I have made several prior blog entries on the amazing resolution of giga pixel cameras. Today I checked the state of the art with a google search. The result is that the event giga photography appears to have advanced as well as the quality of the photography. I would imagine that facial recognition could identify maybe 60 to 80% of everyone in the picture with fairly high reliability. It would not take more than the facial recognition in iPhoto.
What amazes me is the surveillance application. While these are sporting events, any event that is equally well lit with people generally looking in one direction is subject to the same technology.
Blakeway is an excellent example of the application. Blakeway uses mega pixel high res cameras to stitch together pictures. The stitching is excellent.
Giga pixel pictures taken with high res cameras of sporting events at this link.
Note that there is a difference between stitching together pictures taken by a mega pixel camera and a single picture taken with a giga pixel camera of a stadium section when the object is people moving. The same could be done with a mega pixel camera and some degree of telephoto. Giga is mass capture all at one time.
A simple test of facial recognition is to run the algorithm on one picture and then apply the results to some subsequent pictures to find the degree of accuracy. A further test to apply faces from one game to find the same faces attending a different game.
The application of this technology to mass facial recognition is enormous.
There is more than meets the eye here in terms of a business model and application harvesting and data mining this giga pixel information.
Consumer gigapixel cameras are coming.
Friday, November 27, 2015
Thursday, November 26, 2015
Current Account Switching Service
Current Account Switching Service (CASS)
It is a new service in the UK that provides for customer switching between bank accounts. Not exactly the same as telephone number portability but the same business model to facilitate switching from one provider to another. To some extent it contributes or relates to account aggregation.
Perhaps related or at least a benefactor of easy switching to another bank is Atom Bank in the UK. While there are many entities in the digital payment transaction sector, Atom is a full fledged digital bank under the Bank of England therefore it can loan debt money from nothing.
Atom Bank seems to be a retail bank. Not a big finance bank. The kind of retail banking business that the big banks have little concern for since the big money is in big finance with risk shifted to wherever it can be shifted to in order to mitigate loss. All reward no risk business model.
All bank enterprises should be split between retail and wholesale level banking. Good to see Atom doing this.
Reinventing US Retail Banking
The US need as CASS system. Australia is looking at account portability. India has portability.
Big banks are going to be moving out of their imposing buildings. Offices in supermarkets. A great opportunity for brew pubs to move into the vacated bank buildings!
My digital monetary system architecture calls for one master permanent financial account number for every citizen and business entity that transact with digital currency as a medium of exchange.
It is a new service in the UK that provides for customer switching between bank accounts. Not exactly the same as telephone number portability but the same business model to facilitate switching from one provider to another. To some extent it contributes or relates to account aggregation.
Perhaps related or at least a benefactor of easy switching to another bank is Atom Bank in the UK. While there are many entities in the digital payment transaction sector, Atom is a full fledged digital bank under the Bank of England therefore it can loan debt money from nothing.
Atom Bank seems to be a retail bank. Not a big finance bank. The kind of retail banking business that the big banks have little concern for since the big money is in big finance with risk shifted to wherever it can be shifted to in order to mitigate loss. All reward no risk business model.
All bank enterprises should be split between retail and wholesale level banking. Good to see Atom doing this.
Reinventing US Retail Banking
The US need as CASS system. Australia is looking at account portability. India has portability.
Big banks are going to be moving out of their imposing buildings. Offices in supermarkets. A great opportunity for brew pubs to move into the vacated bank buildings!
My digital monetary system architecture calls for one master permanent financial account number for every citizen and business entity that transact with digital currency as a medium of exchange.
Monday, November 23, 2015
The Seamlessness of Progression from Granular to Aggregate Levels and Vic Pascucci
The title is a product of the Information Age that provides the link between mass granular and amassed aggregate levels of information. It can be seen in a number of examples. Many involve and asymmetry of information that the progression can be seen from one end and in one way but not from the other. Those that aggregate granular information for their own objectives and view are not going to feed that aggregated view back to the granular level. They will use proprietary aggregate information for their own advantage. That is information competitiveness. Information has a monetized value.
