clearing House attributes and behaviors were examined in a prior blog post here.
All this is Open Source by the way as examined in prior blog post here.
In this model the Monetary System Accounting entity could issue money under its own private label name subject to rules of the Account Administrator (the Fed, or what is left of it since all this is debt free money?). It could do so on a dollar for "dollar name of their choice" similar to the customer reward and loyalty programs that provide for any entity to put their name on a Master Card or Visa. American Express Sucks. Essentially they are US Dollars by a different name associated to value added services of a Monetary System Accounting entity. Because the "base money" is at the Repository all privately branded dollars are freely exchangeable with any other privately branded dollars at par value.
The Monetary System Accounting entity may also provide loan and credit services but those services are subject to contractual agreements with the User Customer and the source of loans is Debt Free Digital Dollars existing in the owning account of the Accounting entity itself. (it is probably money that was previously held in the owning account of an investor with a contractual relationship with the Monetary System Accounting Entity or maybe the personal money of the Accounting entity itself).
Ripple would benefit from this model, so might Apple, Google, Paypal.
Let the market competition begin!
All uniquely serialized digital dollars with a value of one exist in a single virtual repository to simplify the model. (sliced and diced physically and virtually for whatever reasons that provide systemic integrity)
There are 10 trillion dollars in the repository. It is the nations digital spending money called US Dollars. The medium of exchange of the USA to buy/sell and use as legal tender for settling debts. Every single dollar is related to a single unique account that currently "owns" it. The registered owner of that account is the owner of each and every unique digital dollar in the repository that is associated with that unique user account identifier.
The National Currency Digital Dollar Repository Custodian is responsible for the custody and security of all Digital Dollars and responsible for the system operations that change account ownership of Digital Dollars held in the Repository . (Delightfully located at Fort Knox) Between the User and their Digital Dollars in the repository is a Account Administrator that provides accounting clearance services necessary for medium of exchange transactions. These services include receiving as a central processing point all transactions from Monetary System Accounting entities and passing up to the Repository all account transaction information necessary to change ownership of Digital Dollars in the Repository. The Account Administrator is also responsible for passing down confirmation to the appropriate Monetary System Accounting entities necessary to update their account on hand balances. The National Money System Account Administrator is the sole government chartered clearing house entity and subject to rules, regulations and operation in accordance with applicable laws. This opens the door for free private enterprise to compete to provide Monetary System Accounting services to Users and reporting account transactions the N. Unless they deal only in paper currency and coins all Users must have a relationship with a Monetary System Accounting entity of their choice that maintains their digital cash accounts with on hand balances and forwards/receives total individual account transaction amounts from the Account Administrator for application to the user account.
Total amount of dollars owned by an account in the Digital Dollar repository always equals the total on hand balance in the account held by a User's Monetary System Accounting Service.
Clearing House attributes and behaviors were examined in a prior blog post here.
All this is Open Source by the way as examined in prior blog post here.
In this model the Monetary System Accounting entity could issue money under its own private label name subject to rules of the Account Administrator (the Fed, or what is left of it since all this is debt free money?). It could do so on a dollar for "dollar name of their choice" similar to the customer reward and loyalty programs that provide for any entity to put their name on a Master Card or Visa. American Express Sucks. Essentially they are US Dollars by a different name associated to value added services of a Monetary System Accounting entity. Because the "base money" is at the Repository all privately branded dollars are freely exchangeable with any other privately branded dollars at par value.
The Monetary System Accounting entity may also provide loan and credit services but those services are subject to contractual agreements with the User Customer and the source of loans is Debt Free Digital Dollars existing in the owning account of the Accounting entity itself. (it is probably money that was previously held in the owning account of an investor with a contractual relationship with the Monetary System Accounting Entity or maybe the personal money of the Accounting entity itself).
Ripple would benefit from this model, so might Apple, Google, Paypal.
Let the market competition begin!
Serializing all Digital Dollars--One Dollar At A Time--IPv6 Model
I wrote about ipv6 in these blog entries here and here. I have written about serializing digital dollars in a debt free monetary system in most of the posts in this blog.
IPv6 is a numbering scheme that assigns a unique number that is directly related to a unique website address on the internet. Every node of an Internet Protocol (IP) network, such as a computer, router, or network printer, is assigned an IP address that is used to locate and identify the node in communications with other nodes on the network. It replaces IPv4 which which suffered from web exhaustion and did not have enough numbers to satisfy the need of more internet addresses than it could soon handle.
This is what an IPv6 unique web address number looks like as described by Wikipedia:
IPv6 addresses are represented as eight groups of four hexadecimal digits separated by colons, for example 2001:0db8:85a3:0042:1000:8a2e:0370:7334
This numbering scheme can uniquely identify a total number of unique network addresses to the tune of 1 followed by 35 zeroes.
This is 100 trillion: 100,000,000,000,000 or 1 followed by 11 zeroes. A hexadecimal numbering scheme to assign each single dollar with a monetary value of 1 in the total digital dollar universe would be much shorter. How many dollars are there in the current supply of debt money in our monetary system that qualify as US Dollars? I don't know. M1+M2 and maybe M3? M3 is not even reported anymore.
Wikipedia:
In economics, the money supply or money stock, is the total amount of monetary assets available in an economy at a specific time.[1] There are several ways to define "money," but standard measures usually include currency in circulation and demand deposits (depositors' easily accessed assets on the books of financial institutions).[2][3]
Learn all about money and the various M's and money velocity here if you like Economics. You could get lost at that site and never be seen again nor would you ever know which way is up.
M1 is about 1.5 Trillion dollars. M2 is about 10 Trillion dollars. Just for reference GDP is about 15 Trillion and everything we produce per year is also bought (more or less or it would not be produced) so national annual spending is about 15 trillion. National Debt is about 15 trillion. Subtract a few things from national debt that might not really be debt by some measure and it becomes about 10 trillion dollars. Don't ask why, its economics. When the MMT proponents say that National Debt equals National savings, they are about right. Stephanie Kelton would say to the penny.
Bottom line: It takes about 10 Trillion dollars in money supply to run the economic affairs of the country. In my digital serialized dollar object oriented monetary system architecture model it is a piece of cake to uniquely serialize each and every single unit dollar with a value of one. It is equally easy to handle the conversion of total individual transaction amounts (100 dollars from your account spent on gas) to each and every single digital serialized dollar that is "spent". Spent simply meaning that each of your single serialized digital dollar gets a new owner. That however is all transparent to you. You see the total amount paid out of your account.
Every serialized digital dollar is by definition a denominated value of "one". Fractions of "one" are the subject of a sub-system I call "Small Change" which I will not explain here. There is no need to have an attribute for the serialized dollar stating that it is in fact one dollar. If it has a serial number it is one dollar. The only thing that single unique digital dollar in the universe of all 10 trillion dollars needs to know is what unique account identifier it is related to that represents the current owner of that unique dollar. As transactions cause current owner to transfer ownership to new owner, previous owner association goes to history as the last previous owner and date time of transfer added to all previous owners and related chain of sequential dates of transfer to the next previous owner in timeline sequence.
That simple model defining what money is opens a world of possibilities regarding what money does.
That is a whole lot of retained information but that is what yattabytes are for as discussed in my post here
IPv6 is a numbering scheme that assigns a unique number that is directly related to a unique website address on the internet. Every node of an Internet Protocol (IP) network, such as a computer, router, or network printer, is assigned an IP address that is used to locate and identify the node in communications with other nodes on the network. It replaces IPv4 which which suffered from web exhaustion and did not have enough numbers to satisfy the need of more internet addresses than it could soon handle.
This is what an IPv6 unique web address number looks like as described by Wikipedia:
IPv6 addresses are represented as eight groups of four hexadecimal digits separated by colons, for example 2001:0db8:85a3:0042:1000:8a2e:0370:7334
This numbering scheme can uniquely identify a total number of unique network addresses to the tune of 1 followed by 35 zeroes.