In a subtle way this link relates to what I have said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paris-and-beirut-data-show-how-social-media-shapes-coverage_564fdda8e4b0258edb31b56b?utm_hp_ref=media
Another thing I saw today relates to my own insurance company: USAA. I am a 50 year member. USAA is an insurance industry leader. Its leadership and the direction it is going is displayed by the involvement at both the granular level of their business as well as the account aggregation level. This involves new technology that make money matters seemless from the granular level to the aggregate level.
Vic Pascucci is a leader in this sector.
Linked In shows how many pies he has his fingers in: https://www.linkedin.com/in/victorpascucci
Essentially his value to USAA is that he is seemlessly integrating the granular progression to the aggregate level and putting USAA in a position to dominate the entire seemless chain. He is a very interesting person that seems to have emerged from a legal background but has a keen sense of object oriented systemic business integration both bottom up and top down. A keen sense of how to make it pay in the long run strategic plan.
Big bucks in integrating from the granular level to the aggregate level cutting across so many legacy systems and making them outdated, redundant and losers in the Information Age competitive arena.
It is perhaps not surprising that a guy from a legal background like Vic can excel at the integrated information architecture formalized by the Information Age expression on an integrated Internet and World Wide Web. Legal matters are expressed in a logic narrative using a specialized sub set of the english language sysntax and semantics. Just a bit more formalized and structured than the vernacular. The domain of practitioners proficient in coding and programming in the natural language. They are called lawyers. Some day soon they will be recognized as coders and information engineers using natural language as opposed to formalize computer languages. The two languages are coming closer together in specific sectors like law.
I was headed for the top and now I'm there! My insights don't get much better than this.
Granular to aggregate seemlessness is really the structural method objective of my proposed monetary system.
Life is a progression from granular levels to aggregate levels. At some point we put it all together and wisdom is seeing the decomposition back to the granular level where we started so long ago to paint the big picture. It is not just seeing the forest for the trees but going on to see all the trees in the context and frame of reference of the forest! Then maybe we can know what it is all about?
Anybody that gets to that level has the advantage. Apply it competitively to get more. Alternatively, apply it to our own understanding of this thing called the mystery of life and it gives us assurance that we have won the game beyond monetary measurement. For a few that see that there is time to pay it forward.
In a subtle way this link relates to what I have said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paris-and-beirut-data-show-how-social-media-shapes-coverage_564fdda8e4b0258edb31b56b?utm_hp_ref=media
Another thing I saw today relates to my own insurance company: USAA. I am a 50 year member. USAA is an insurance industry leader. Its leadership and the direction it is going is displayed by the involvement at both the granular level of their business as well as the account aggregation level. This involves new technology that make money matters seemless from the granular level to the aggregate level.
Vic Pascucci is a leader in this sector.
Linked In shows how many pies he has his fingers in: https://www.linkedin.com/in/victorpascucci
Essentially his value to USAA is that he is seemlessly integrating the granular progression to the aggregate level and putting USAA in a position to dominate the entire seemless chain. He is a very interesting person that seems to have emerged from a legal background but has a keen sense of object oriented systemic business integration both bottom up and top down. A keen sense of how to make it pay in the long run strategic plan.
Big bucks in integrating from the granular level to the aggregate level cutting across so many legacy systems and making them outdated, redundant and losers in the Information Age competitive arena.
It is perhaps not surprising that a guy from a legal background like Vic can excel at the integrated information architecture formalized by the Information Age expression on an integrated Internet and World Wide Web. Legal matters are expressed in a logic narrative using a specialized sub set of the english language sysntax and semantics. Just a bit more formalized and structured than the vernacular. The domain of practitioners proficient in coding and programming in the natural language. They are called lawyers. Some day soon they will be recognized as coders and information engineers using natural language as opposed to formalize computer languages. The two languages are coming closer together in specific sectors like law.
I was headed for the top and now I'm there! My insights don't get much better than this.
Granular to aggregate seemlessness is really the structural method objective of my proposed monetary system.
Life is a progression from granular levels to aggregate levels. At some point we put it all together and wisdom is seeing the decomposition back to the granular level where we started so long ago to paint the big picture. It is not just seeing the forest for the trees but going on to see all the trees in the context and frame of reference of the forest! Then maybe we can know what it is all about?
Anybody that gets to that level has the advantage. Apply it competitively to get more. Alternatively, apply it to our own understanding of this thing called the mystery of life and it gives us assurance that we have won the game beyond monetary measurement. For a few that see that there is time to pay it forward.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Retail and Wholesale Level Banking
My blog entry prior to this one touched on the Retail/Wholesale levels of Banking. It had some links explaining the definition of Retail/Wholesale levels for background information. This morning I read this link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/yes-glass-steagall-matter_b_8579520.html
Note: I am finding it more convenient to insert the entire link when it contains or condenses the subject line and bolding that portion.
Various definitions found by Google search on Retail/ Wholesale Banking define them from different perspective frames. In my own point of entry to the problem domain, Retail level is user consumer (little people) and accounting for their real money transactions and making loans in real money (created out of thin air as debt based money) and receiving payments on those loans. Wholesale level is (big people) business enterprise.
The little fish business enterprise on the Wholesale level of bank business are more like the little people at the retail level to the extent that there is small difference. They take out bank loans of real (debt based) money and pay them back with the same real money.
What really makes the difference between Retail and Wholesale banking? Banking is about Money Supply .
Money Supply is defined by different levels of Money or call it degrees of Moneyness. The degree is defined by M levels but really it is a degree ranging from hard money to degrees of softer money all the way out to make believe money which is really soft and abstract having potential value only to the extent there is a belief that it does. In reality value at the far end of make believe is held to account for its real value in terms of hard money if it can be exchanged for hard money.
If there is not enough hard money currency, the kind of money that little people use mostly at the Retail level of banking for those holding financial paper funny money associated somehow with hard money evaluations by wishes, guesses, insurance, flim flam, etc to actually get their hard money by changing whatever they have into currency then where does that currency come from?
Bail out, of course. Bail out is a concept applicable to the Wholesale level banking business. In the Information Age the entity relationship among entities is described as Entity Name to Entity Name. Information is a conceptual thing and in the Information Age new entities emerge because a higher level of abstraction can detach their logical properties from their tightly bound physical properties. New structural relationships emerge. Often because there is a financial incentive called make money.
Socially our Entity to Entity relationship is changing as well. Detaching logic from it physical binding, creating new structures. That is another matter. I digress but it makes a point.
Back to the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/yes-glass-steagall-matter_b_8579520.html
The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act let the fox in the hen house. The same fox could have its cake and eat it too. The walls between Retail and Wholesale level banking business were removed. The fox was in the hen house because the entire fence was removed. Bad day for the chickens! Of course it was because they were having a bad day in the first place that caused the fence to be put up. They been there and got eaten before.
Bankruptcy was the rule on both sides of the Retail/Wholesale level banking business that kept the game more or less fair unless the rules or power to enforce them changed. Social conscience was a referee. When bankruptcy no longer applied on the Wholesale side of Banking business currency serving the Retail side had to be expanded to settle Wholesale side obligations.
Our entire concept of money in terms of what is and what is not generic conceptual "money" must be rigorously identified by a fundamental definition and distinction between Official Currency Medium of Exchange and anything else all the way out to dreams and schemes that are something that can be traded for Currency.
Banks cannot be trusted to manage Retail and Wholesale Currency business dealings with any Retail or Wholesale entity as they are defined by current definitions in concept or law. They can only be trusted to Account for matters in involving Official Currency on both levels.
How is this done?
Binary, of course! A thing is or it is not. That is binary. Works for me. It is one thing or it is another. It is an apple or it is an orange. In an alternate binary universe at a higher conceptual level an apple may be considered present or absent. That is two different natures of the same thing. Two different states of being. That is fine for the hardware computer world and makes computing possible by this binary relationship. On the software conceptual side it is a one or a zero. Two different intrinsic things. One is an Apple the Other is an Orange. Two different things with some shared entity attributes, methods and messages that it can receive, act upon and transmit. Some unique things that are exclusive to each that make them different.
All Money is either Currency or it is not. It is Currency or something that can be valued in terms of Currency to be used in the medium of exchange but is not currency.