This is 100 trillion: 100,000,000,000,000 or 1 followed by 11 zeroes. A hexadecimal numbering scheme to assign each single dollar with a monetary value of 1 in the total digital dollar universe would be much shorter. How many dollars are there in the current supply of debt money in our monetary system that qualify as US Dollars? I don't know. M1+M2 and maybe M3? M3 is not even reported anymore.
Wikipedia:
In economics, the money supply or money stock, is the total amount of monetary assets available in an economy at a specific time.[1] There are several ways to define "money," but standard measures usually include currency in circulation and demand deposits (depositors' easily accessed assets on the books of financial institutions).[2][3]
Learn all about money and the various M's and money velocity here if you like Economics. You could get lost at that site and never be seen again nor would you ever know which way is up.
M1 is about 1.5 Trillion dollars. M2 is about 10 Trillion dollars. Just for reference GDP is about 15 Trillion and everything we produce per year is also bought (more or less or it would not be produced) so national annual spending is about 15 trillion. National Debt is about 15 trillion. Subtract a few things from national debt that might not really be debt by some measure and it becomes about 10 trillion dollars. Don't ask why, its economics. When the MMT proponents say that National Debt equals National savings, they are about right. Stephanie Kelton would say to the penny.
Bottom line: It takes about 10 Trillion dollars in money supply to run the economic affairs of the country. In my digital serialized dollar object oriented monetary system architecture model it is a piece of cake to uniquely serialize each and every single unit dollar with a value of one. It is equally easy to handle the conversion of total individual transaction amounts (100 dollars from your account spent on gas) to each and every single digital serialized dollar that is "spent". Spent simply meaning that each of your single serialized digital dollar gets a new owner. That however is all transparent to you. You see the total amount paid out of your account.
Every serialized digital dollar is by definition a denominated value of "one". Fractions of "one" are the subject of a sub-system I call "Small Change" which I will not explain here. There is no need to have an attribute for the serialized dollar stating that it is in fact one dollar. If it has a serial number it is one dollar. The only thing that single unique digital dollar in the universe of all 10 trillion dollars needs to know is what unique account identifier it is related to that represents the current owner of that unique dollar. As transactions cause current owner to transfer ownership to new owner, previous owner association goes to history as the last previous owner and date time of transfer added to all previous owners and related chain of sequential dates of transfer to the next previous owner in timeline sequence.
That simple model defining what money is opens a world of possibilities regarding what money does.
That is a whole lot of retained information but that is what yattabytes are for as discussed in my post here
Monday, October 28, 2013
Things Don't Move In a Virtual World
Virtual dollars are things in an object oriented virtual world. Things in a virtual world do not move. A simple statement but probably hard to grasp since in the physical world we are conditioned to things moving......Unless we perceive the world as revolving around us. But that perception moves the real world to a virtual word where that condition is possible to be believed.
Dollars move hand to hand. Yes, in the physical world but in the object oriented digital domain, money is a thing and it does not move because things do not move in a virtual world.
What moves in a virtual world? Messages between objects. Messages are passed from one object to another object causing objects to do something that they know how to do; their behavior.
For example: Many people do not "go" to work in the morning now. They do not move from one place to another to go to work. They remain in one place receive messages, do something in response to them and return messages or pass messages on to others for them to do something and ultimately return some message to the originator to complete the message action requirement communication. Maybe just "Done" or "Here is what you wanted".
Many used to go to work in a car. Now they turn on their computer and never go beyond the breakfast table. However, we will always call it "going to work" even when we go nowhere to do it in the real world but can roam the virtual world at will.
The same with money. Virtual digital serialized dollars each with a unit value of one in the object oriented model I propose never "go" from hand to hand even although they are "exchanged". That is physical world thinking. Even in the green eyeshade world of accounting numbers representing money were "moved" from one account to another in balance sheet accounting and "cash flow" accounting.
We are historically conditioned to think of money as "moving". In general, most people are "moving" oriented. The action a thing does is forefront in viewpoint the thing that moves is secondary. Fewer people structure their perceptions primarily on the thing and its actions are secondary because they can be multiple. Some are ditch diggers. Others look at the problem domain of things called holes, various things that know how to dig holes then might focus on a shovel and tell someone to hire a ditch digger that is just another thing with knowledge to apply to the problem. Things do things but focusing on higher level things to get some thing done in the end takes more object orientation that process orientation.
At the highest object level of virtual money it does not move. It does move things in the end in the physical world but money does not physically move to do it.
To emphasize this virtual static nature of money my model dictates that it always stay in one place and instead of moving from account to account, the account related to money ownership moves from old owner of money to new owner of money. It changed the account it relates to on a single unit serialized one virtual dollar basis.
That emphasis on money being a static record and the account with which it is associated through a look up table being a variable record is just an attempt to shift a traditional perception of money moving. Actually, neither money not account move although they may be perceived as one being fixed the other variable, depending on which one is the chosen point of view. The "money moving" view of green eyeshade accounting was perpetuated when manual accounting was mechanized by IBM cards. Then data was moved to mag tape, then disk, then to disc, and data "processing" focused on doing something with action oriented words evolved to focusing on things, their inherited attributes and behaviors and asking the thing to do something it knows how to do not telling it specifically what to do.
Digital accounts with on hand digital money balances do not move any more than Digital money moves in my object oriented monetary system. Each is a high level thing passing messages to the other high level thing (and other things) causing the message receiver to do something.
We send email. Everybody does. We think of it in the same manner as sending a snail mail letter, just quicker. We can even attach things to it to send. A convenient historically derived perception but a handicap in thinking if we wanted to really understand the nature of email for some reason.
We really need to understand the nature of money but are so conditioned to the idea of money "moving" that we are not only handicapped but the structural money system design that saddles us today was built on a "money moves" model. A model to benefit the movers of money.
What is the nature of "sending email" when the email does not really move? The physical email is sent with a sender/receiver address like a letter in the post office or a package in UPS. The virtual conceptual content does not go anywhere. It was translated in sequential steps to something that could leap that could leap into physical existence and then leap more physical bounds in a real world by decomposition to ultimately wave length and presence/absence binary digits to be reconstructed up the long chain of physical processes to something that could leap the bounds from physical to logical to crease in our minds some facsimile (exact or close) of where it originally came from. That is the story of the evolution of computing technology. The separation of the physical and logical representation of a thing.
Maybe peak computing technology as a tool that we use is reached when there is total data and processing of data independence? I have to think about that.
Email sent never moves. It remains in the sent file. A mirror image of it shows up somewhere because we have created a "mirror" to send it. We might delete the email by default or choose when to delete it. However the mirror image remains at the intended reception point or via an interception at an unintended interception point. Like the NSA where the mirror image will continue to exist by default until deleted by design.
Money in my model is the same. Once created it continues to exist at the micro level of a serial number and unit value of one in the virtual place it was created. It never changes where it lives, it virtually never moves. Its virtual properties never change, like the physical properties of gold never change. It never goes out of existence, at least until we no longer need a concept of money.
While money never changes at the micro granular level. Money as an on hand balance in Owner/Holder User Accounts do not virtually move at the macro level. There will always be an exact equal balance mirror image between total aggregate virtual money in the Money Record and the the total of all on hand balances as the sum total of Money Account Owner/Holder User records. At the single user account level, on hand balance can be added or deleted at the discretion of the authorized account user or authority to which the user is subject. That money does not really move either. Just like email does not move. However, unlike email, when the message is sent authorizing a new owner of money as the function of a transaction the mirror image of the related amount appears in the receiver account but must be deleted from the sender's (email) account by assignment to history.
The golden rule is that a digital serialized dollar in a unit value of one existing in the virtual record of all digital dollars cannot be associated to more than one current owner user money account at any given time. Any entity authorized to own money in an account and therefore use it as a medium of exchange with other account holders may have any number of accounts in which they wish to hold money.