The problem is this: The generic conceptual entity "Money" is the Problem Domain of a very old legacy system in which it plays a role as a medium of exchange. Before the idea Money can be used as Currency in exchange transactions it has to be created as an object entity on the conceptual level. Legacy thinking produced a mixed up but working system of money. Mixed up and working by and for the creators of the legacy system by bankers for their benefit. Mixing up physical and conceptual entity attributes and the controlling top level object class to which they belong.
Our greatest achievement that has become the model for combining physical and logical structures to serve us in the modern world is hardware physical systems on which levels of software exist at the most fundamentally related one to one granular level of a single instance of a granular piece of pure software logic being related to a granular piece of physical existence or non existence on the physical level. It is the physical non existence to which a conceptual attribute is assigned that gives a conceptual meaning to something that is not in real time existence. The neat trick of the human mind.
Our oldest legacy system is founded on presence/non-presence state of being. In the real world of our perception or not of this world. A higher level conceptual world beyond the real time space one. There are always higher levels. Reality has to start somewhere where the rubber of time/space meets the road. We determine where that is and define it as self evident in existence, real or purely unbounded conceptual existence truth to be self evident. We build our systems on that.
Our best model on which to design a monetary system today is the Internet and World Wide Web. That technological system serves and serves up on a client/server basis many things on a growth line towards everything, one way or the other. It is our grandest design. Our legacy system grandest design to organize and integrate the world is the Money System. This old system in now a square peg that is being pounded into a round hole. Square and round are binary physical forms. The monetary system must be restructured and the best model is the integrated hardware and software systems that we have created to date. They are the product of our best conceptual thinking and understanding of how to use the natural physical properties of this world to express our abstract conceptual structures to serve us.
The problem with the legacy banking system is that it is based on the foundational supremacy of controlling the presence or absence of a conceptual entity called money as a medium of exchange expressed as a number that is either absent or present to some numerical degree greater than zero that the banking system totally controls. The power to do that where it comes from and how it is applied is another matter. Banks create money from nothing through its sole power to create an entity with a declared value and therefore conceptual presence as the binary alternate of its state of non conceptual being.
The problem with the legacy banking system is that the software system was created before a real hardware system to manage it. Hardware progressed from stones and notches in sticks to serve the software, is still serving the software of modern banking. The problem with advancement of hardware computing systems and their related software to make universal applications is that they are logical. Based on real physical relationships of hardware to logical conceptual software structures of Information Engineering.
Hardware and software of the Information Age change prior systems by being a better method to structure them and their relationships. Often exposing fundamental failings and inconsistencies of existing systems.
Big Tech computing is built on the open source of the universal ability for anyone to structure a hardware/software system on any scale based on the fundamentals of presence/absence of an electric charge and its direct meaning conceptual relationship building of software structures. Software and hardware are directly related at every level of implementation. What exists electronically in hardware exist in its counterpart software. It is complex but tightly bound.
I see this: The Currency System and its end users, any entity that transacts with Currency, should be restructured by Information Systems Design. Banks would remain Accounting entities for currency transactions. Bank would remain in the loan origination business but not by creating money out of nothing. A Currency manager independent of the Banking System would create currency entity units and as system to manage them in direct relation to ownership of currency recorded in the banking accounting systems. All currency accounting systems at banks should be aggregated on some elements to a single Accounting Aggregation Entity.
New Retail/Wholesale level criteria:
If it deals with Currency it is Retail. If it deals with non currency finance it its wholesale.
Currency is a walled garden. Bank and Finance institutions must play in one or the other but not both. They are tow different things.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/yes-glass-steagall-matter_b_8579520.html
Note: I am finding it more convenient to insert the entire link when it contains or condenses the subject line and bolding that portion.
Various definitions found by Google search on Retail/ Wholesale Banking define them from different perspective frames. In my own point of entry to the problem domain, Retail level is user consumer (little people) and accounting for their real money transactions and making loans in real money (created out of thin air as debt based money) and receiving payments on those loans. Wholesale level is (big people) business enterprise.
The little fish business enterprise on the Wholesale level of bank business are more like the little people at the retail level to the extent that there is small difference. They take out bank loans of real (debt based) money and pay them back with the same real money.
What really makes the difference between Retail and Wholesale banking? Banking is about Money Supply .
Money Supply is defined by different levels of Money or call it degrees of Moneyness. The degree is defined by M levels but really it is a degree ranging from hard money to degrees of softer money all the way out to make believe money which is really soft and abstract having potential value only to the extent there is a belief that it does. In reality value at the far end of make believe is held to account for its real value in terms of hard money if it can be exchanged for hard money.
If there is not enough hard money currency, the kind of money that little people use mostly at the Retail level of banking for those holding financial paper funny money associated somehow with hard money evaluations by wishes, guesses, insurance, flim flam, etc to actually get their hard money by changing whatever they have into currency then where does that currency come from?
Bail out, of course. Bail out is a concept applicable to the Wholesale level banking business. In the Information Age the entity relationship among entities is described as Entity Name to Entity Name. Information is a conceptual thing and in the Information Age new entities emerge because a higher level of abstraction can detach their logical properties from their tightly bound physical properties. New structural relationships emerge. Often because there is a financial incentive called make money.
Socially our Entity to Entity relationship is changing as well. Detaching logic from it physical binding, creating new structures. That is another matter. I digress but it makes a point.
Back to the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/yes-glass-steagall-matter_b_8579520.html
The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act let the fox in the hen house. The same fox could have its cake and eat it too. The walls between Retail and Wholesale level banking business were removed. The fox was in the hen house because the entire fence was removed. Bad day for the chickens! Of course it was because they were having a bad day in the first place that caused the fence to be put up. They been there and got eaten before.
Bankruptcy was the rule on both sides of the Retail/Wholesale level banking business that kept the game more or less fair unless the rules or power to enforce them changed. Social conscience was a referee. When bankruptcy no longer applied on the Wholesale side of Banking business currency serving the Retail side had to be expanded to settle Wholesale side obligations.
Our entire concept of money in terms of what is and what is not generic conceptual "money" must be rigorously identified by a fundamental definition and distinction between Official Currency Medium of Exchange and anything else all the way out to dreams and schemes that are something that can be traded for Currency.
Banks cannot be trusted to manage Retail and Wholesale Currency business dealings with any Retail or Wholesale entity as they are defined by current definitions in concept or law. They can only be trusted to Account for matters in involving Official Currency on both levels.
How is this done?
Binary, of course! A thing is or it is not. That is binary. Works for me. It is one thing or it is another. It is an apple or it is an orange. In an alternate binary universe at a higher conceptual level an apple may be considered present or absent. That is two different natures of the same thing. Two different states of being. That is fine for the hardware computer world and makes computing possible by this binary relationship. On the software conceptual side it is a one or a zero. Two different intrinsic things. One is an Apple the Other is an Orange. Two different things with some shared entity attributes, methods and messages that it can receive, act upon and transmit. Some unique things that are exclusive to each that make them different.
All Money is either Currency or it is not. It is Currency or something that can be valued in terms of Currency to be used in the medium of exchange but is not currency.
The problem is this: The generic conceptual entity "Money" is the Problem Domain of a very old legacy system in which it plays a role as a medium of exchange. Before the idea Money can be used as Currency in exchange transactions it has to be created as an object entity on the conceptual level. Legacy thinking produced a mixed up but working system of money. Mixed up and working by and for the creators of the legacy system by bankers for their benefit. Mixing up physical and conceptual entity attributes and the controlling top level object class to which they belong.
Our greatest achievement that has become the model for combining physical and logical structures to serve us in the modern world is hardware physical systems on which levels of software exist at the most fundamentally related one to one granular level of a single instance of a granular piece of pure software logic being related to a granular piece of physical existence or non existence on the physical level. It is the physical non existence to which a conceptual attribute is assigned that gives a conceptual meaning to something that is not in real time existence. The neat trick of the human mind.
Our oldest legacy system is founded on presence/non-presence state of being. In the real world of our perception or not of this world. A higher level conceptual world beyond the real time space one. There are always higher levels. Reality has to start somewhere where the rubber of time/space meets the road. We determine where that is and define it as self evident in existence, real or purely unbounded conceptual existence truth to be self evident. We build our systems on that.