Entities authorized to have accounts in which to transact business with digital dollar US currency as a medium of exchange must be identified as authorized users of the monetary system regardless of how many accounts they wish to have.
Maintenance of money system user accounts (system administrators) must be authorized to do so as third parties and may be chosen by Account users on a free market basis. It is probable that third parties selected to maintain account balances would be selected on "value services added" criteria.
There is an option here that Account owner/holder user may or must have a direct ability to change ownership of money in the Digital Dollar Record from them to a new owner of dollars in the Digital Dollar record. This then might be the Master Account identifier to which all subsidiary accounts of an entity might be related.
Money does not move. Accounts do not move. They are two high level class things in an object oriented system. They are things that only pass messages to each other and among the children of their class and other classes of object things in the object oriented system that invoke doing what they are designed as virtual things to do.
Dollars move hand to hand. Yes, in the physical world but in the object oriented digital domain, money is a thing and it does not move because things do not move in a virtual world.
What moves in a virtual world? Messages between objects. Messages are passed from one object to another object causing objects to do something that they know how to do; their behavior.
For example: Many people do not "go" to work in the morning now. They do not move from one place to another to go to work. They remain in one place receive messages, do something in response to them and return messages or pass messages on to others for them to do something and ultimately return some message to the originator to complete the message action requirement communication. Maybe just "Done" or "Here is what you wanted".
Many used to go to work in a car. Now they turn on their computer and never go beyond the breakfast table. However, we will always call it "going to work" even when we go nowhere to do it in the real world but can roam the virtual world at will.
The same with money. Virtual digital serialized dollars each with a unit value of one in the object oriented model I propose never "go" from hand to hand even although they are "exchanged". That is physical world thinking. Even in the green eyeshade world of accounting numbers representing money were "moved" from one account to another in balance sheet accounting and "cash flow" accounting.
We are historically conditioned to think of money as "moving". In general, most people are "moving" oriented. The action a thing does is forefront in viewpoint the thing that moves is secondary. Fewer people structure their perceptions primarily on the thing and its actions are secondary because they can be multiple. Some are ditch diggers. Others look at the problem domain of things called holes, various things that know how to dig holes then might focus on a shovel and tell someone to hire a ditch digger that is just another thing with knowledge to apply to the problem. Things do things but focusing on higher level things to get some thing done in the end takes more object orientation that process orientation.
At the highest object level of virtual money it does not move. It does move things in the end in the physical world but money does not physically move to do it.
To emphasize this virtual static nature of money my model dictates that it always stay in one place and instead of moving from account to account, the account related to money ownership moves from old owner of money to new owner of money. It changed the account it relates to on a single unit serialized one virtual dollar basis.
That emphasis on money being a static record and the account with which it is associated through a look up table being a variable record is just an attempt to shift a traditional perception of money moving. Actually, neither money not account move although they may be perceived as one being fixed the other variable, depending on which one is the chosen point of view. The "money moving" view of green eyeshade accounting was perpetuated when manual accounting was mechanized by IBM cards. Then data was moved to mag tape, then disk, then to disc, and data "processing" focused on doing something with action oriented words evolved to focusing on things, their inherited attributes and behaviors and asking the thing to do something it knows how to do not telling it specifically what to do.
Digital accounts with on hand digital money balances do not move any more than Digital money moves in my object oriented monetary system. Each is a high level thing passing messages to the other high level thing (and other things) causing the message receiver to do something.
We send email. Everybody does. We think of it in the same manner as sending a snail mail letter, just quicker. We can even attach things to it to send. A convenient historically derived perception but a handicap in thinking if we wanted to really understand the nature of email for some reason.
We really need to understand the nature of money but are so conditioned to the idea of money "moving" that we are not only handicapped but the structural money system design that saddles us today was built on a "money moves" model. A model to benefit the movers of money.
What is the nature of "sending email" when the email does not really move? The physical email is sent with a sender/receiver address like a letter in the post office or a package in UPS. The virtual conceptual content does not go anywhere. It was translated in sequential steps to something that could leap that could leap into physical existence and then leap more physical bounds in a real world by decomposition to ultimately wave length and presence/absence binary digits to be reconstructed up the long chain of physical processes to something that could leap the bounds from physical to logical to crease in our minds some facsimile (exact or close) of where it originally came from. That is the story of the evolution of computing technology. The separation of the physical and logical representation of a thing.
Maybe peak computing technology as a tool that we use is reached when there is total data and processing of data independence? I have to think about that.
Email sent never moves. It remains in the sent file. A mirror image of it shows up somewhere because we have created a "mirror" to send it. We might delete the email by default or choose when to delete it. However the mirror image remains at the intended reception point or via an interception at an unintended interception point. Like the NSA where the mirror image will continue to exist by default until deleted by design.
Money in my model is the same. Once created it continues to exist at the micro level of a serial number and unit value of one in the virtual place it was created. It never changes where it lives, it virtually never moves. Its virtual properties never change, like the physical properties of gold never change. It never goes out of existence, at least until we no longer need a concept of money.
While money never changes at the micro granular level. Money as an on hand balance in Owner/Holder User Accounts do not virtually move at the macro level. There will always be an exact equal balance mirror image between total aggregate virtual money in the Money Record and the the total of all on hand balances as the sum total of Money Account Owner/Holder User records. At the single user account level, on hand balance can be added or deleted at the discretion of the authorized account user or authority to which the user is subject. That money does not really move either. Just like email does not move. However, unlike email, when the message is sent authorizing a new owner of money as the function of a transaction the mirror image of the related amount appears in the receiver account but must be deleted from the sender's (email) account by assignment to history.
The golden rule is that a digital serialized dollar in a unit value of one existing in the virtual record of all digital dollars cannot be associated to more than one current owner user money account at any given time. Any entity authorized to own money in an account and therefore use it as a medium of exchange with other account holders may have any number of accounts in which they wish to hold money.
Entities authorized to have accounts in which to transact business with digital dollar US currency as a medium of exchange must be identified as authorized users of the monetary system regardless of how many accounts they wish to have.
Maintenance of money system user accounts (system administrators) must be authorized to do so as third parties and may be chosen by Account users on a free market basis. It is probable that third parties selected to maintain account balances would be selected on "value services added" criteria.
There is an option here that Account owner/holder user may or must have a direct ability to change ownership of money in the Digital Dollar Record from them to a new owner of dollars in the Digital Dollar record. This then might be the Master Account identifier to which all subsidiary accounts of an entity might be related.
Money does not move. Accounts do not move. They are two high level class things in an object oriented system. They are things that only pass messages to each other and among the children of their class and other classes of object things in the object oriented system that invoke doing what they are designed as virtual things to do.
Core Concept of Uniquely Serialized Digital Dollars Each With A Value Of One
A core concept in my object oriented model of virtual digital money is that there are only two virtual places where digital dollars "reside" to the extent that their presence or absence can be found there. The term "There" being the virtual abode of money. "Money" being our designated coin of the realm: US dollar currency medium of exchange in digital form. Money exists in these two places and only in these two places. It cannot and therefore does not exist outside of these two places. That narrows down the parameter of the virtual world of money. Everything that follows is in the domain of the virtual world of digital stuff.
This is a Sidebar.... VirtualWorld:Meme:Joke: "Money is hard to find". (Laugh mode on). Get the joke? It is not hard to find. Money is only to be found in two possible places and no other than two possible places.
1. A digital dollar virtual record.
2. A digital dollar account virtual record.
The two records are always in balance. The total of all dollars in one is equal to the total of all dollars in the other. The digital dollar record however records each record instance of a dollar a single dollar. The digital dollar account record records dollar value as an single total number of dollars in any single uniquely identified digital dollar account record. Every account record is associated with an owner/holder.
There are only two outcomes of finding money in either one of these two virtual places:
1. Numerically there (present) greater than zero.
2. Numerically there equal to zero (not present).
These outcomes relate to the digital dollar record and the digital dollar account record as follows:
Digital Dollar Record: By definition, the digital dollar record is a uniquely serialized digital dollar each with a value of one dollar. If there are 10 trillion records in the the total digital dollar domain then their total aggregate dollar value is 10 trillion dollars. If serial numbers are assigned sequentially then the range of serial numbers on these dollars is from 1 to 10 trillion.
If; every dollar in the domain must have a unit value of one and serial number.
Then; it exists and is money and is always found. A dollar with any unit value
other than one is not possible, it does not exist in the digital dollar domain. It
would be a zero or negative number value dollar which is a system error, it is not
allowed.
Digital Dollar Account Record: By definition this record is always associated with an account "holder/owner". It records the total amount of digital dollars in the account expressed as a total on hand balance. The total on hand balance in the owner's digital dollar account record is always equal to the sum of all associated digital dollars in the digital dollar record each with a value of one digital dollar.
Note: Association of on hand balance of dollars in the account to each of unique unit dollar in the digital dollar record is done by a look up table that always knows the identity of every serialized digital dollar in the dollar record associated to a unique digital dollar owning/holding account.
Money found present as a total in an account record is always to be found in equal amount as the sum of all account associated serialized dollars in the Digital Dollar Record.
Money is easy to find. However, an account can exist if it has a zero balance unlike a digital dollar which does not exist unless it has a positive value of one and a unique identity serial number.
Money is always found in the Digital Dollar Record. It may or may not be found as a positive on hand value in the Owner/Holder Account Record. In that case all that was found out was that there is no money in the account. A negative on hand value in the account record is a system "not allowed" condition.
Accounting records expressing negative values in terms of dollars are not currency accounts. They are contractual accounts recording debt obligation terms and conditions that may be settled in currency or dollar value equivalent. Those records relate to balance sheet account concepts of debt expressed in dollar terms but have no relation to currency except that currency may be accepted as settlement.
The object oriented digital dollar system model I propose is a debt free monetary system. A system that deals in money as debt is a contractual type of debt obligation system independent of money. The essence of money as a currency is not related to that system other than it is something that money does, not what money is.
This is a Sidebar.... VirtualWorld:Meme:Joke: "Money is hard to find". (Laugh mode on). Get the joke? It is not hard to find. Money is only to be found in two possible places and no other than two possible places.
1. A digital dollar virtual record.
2. A digital dollar account virtual record.
The two records are always in balance. The total of all dollars in one is equal to the total of all dollars in the other. The digital dollar record however records each record instance of a dollar a single dollar. The digital dollar account record records dollar value as an single total number of dollars in any single uniquely identified digital dollar account record. Every account record is associated with an owner/holder.
There are only two outcomes of finding money in either one of these two virtual places:
1. Numerically there (present) greater than zero.
2. Numerically there equal to zero (not present).
These outcomes relate to the digital dollar record and the digital dollar account record as follows:
Digital Dollar Record: By definition, the digital dollar record is a uniquely serialized digital dollar each with a value of one dollar. If there are 10 trillion records in the the total digital dollar domain then their total aggregate dollar value is 10 trillion dollars. If serial numbers are assigned sequentially then the range of serial numbers on these dollars is from 1 to 10 trillion.
If; every dollar in the domain must have a unit value of one and serial number.
Then; it exists and is money and is always found. A dollar with any unit value
other than one is not possible, it does not exist in the digital dollar domain. It
would be a zero or negative number value dollar which is a system error, it is not
allowed.
Digital Dollar Account Record: By definition this record is always associated with an account "holder/owner". It records the total amount of digital dollars in the account expressed as a total on hand balance. The total on hand balance in the owner's digital dollar account record is always equal to the sum of all associated digital dollars in the digital dollar record each with a value of one digital dollar.
Note: Association of on hand balance of dollars in the account to each of unique unit dollar in the digital dollar record is done by a look up table that always knows the identity of every serialized digital dollar in the dollar record associated to a unique digital dollar owning/holding account.
Money found present as a total in an account record is always to be found in equal amount as the sum of all account associated serialized dollars in the Digital Dollar Record.
Money is easy to find. However, an account can exist if it has a zero balance unlike a digital dollar which does not exist unless it has a positive value of one and a unique identity serial number.
Money is always found in the Digital Dollar Record. It may or may not be found as a positive on hand value in the Owner/Holder Account Record. In that case all that was found out was that there is no money in the account. A negative on hand value in the account record is a system "not allowed" condition.
Accounting records expressing negative values in terms of dollars are not currency accounts. They are contractual accounts recording debt obligation terms and conditions that may be settled in currency or dollar value equivalent. Those records relate to balance sheet account concepts of debt expressed in dollar terms but have no relation to currency except that currency may be accepted as settlement.
The object oriented digital dollar system model I propose is a debt free monetary system. A system that deals in money as debt is a contractual type of debt obligation system independent of money. The essence of money as a currency is not related to that system other than it is something that money does, not what money is.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
War! What Is It Good For? Profit And Power
I salute William Astore for his outstanding comments presented as the title of this blog entry and I salute Tom Engelhardt for publishing them at his blog, TomDispatch.com
Truer words are rarely spoken nor spoken so well that they all connect so accurately to present a true description of exactly what the title is all about.
This I believe too.
War! What Is It Good For? Profit And Power
Tom's introductory comments and William Astores "The Business of America Is War Disaster Capitalism on the Battlefield and in the Boardroom"
William Astore, a TomDispatch regular, is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He edits the blog contraryperspective.com
"Karl Marx, who admired Clausewitz, notably for his idea that combat is to war what a cash payment is to commerce. However seldom combat (or such payments) may happen, they are the culmination and so the ultimate arbiters of the process.
War, in other words, is settled by killing, a bloody transaction that echoes the exploitative exchanges of capitalism. Marx found this idea to be both suggestive and pregnant with meaning. So should we all.
Following Marx, Americans ought to think about war not just as an extreme exercise of politics, but also as a continuation of exploitative commerce by other means. Combat as commerce: there’s more in that than simple alliteration."
My comment: War and Commerce: Each settled at the most granular unit level. Each and every death. Each and every dollar.
Andrew Bachevicz, another Officer I respect immensely writes here at TomDispatch
The rest of my thoughts on this this go off into a never-never land of analogy that seemed to have a thread of logic when I started out to say a few things about the logic that got lost beyond at the top of the tree I climbed and was last seen flying off into the distance at an unknown course and speed.
I will leave it as is maybe what it was supposed to convey will come to me later!??
Consistent with my model object oriented monetary system structure for digital money at the most granular level as described in various entries to this blog: Every dollar has a value of one. Each single dollar has a unique serialized identity. Just like every soldier has a value of one individual and one serialized identity.
The soldier is a weaponized citizen.
Debt money is weaponized money. It is leverage to great destructive power.
Truer words are rarely spoken nor spoken so well that they all connect so accurately to present a true description of exactly what the title is all about.
This I believe too.
War! What Is It Good For? Profit And Power
Tom's introductory comments and William Astores "The Business of America Is War Disaster Capitalism on the Battlefield and in the Boardroom"
William Astore, a TomDispatch regular, is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He edits the blog contraryperspective.com
"Karl Marx, who admired Clausewitz, notably for his idea that combat is to war what a cash payment is to commerce. However seldom combat (or such payments) may happen, they are the culmination and so the ultimate arbiters of the process.
War, in other words, is settled by killing, a bloody transaction that echoes the exploitative exchanges of capitalism. Marx found this idea to be both suggestive and pregnant with meaning. So should we all.
Following Marx, Americans ought to think about war not just as an extreme exercise of politics, but also as a continuation of exploitative commerce by other means. Combat as commerce: there’s more in that than simple alliteration."
My comment: War and Commerce: Each settled at the most granular unit level. Each and every death. Each and every dollar.