Our best model on which to design a monetary system today is the Internet and World Wide Web. That technological system serves and serves up on a client/server basis many things on a growth line towards everything, one way or the other. It is our grandest design. Our legacy system grandest design to organize and integrate the world is the Money System. This old system in now a square peg that is being pounded into a round hole. Square and round are binary physical forms. The monetary system must be restructured and the best model is the integrated hardware and software systems that we have created to date. They are the product of our best conceptual thinking and understanding of how to use the natural physical properties of this world to express our abstract conceptual structures to serve us.
The problem with the legacy banking system is that it is based on the foundational supremacy of controlling the presence or absence of a conceptual entity called money as a medium of exchange expressed as a number that is either absent or present to some numerical degree greater than zero that the banking system totally controls. The power to do that where it comes from and how it is applied is another matter. Banks create money from nothing through its sole power to create an entity with a declared value and therefore conceptual presence as the binary alternate of its state of non conceptual being.
The problem with the legacy banking system is that the software system was created before a real hardware system to manage it. Hardware progressed from stones and notches in sticks to serve the software, is still serving the software of modern banking. The problem with advancement of hardware computing systems and their related software to make universal applications is that they are logical. Based on real physical relationships of hardware to logical conceptual software structures of Information Engineering.
Hardware and software of the Information Age change prior systems by being a better method to structure them and their relationships. Often exposing fundamental failings and inconsistencies of existing systems.
Big Tech computing is built on the open source of the universal ability for anyone to structure a hardware/software system on any scale based on the fundamentals of presence/absence of an electric charge and its direct meaning conceptual relationship building of software structures. Software and hardware are directly related at every level of implementation. What exists electronically in hardware exist in its counterpart software. It is complex but tightly bound.
I see this: The Currency System and its end users, any entity that transacts with Currency, should be restructured by Information Systems Design. Banks would remain Accounting entities for currency transactions. Bank would remain in the loan origination business but not by creating money out of nothing. A Currency manager independent of the Banking System would create currency entity units and as system to manage them in direct relation to ownership of currency recorded in the banking accounting systems. All currency accounting systems at banks should be aggregated on some elements to a single Accounting Aggregation Entity.
New Retail/Wholesale level criteria:
If it deals with Currency it is Retail. If it deals with non currency finance it its wholesale.
Currency is a walled garden. Bank and Finance institutions must play in one or the other but not both. They are tow different things.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Currency, Finance and Money. Sorting out the Apples and the Oranges in a Spaghetti Pie
My previous blog entry looked at Banks and the rise of "Financial Aggregators":
http://2dollarjefferson.blogspot.com/2015/11/mintcom-financial-account-aggregator.html
If "Money" is the big problem domain pie to be sorted out then it is a very mixed bag of apples and oranges, spaghetti string connections and confusing Parent/Child relationships defying any explanation as to Who Is On First.
The reason "Money" is like that?
It was designed to be like that! Designed in a frame of logic and reason but a framework of logic and reason defined by and then designed by the creators of the Money System. When all things can be expressed by or reduced to a money value as they are in Finance and Accounting then it is difficult to determine exactly what money is when "Money Like" financial instruments are created. Money has lost its meaning by application of ambiguity to the meaning of the term.
Money Management is a broad term! Help me with your definition, Wikipedia!
Money is a big Marshmallow but this blog is all about what Money "Is".
What I say it is because I say it as the frame of my System:
Money is Currency. Each single unit dollar of digital currency with a value of one each having its own unique identifier. Aggregated unit dollars related to ownership of those dollars are expressed in the currency account of the owner of those dollars. This frame creates an entirely new independent entity in a digital conceptual record form that did not previously exist. It is created by extracting the concept of Currency from an mathematical expression of Total On Hand Value of digital dollars in an Account and applying it as a granular unit single dollar to a new system record called "Currency" where the gross total of all Currency always equals the total of value of all Money called currency Appearing in Owner (Currency User) Accounts managed by an Accounting agent of the User's choice.
In the current Money System everything is confused. It is a Banking and Finance System. There are, however, a large number of educational explanations of the system. Good luck in knowing which way is up after reading all of them. They all explain what money does in a Banking System. Not so much what Money is.
One way the current Banking and Finance System is explained is Retail and Wholesale levels. A little end user level is Retail level in a "Consumer: frame of business reference. A big end user Wholesale level in the same hard goods frame of business reference. Logical to the extent that the Wholesale banking customer user is doing big business with some product to sell to the Retail level user and requires big money as a raw material wholesale level product of a Bank System to do it.