Andrew Bachevicz, another Officer I respect immensely writes here at TomDispatch
The rest of my thoughts on this this go off into a never-never land of analogy that seemed to have a thread of logic when I started out to say a few things about the logic that got lost beyond at the top of the tree I climbed and was last seen flying off into the distance at an unknown course and speed.
I will leave it as is maybe what it was supposed to convey will come to me later!??
Consistent with my model object oriented monetary system structure for digital money at the most granular level as described in various entries to this blog: Every dollar has a value of one. Each single dollar has a unique serialized identity. Just like every soldier has a value of one individual and one serialized identity.
The soldier is a weaponized citizen.
Debt money is weaponized money. It is leverage to great destructive power.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Framing Love
I found a great place to start. Any point of entry to the problem domain will do. I like this one:
Simple Words: Thinking About What Really Matters in Life by Adin Steinsaltz
There are extensive portions of the book here.
You can see that the link lands on the page that contained my google search term "Object Oriented Love" I had expected to find something written by a total object oriented nerd that writes their dreams in code using object oriented language and lives their life in a total world where everything is as an oriented design structure from the top down to the bottom and up again to validate itself.
Not many living purely in that world but we all do to some extent so it is not so hard to conceive. It is just necessary to know and apply the object oriented language of that world. Learning a new language is hard but when the language encapsulates highly defined structure to organize structure then when you start to "think" in an an object oriented language everything fits neatly, no matter what is being thought about.
There is a semantic ambiguity problem in the term "Object Oriented Love" as I have used it. Maybe a subtle one but clarifying the subtleties is a disambiguation. Maybe explained by the story of the fish in the "Simple Words" link. As I apply Object Orientation it is the subject methodology view and approach to Love, not the Object of Love in a Subject/Object structure.
I have always used Object Oriented as the term of choice to define the methodology. "Subject Oriented" would be better and is in fact used by Wikipedia here. Is that simply a less ambiguous philosophical way of looking at the same concept that happens to be popularly known as "Object Oriented"
Gotta Frame it right to get it right!
Maybe "Subject Oriented" is really "Object Oriented version 2.0"
I should take this view back to Money and see if the problem domain takes on a different aspect.
Aspect Oriented Design and Programming?
Time to go somewhere else and think about other things!
Simple Words: Thinking About What Really Matters in Life by Adin Steinsaltz
There are extensive portions of the book here.
You can see that the link lands on the page that contained my google search term "Object Oriented Love" I had expected to find something written by a total object oriented nerd that writes their dreams in code using object oriented language and lives their life in a total world where everything is as an oriented design structure from the top down to the bottom and up again to validate itself.
Not many living purely in that world but we all do to some extent so it is not so hard to conceive. It is just necessary to know and apply the object oriented language of that world. Learning a new language is hard but when the language encapsulates highly defined structure to organize structure then when you start to "think" in an an object oriented language everything fits neatly, no matter what is being thought about.
There is a semantic ambiguity problem in the term "Object Oriented Love" as I have used it. Maybe a subtle one but clarifying the subtleties is a disambiguation. Maybe explained by the story of the fish in the "Simple Words" link. As I apply Object Orientation it is the subject methodology view and approach to Love, not the Object of Love in a Subject/Object structure.
I have always used Object Oriented as the term of choice to define the methodology. "Subject Oriented" would be better and is in fact used by Wikipedia here. Is that simply a less ambiguous philosophical way of looking at the same concept that happens to be popularly known as "Object Oriented"
Gotta Frame it right to get it right!
Maybe "Subject Oriented" is really "Object Oriented version 2.0"
I should take this view back to Money and see if the problem domain takes on a different aspect.
Aspect Oriented Design and Programming?
Time to go somewhere else and think about other things!
Object Oriented Love
I seek simple words to express simple fundamental conceptual models for high level problem domains.....like Money. That quest for for pervasive simplicity to organize complexity finds a method in the Object Oriented Paradigm. The link is to explanation that was on the first page of a google search on the "in qoutes" term. There were many more google hits expressed in different ways but all dealing with the essence of the paradigm. Note that the link I picked does not contain single line of code but nevertheless it is programming. Programming at a high level that discovers basic structure that may, much farther down the line turn into a million lines of code. I really can't go very far down that line but I can make a good "climbing a tree to the moon start with the focus on the problem domain of Money.
Object Oriented approach is universal. It is embedded in our Natural Language. It is itself a language but a more structured a step beyond Natural Language language that reduces ambiguity (like the language of law or medicine). I think that it was born of the need to bridge the gap between programming lines of code and the purpose of the program code expressed in a natural language mission objective. Maybe the gap began to widen with the first line of code was written to express a refined natural language narrative conceptual idea like one thing and another thing are two things. 1+1=2. In the information age when every single thing has its own attributes and behaviors in relationship to communication with all other things it becomes more complicated. Just the operating system alone necessary to program what a computing machine does requires millions of lines of code.
Our brains are our own personal computers with millions of lines of code relating the attributes and behaviors of the conceptually represented things in our heads. Somehow we fill in the big gap between all those lines of code and the meaning of higher level conceptual structures they generate, or were they generated by the higher level structures? Works both ways I suppose. It works well but ambiguity is still there, we just continue to reduce it with better ways to bridge the gap between the high level concept at the top and the lines of source code that support it at the bottom.
Decompose or "top down break down" starts with a complex entity at the top, like an animal and breaks it down to its parts. Conceptually it does that in biological terms or physically in terms of decay.
Assembly or "bottom up putting together" starts with all the piece parts at the chosen "bottom" level and builds up to a complex entity at the top. Like and animal or Money. "Bottom level" is an arbitrarily chosen granular level since all "things" physical or conceptual go to a bottom granular level that we have not found conceptually or physically. The lowest level we go conceptually is the lowest level of granular reality which seems to be the presence/absence of a thing and the concept that a thing can conceptually be present by virtual of its absence. Beyond that is all metaphysical world where there is probably big bang theory too but going there is a matter of faith. The lowest granular level of the real or conceptually world structure is far enough for me.
The "gap' between the top and bottom is something we have been filling in with structure since the world began. Creating an abstract model of a real world and an abstract model of the conceptual world. In our heads and increasingly with the tools we use to assist us in the work of filling the gap: Language.
So: What's Love got to do with it?
Simple: It is a top level concept full of ambiguity, almost analogous to Money. Difficult to understand. Object Oriented Analysis cuts the ambiguity and structures the gap between the top and the bottom. Thinking about an ambiguous thing like money was an exercise to tackle an even more ambiguous problem domain.
This was not a simple blog entry yet it strove to make the complex manageable. Managing complexity is not a simple thing?
The next blog will attempt to manage it better by discovering the object properties and its behaviors.
Object Oriented approach is universal. It is embedded in our Natural Language. It is itself a language but a more structured a step beyond Natural Language language that reduces ambiguity (like the language of law or medicine). I think that it was born of the need to bridge the gap between programming lines of code and the purpose of the program code expressed in a natural language mission objective. Maybe the gap began to widen with the first line of code was written to express a refined natural language narrative conceptual idea like one thing and another thing are two things. 1+1=2. In the information age when every single thing has its own attributes and behaviors in relationship to communication with all other things it becomes more complicated. Just the operating system alone necessary to program what a computing machine does requires millions of lines of code.
Our brains are our own personal computers with millions of lines of code relating the attributes and behaviors of the conceptually represented things in our heads. Somehow we fill in the big gap between all those lines of code and the meaning of higher level conceptual structures they generate, or were they generated by the higher level structures? Works both ways I suppose. It works well but ambiguity is still there, we just continue to reduce it with better ways to bridge the gap between the high level concept at the top and the lines of source code that support it at the bottom.
Decompose or "top down break down" starts with a complex entity at the top, like an animal and breaks it down to its parts. Conceptually it does that in biological terms or physically in terms of decay.
Assembly or "bottom up putting together" starts with all the piece parts at the chosen "bottom" level and builds up to a complex entity at the top. Like and animal or Money. "Bottom level" is an arbitrarily chosen granular level since all "things" physical or conceptual go to a bottom granular level that we have not found conceptually or physically. The lowest level we go conceptually is the lowest level of granular reality which seems to be the presence/absence of a thing and the concept that a thing can conceptually be present by virtual of its absence. Beyond that is all metaphysical world where there is probably big bang theory too but going there is a matter of faith. The lowest granular level of the real or conceptually world structure is far enough for me.
The "gap' between the top and bottom is something we have been filling in with structure since the world began. Creating an abstract model of a real world and an abstract model of the conceptual world. In our heads and increasingly with the tools we use to assist us in the work of filling the gap: Language.
So: What's Love got to do with it?
Simple: It is a top level concept full of ambiguity, almost analogous to Money. Difficult to understand. Object Oriented Analysis cuts the ambiguity and structures the gap between the top and the bottom. Thinking about an ambiguous thing like money was an exercise to tackle an even more ambiguous problem domain.
This was not a simple blog entry yet it strove to make the complex manageable. Managing complexity is not a simple thing?
The next blog will attempt to manage it better by discovering the object properties and its behaviors.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Spying on Safeway Shoppers
Spying: Information Gathering. Covert or Overt? Either one or both.
It is Overt (the process can be known to anyone (if they wish to find out) as well as the objects involved and instances of those objects (inputs and outputs).......
If:
Person being spied upon has allowed information gathering by default
Because:
Person did not opt out of information gathering
And:
Person had the opportunity to do so
And:
Person was informed of this opportunity
But:
Person did take opportunity offered (for any reason)
Then:
Overt personal information gathering is OK and use is allowed in accordance
any privacy laws and Information Gathering Entity policy not prohibited by law.
Analysis: What we don't care to know about nor take an action to change our assigned state of default because someone convinces us it is good (trust us, save money) can potentially bite us...... by default.
Affinion practices a default mode "Loyalty) business model. They use that model for illegal gain. Other "Loyalty" model programs are legit but it is very interesting to find out exactly what they are getting in return for our loyalty and how they are getting and using it.
Safeway runs a "Loyalty Model Program" that is legit, I think. It saves me money at the checkout and every time I check out the clerk tells me how much money I saved and calls me "mister".
Interesting to examine what Safeway gets out of the exchange.
There are several keys to what information Safeway has access to. One of them is the Mac code of my iPhone and the Safeway App I use to shop for deals that save me money at Safeway. It is an extension of their Safeway Shoppers Card. When I look at the App I see a very slick idea with sly implementation.
Recently I blogged about Tile. It uses Near Field Communication to discover and report location. NFC completes the technological communications ecosystem. An ecosystem that was initially created to address a communication problem domain of speed over distance in an evolutionary development of speed increase and distance decrease. Technologically it has gotten to the same fundamental speed/distance point we humans have always been with our language: Up close real time and personal. You talkin' to Me? However, in the case of technology it is our devices, those devices increasingly identified to us alone and uniquely that are doing the talking in a near field with connections through Bluetooth and Wifi and cellular to the wider world of internet communications. It is a "virtual distance world" in which distance is measured more in hops of the length of each radio wave component from the near field to the far field or far field by hard wire digital transmission. We did it with sound waves, technology does it with a different wave frequency for wireless communication.
NFC is "the last mile" in the communication ecosystem.
This talks about the whole concept and is, I think what Safeway is doing with it: How stores use your phone’s WiFi to track your shopping habits.
I went to the Safeway App on my iPhone and read the privacy statement. Very interesting as well as revealing in the context of the description at the link explaining how it all works in the back ground we are not aware of.
Tracking is a whole new growth industry. Maybe a good investment? Maybe like investing in needles when heroin use is growing rapidly?
I am going to do some investigation at my local Safeway and discover what kind of communications I am transmitting and how they are being used.
Spy vs Spy at my favorite local super market!
Spying: What fun!
Tracking shopping and data mining story here.
When I opened the App with my cell phone connection turned off it wanted me to connect to cell or wifi.
Several days later: I walked around the interior perimeter and up the center of my local Safeway store today and the Wifi bars were at full strength everywhere. Obviously providing the capability to triangulate in rel time and follow shopping paths as well as pauses. One of the places I paused for a couple minutes was check out where I input my telephone number to get my savings discount as well as my credit card to pay. How hard is that to match up and data mine?
Must be somebody offers the hardware, software and mining services. Should not be hard to find as well as tech data on how it all operates.
Wandering Wifi provides the wifi service it is now a division of Air Watch. While this provides blanket wifi coverage throughout the store for shoppers to use the Safeway App I have found no connection to the application of any indoor location technology.
YFind is a provider of shopper location finding services to an accuracy of 3 ft. The site explains how it is done. YFind was acquired by Rukus Wireless.
Indoor location is the next big thing.
Ruckus Wireless are pushing the boundaries in not only retail Wi-Fi, but Wi-Fi as a whole. Ruckus already have BeamFlex antennas and ChannelFly of which have solidified Ruckus as the #1 for speed, coverage & capacity. Now we all wait with anticipation to see the future developments with YFind as Ruckus advance the technology further.
Apple acquired WifiSlam
It is Overt (the process can be known to anyone (if they wish to find out) as well as the objects involved and instances of those objects (inputs and outputs).......
If:
Person being spied upon has allowed information gathering by default
Because:
Person did not opt out of information gathering
And:
Person had the opportunity to do so
And:
Person was informed of this opportunity
But:
Person did take opportunity offered (for any reason)
Then:
Overt personal information gathering is OK and use is allowed in accordance
any privacy laws and Information Gathering Entity policy not prohibited by law.
Analysis: What we don't care to know about nor take an action to change our assigned state of default because someone convinces us it is good (trust us, save money) can potentially bite us...... by default.
Affinion practices a default mode "Loyalty) business model. They use that model for illegal gain. Other "Loyalty" model programs are legit but it is very interesting to find out exactly what they are getting in return for our loyalty and how they are getting and using it.
Safeway runs a "Loyalty Model Program" that is legit, I think. It saves me money at the checkout and every time I check out the clerk tells me how much money I saved and calls me "mister".
Interesting to examine what Safeway gets out of the exchange.
There are several keys to what information Safeway has access to. One of them is the Mac code of my iPhone and the Safeway App I use to shop for deals that save me money at Safeway. It is an extension of their Safeway Shoppers Card. When I look at the App I see a very slick idea with sly implementation.
Recently I blogged about Tile. It uses Near Field Communication to discover and report location. NFC completes the technological communications ecosystem. An ecosystem that was initially created to address a communication problem domain of speed over distance in an evolutionary development of speed increase and distance decrease. Technologically it has gotten to the same fundamental speed/distance point we humans have always been with our language: Up close real time and personal. You talkin' to Me? However, in the case of technology it is our devices, those devices increasingly identified to us alone and uniquely that are doing the talking in a near field with connections through Bluetooth and Wifi and cellular to the wider world of internet communications. It is a "virtual distance world" in which distance is measured more in hops of the length of each radio wave component from the near field to the far field or far field by hard wire digital transmission. We did it with sound waves, technology does it with a different wave frequency for wireless communication.
NFC is "the last mile" in the communication ecosystem.
This talks about the whole concept and is, I think what Safeway is doing with it: How stores use your phone’s WiFi to track your shopping habits.
I went to the Safeway App on my iPhone and read the privacy statement. Very interesting as well as revealing in the context of the description at the link explaining how it all works in the back ground we are not aware of.
Tracking is a whole new growth industry. Maybe a good investment? Maybe like investing in needles when heroin use is growing rapidly?
I am going to do some investigation at my local Safeway and discover what kind of communications I am transmitting and how they are being used.
Spy vs Spy at my favorite local super market!
Spying: What fun!
Tracking shopping and data mining story here.
When I opened the App with my cell phone connection turned off it wanted me to connect to cell or wifi.
Several days later: I walked around the interior perimeter and up the center of my local Safeway store today and the Wifi bars were at full strength everywhere. Obviously providing the capability to triangulate in rel time and follow shopping paths as well as pauses. One of the places I paused for a couple minutes was check out where I input my telephone number to get my savings discount as well as my credit card to pay. How hard is that to match up and data mine?
Must be somebody offers the hardware, software and mining services. Should not be hard to find as well as tech data on how it all operates.
Wandering Wifi provides the wifi service it is now a division of Air Watch. While this provides blanket wifi coverage throughout the store for shoppers to use the Safeway App I have found no connection to the application of any indoor location technology.
YFind is a provider of shopper location finding services to an accuracy of 3 ft. The site explains how it is done. YFind was acquired by Rukus Wireless.
Indoor location is the next big thing.
Ruckus Wireless are pushing the boundaries in not only retail Wi-Fi, but Wi-Fi as a whole. Ruckus already have BeamFlex antennas and ChannelFly of which have solidified Ruckus as the #1 for speed, coverage & capacity. Now we all wait with anticipation to see the future developments with YFind as Ruckus advance the technology further.
Apple acquired WifiSlam
Indoor location is the next big thing.
Aisle411 here The iPhone App here The download is here.
Aisle411 is available at Safeway in Seattle. This is very interesting. Wifi on your iphone must be turned on to give you to positioning information on your map. What is not said is that when this is on and you are using it to locate things in the store it most certainly can track your movements all the time. If it is a wifi connection that you allow discovery and connection to by default then your device always connects to it when you are in the store even if you do not use the app. A slick back door way to track a customer. My local Safeway store is not listed as having it but I wonder if it would work there? The Home Depot store in town uses it. I wonder what the data mining capabilities are?
I don't know who is providing a shopper info system to Safeway but the technology is certainly there to do it based on Wifi signals emitted from a cell phone.
Asilie411 has Partnered with Estimote. Esitmore uses fixed location bluetooth. It supports Apple iBeacons. They are Bluetooth Low Energy Devices. Tile which I wrote about in another entry in this blog is a BLE device.
Opting our of in store tracking here
Apple iBeacon the next big thing for Apple here
Added 8 Nov 2013: Google Tracks, Reports Your Brick-And-Mortar Buying Habits
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Is China P2P Lending Really Shadow Banking?
This is interesting:
P2P Companies: The Movers and Shakers of China’s Shadow Banking
Shadow Banking? No way!
The bank system in China operates on a fractional reserve model. The reserve requirement is relatively high. Banks loan just like the US banks by creating debt money out of nothing with an numerical entry in an on hand balance data element in a customer account. Poof! Money from nothing. Ahhh....but not for nothing, pay me interest.
P2P loans money already in existence, at least that is the way I see it working. Can't imagine that anyone other than a chartered bank can make money materialize out of nothing by writing down a number and handing to to someone as a loan.
Non-bank entities with money loan it out. They might just have a lot of money made from some income enterprise. They may have borrowed it from a bank? Maybe not.
The money that P2P lends is debt money already created by a bank and thereby put into the money supply (along with public money cummulative deficit spending called total government debt above taxes by the government for which the government is indebted to the bank). P2P uses "limbo" money that exists as a representation of debt in the macro gross analysis time frame from when it was born from nothing by virtue of a bank loan and when it dies and returns to nothing by virtue of paying back the loan.
P2P just reloans the money while it is in its transitory limbo life time. When it is paid back to the P2P lender it still exists and will continue to exist to be re-loaned again, unless it is used by the P2P lender to pay a bank back for a loan that it gave them. Then it goes Poof and is extinguished out of existence.
P2P is not at all a Shadow Bank nor does it do a Shadow Banking function. That is absolutely incorrect. That it is done through a risk assessment third party is a cool idea. It is operating like real money would operate in a debt free money system where a loan is just one of the millions of things anyone can do with their money, not the thing that creates the money to do it with. It only provides money created initially free of debt.
Shadow Banking is internal to a bank where a bank does things that either are or border on fraud. Like off balance sheet and marking to make believe rather than an honest market value. Some statements and framing of Shadow Banking as described by Wikipedia should be reviewed and revised in my opinion.
P2P lending is not Shadow Banking, it is a competitive alternative to banks. One that should be supported under free market rules and maybe some appropriate rules.
If P2P starts loaning money that it creates as their own private "money from nothing" system then that is a different story. Not a good selling point for their loans of money they can create however.........but hey, we have been suckered by the banks so......
P2P may deal with a middle entity that brings borrowers and lenders together and that entity by this definition at Wikipedia is a shadow banking entity. But I see it more a broker.
P2P Companies: The Movers and Shakers of China’s Shadow Banking
Shadow Banking? No way!
The bank system in China operates on a fractional reserve model. The reserve requirement is relatively high. Banks loan just like the US banks by creating debt money out of nothing with an numerical entry in an on hand balance data element in a customer account. Poof! Money from nothing. Ahhh....but not for nothing, pay me interest.
P2P loans money already in existence, at least that is the way I see it working. Can't imagine that anyone other than a chartered bank can make money materialize out of nothing by writing down a number and handing to to someone as a loan.
Non-bank entities with money loan it out. They might just have a lot of money made from some income enterprise. They may have borrowed it from a bank? Maybe not.
The money that P2P lends is debt money already created by a bank and thereby put into the money supply (along with public money cummulative deficit spending called total government debt above taxes by the government for which the government is indebted to the bank). P2P uses "limbo" money that exists as a representation of debt in the macro gross analysis time frame from when it was born from nothing by virtue of a bank loan and when it dies and returns to nothing by virtue of paying back the loan.
P2P just reloans the money while it is in its transitory limbo life time. When it is paid back to the P2P lender it still exists and will continue to exist to be re-loaned again, unless it is used by the P2P lender to pay a bank back for a loan that it gave them. Then it goes Poof and is extinguished out of existence.
P2P is not at all a Shadow Bank nor does it do a Shadow Banking function. That is absolutely incorrect. That it is done through a risk assessment third party is a cool idea. It is operating like real money would operate in a debt free money system where a loan is just one of the millions of things anyone can do with their money, not the thing that creates the money to do it with. It only provides money created initially free of debt.
Shadow Banking is internal to a bank where a bank does things that either are or border on fraud. Like off balance sheet and marking to make believe rather than an honest market value. Some statements and framing of Shadow Banking as described by Wikipedia should be reviewed and revised in my opinion.
P2P lending is not Shadow Banking, it is a competitive alternative to banks. One that should be supported under free market rules and maybe some appropriate rules.
If P2P starts loaning money that it creates as their own private "money from nothing" system then that is a different story. Not a good selling point for their loans of money they can create however.........but hey, we have been suckered by the banks so......
P2P may deal with a middle entity that brings borrowers and lenders together and that entity by this definition at Wikipedia is a shadow banking entity. But I see it more a broker.
Object Model and Wikipedia
At the end of the prior blog entry where I arrived at Capital (enonomics) and Capitalism and their relationship to Wealth and Money. And what about the thing that seems to emerge here called Financial Leverage?
Cool! A good place to end that entry and now take a look at where I am at and the "Meta Structure Path" that guided me here.
What guides my path is Object Orientation. Examining what a thing is (its properties) and what it does (its behavior). Look at the links cited in the paragraph that says I came to the end of this blog entry (which I have not). They are all refer to Wikipedia. In essence what is the nature of each of the conceptually high level Objects Classes???? Capital, Wealth, Money, Leverage? The essence is that each describes its own self in common terms of Properties, Behavior and State as well as, in come cases, children of their class (sub classes) where that serves the explanation of the Super Class object.
Another way of looking at Wikipedia is a "Soft Object Oriented Model of Everything We Know" Or Soft Object Model expressed in the "Stealth Mode" of object oriented structural design principals. Well......surprise! Natural Language is also a stealth mode to the extent that it is also a meta structure on which Wikipedia is built. The Object Oriented Model is simply a more precise formalization of Natural Language and Program Language (which is an Object Oriented Language) is a more precise formalization of Object Oriented Model Language that is a translation to a language that a machine can understand, (actually through increasingly formalized logic languages to the binary that computing machines understand and speak fluently with each other. It must perplex them that they have to go through so many translation steps to be able to communicate with us.
Wikipedia is a Soft Object Oriented Model of our entire known world of real and conceptual things. It is soft to the extent that it uses Natural Language to explain in a soft formalized framework. That framework is essentially Object Oriented in its nature, and a step toward drawing it all together, and I mean everything, in a more formalized, more integrated Object Oriented Design Model (OODM). Wikipedia 2.0 for the common person will not be called by that OODM name but that is what it will progress to be. Wiki is a now a generic term and there are all kinds of Wikis that have already taken that step to a higher degree of OODM.
The "Personal Wiki In My Head" is one of those more formalized in the Object Oriented Model and Language. Nobody reads this blog is not a true statement. It gets a few random hits. Out of all the blog entries I have made here the one that gets the most few hits, and this surprises me is the one I wrote about the Personal Wiki in My Head. We all have one of those. They are framed in terms of Object and Function, each of us having our own dominant approach like we have left/right brain approaches. The Object approach obviously dominates in mine but when I can grasp the object I can understand the Function. Logic rules everything.
The content of Wikipedia is like what an expert in building a formalized Object Oriented Model gets when they sit down with a Subject Matter Expert to discover what they know in their domain and then take that narrative and extract object classes, behaviors and relationships from it to build Use Case and Object Models that the Subject Matter Expert might look at and ask: Did I say that? Yes, you said that as accurately and exactly as I could parse what you said to a model that systemically places everything you said in a formalized Object Model Structure Language, more formalized than the Natural Language you used to say something in your domain of expertise. I am only the translator, you might not understand the logic based translation but since it is logic based and you are an expert then the translation is a fundamental expression and evaluation of your logic. If not then we might have to discuss your logic in the next meeting to see if the translation got it right (or your subject matter logic might not be entirely logical consistent or contributing to a related subject matter domain or a higher level subject domain but that is why I have my job)
Wikipedia is Open Source. Beautiful!
What if OOD experts were to take what subject matter experts say there and express it in an OO model. Perhaps as an intermediate step format and style experts might edit what is said to refine it for input to the OO model. The OO Model is a different language that just takes a translation, like all the other languages that Wikipedia displays as a language of choice on its opening page. I would like to read it in the OO Language.
Start with all the Wikipedia pages that address Object Oriented and there are many that do that.
To illustrate (but this is not from Wikipedia) this is a subject matter problem domain expert's statement made here about objects in classes, and their behaviors. It is rich in object and relationship content in its language. This could be expressed well in an object model by someone skilled in that art and science that may find even greater meaning when related to other object models. Discovery of relationships and meaning in a modeled world is far easier, faster and more efficient than connecting such knowledge in a purely narrative language world.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Divided We Stand: Three Psychological Regions of the
United States and Their Political, Economic, Social, and
Health Correlates
Peter J. Rentfrow, Samuel D. Gosling, Markus Jokela, David J. Stillwell, Michal Kosinski, and Jeff Potter
Online First Publication, October 14, 2013. doi: 10.1037/a0034434
Peter J. Rentfrow, Samuel D. Gosling, Markus Jokela, David J. Stillwell, Michal Kosinski, and Jeff Potter
Online First Publication, October 14, 2013. doi: 10.1037/a0034434
There is overwhelming evidence for regional variation across the United States on a range of key
political, economic, social, and health indicators. However, a substantial body of research suggests that
activities in each of these domains are typically influenced by psychological variables, raising the
possibility that psychological forces might be the mediating or causal factors responsible for regional
variation in the key indicators. Thus, the present article examined whether configurations of psycholog-
ical variables, in this case personality traits, can usefully be used to segment the country. Do regions
emerge that can be defined in terms of their characteristic personality profiles? How are those regions
distributed geographically? And are they associated with particular patterns of key political, economic,
social, and health indicators? Results from cluster analyses of 5 independent samples totaling over 1.5
million individuals identified 3 robust psychological profiles: Friendly & Conventional, Relaxed &
Creative, and Temperamental & Uninhibited. The psychological profiles were found to cluster geograph-
ically and displayed unique patterns of associations with key geographical indicators. The findings
demonstrate the value of a geographical perspective in unpacking the connections between microlevel
processes and consequential macrolevel outcomes.
Making Money vs Making Wealth
How the .0001% Made its Money
This analysis appeared in PriceOnomics:
The individuals of the Forbes 400 List are the wealthiest people in America - the top .0001%. The above chart depicts the source of its members’ wealth.
Of course the technically correct statement is how they made their net worth wealth with that wealth expressed in net asset value in terms of dollars. Of course, some of that net worth, one small component of it, would be currency assets or "big M Money" in the bank in their account. The cash account personal revolving fund they use to make cash transactions just like we all do. Maybe somewhat larger for them but certainly no larger than enough to pay the bills and buy the things they want. Even with all that wealth, they do not want to have anymore than necessary in a Money cash bank account with a balance of US digital currency.
However, the lead line is media method for getting eyeballs. It is not all about Money, it is all about Net Worth. The extreme asset value they have over their liabilities.
Yes, but......to what extent does that net worth trace back to a birth in a real money cash transaction? And.........net of that source, what is the genesis of the rest of the wealth they claim as a function of accounting and law to hold as their possession? The answer would appear to be only one source: Capital Gains. Gambling is taxable in both cases. Illegal means of generating either income or capital gains is taxable the same as legal income. Ask Al Capone.
Are the .0001% the sole stakeholder of their wealth (exclusive of pre-tax cash income tax) ? If there was a "wealth tax" the obvious answer would be no prior to settlement of that tax. If the government had a monetary stake in that net asset wealth of the .0001% then it would extract that stakeholding interest in the form of real money coin of the realm. .[3][4]
Wikipedia describes "Wealth Tax":
The United States Constitution prohibits any direct tax on asset holdings (as opposed to income tax or capital gains tax) unless the revenue collected is apportioned among the states on the basis of their population.[2][3][4] Although a federal wealth tax is prohibited unless the receipts are distributed to the States by their populations, state and local government property tax amount to a wealth tax on real estate, and because capital gains are taxed on nominal instead of inflation adjusted profits, the capital gains tax amounts to a wealth tax on the inflation rate.[5]
The Finance sector of the .001% has the most wealth. Wikipedia describes wealth like this:
The concept of wealth is of significance in all areas of economics, and clearly so for growth economics and development economics yet the meaning of wealth is context-dependent. At the most general level, economists may define wealth as "anything of value" which captures both the subjective nature of the idea and the idea that it is not a fixed or static concept. Various definitions and concepts of wealth have been asserted by various individuals and in different contexts.[2] Defining wealth can be a normative process with various ethical implications, since often wealth maximization is seen as a goal or is thought to be a normative principle of its own.
It appears that the finance sector generates its capital gains wealth largely on a conceptual resource rather than real resources like labor and material associated with capital investment in those resources. Finance that generates wealth using a very few laborers and for those few laborers applying their leveraged labor to a highly conceptual thing called Money through and even more conceptual thing called monetized liquid financial instruments with associated value expressed in terms of money but not money but "near money" because it is very near being easily converted to Real Money depending on trust in validity of that fact or deception based on fraud (control fraud as defined by Bill Black).
So, here is the end of this blog entry where I arrive at Capital (enonomics) and Capitalism and their relationship to Wealth and Money. And what about the thing that seems to emerge here called Financial Leverage?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)