Mint.com that I commented about in the previous blog entry is in the Retail level business of Money that is related to the Currency nature of Money as it exists in the Retail end user level of the Account services provided by a Bank.
That entry by Financial Aggregators like Mint.com begs the question: Who might be the Financial Aggregators for the Wholesale level banking business?
Good question. Maybe that is the aspiration of the Dark Money, Dark Banking System? Interesting to speculate about that but I will leave it in the question realm for now.
As an aside observation: The traditional concepts of Retail and Wholesale level business do not exist any longer in a digital information age. eBay? There is direct connection at the most granular peer to peer level. Going granular is a business model.
Yippee Skipee! Once more my day is made by saying something with a word phrase that has never been indexed before in quotes by Google! I own this claim to fame by being the first one to say it and have it appear as the only hit in a Google search result on the phrase: "going granular is a business model". Check it out using the link! Score one for my bragging rights claim to fame! The concept is not a new one as shown by Googling the phrase: granular business model. Lesser point for not creating the concept.
In some regards, Outsourcing is going granular? Interesting idea. Googling the phrase; outsourcing is going granular does not win me any bragging rights it is a conceptual idea expressed before thought of it. However "outsourcing is going granular" in quotes does get me a small point for never having been indexed by Google.
Mint.com gets the point: Go granular, steal the business from under the "ownership" of a big business that due to the Information Age now has a legacy system that they used to exclusively own. It is the same situation as telephone numbers that once were a fixed association to Ma Bell that became portable.
The concept of Granularity is relative when it comes to the ability as well as the expense and reward of going more granular in the basic building blocks of a system. Physicists and micro biologists go exceedingly granular. Facebook goes granular. How much more granular can it go at the user person level. There is vertical and horizontal granularity opportunity. Vertical opportunity looking toward upper level that were structured on a legacy level of granularity that has become undermined by a lower level of granularity making old legacy structures vulnerable to restructuring. Associated horizontal levels of legacy systems equally vulnerable.
Looks like termites eating from the bottom up until the whole house takes on a new look for new occupants!
That is what might be the business progression of Mint.com? Others that take the same business model approach?
It is my business model by going granular in a Currency System structured on an independent virtual digital dollar each with a value of one existing in a Currency Record of a universe of all Currency Dollars as an independent but related entity to the universe of all Accounts that each have total value numbers expressing the aggregate amount of unit dollars of Currency owned by the Account User and available to that user to use in a Currency transaction as a medium of buy/sell exchange.
Mint.com and Financial Account Aggregation is a slick idea. Pregnant with growth upward and outward to higher level and broader lateral relationship magnitude as it restructures legacy systems and procedures.
Looks like a Power to the People thing.
Restructuring our Currency system is returning Power to the People that was theirs in the first place until the sovereign right of the nation to its own Currency System was given to the Banks and their Debt Money System.
http://2dollarjefferson.blogspot.com/2015/11/mintcom-financial-account-aggregator.html
If "Money" is the big problem domain pie to be sorted out then it is a very mixed bag of apples and oranges, spaghetti string connections and confusing Parent/Child relationships defying any explanation as to Who Is On First.
The reason "Money" is like that?
It was designed to be like that! Designed in a frame of logic and reason but a framework of logic and reason defined by and then designed by the creators of the Money System. When all things can be expressed by or reduced to a money value as they are in Finance and Accounting then it is difficult to determine exactly what money is when "Money Like" financial instruments are created. Money has lost its meaning by application of ambiguity to the meaning of the term.
Money Management is a broad term! Help me with your definition, Wikipedia!
Money is a big Marshmallow but this blog is all about what Money "Is".
What I say it is because I say it as the frame of my System:
Money is Currency. Each single unit dollar of digital currency with a value of one each having its own unique identifier. Aggregated unit dollars related to ownership of those dollars are expressed in the currency account of the owner of those dollars. This frame creates an entirely new independent entity in a digital conceptual record form that did not previously exist. It is created by extracting the concept of Currency from an mathematical expression of Total On Hand Value of digital dollars in an Account and applying it as a granular unit single dollar to a new system record called "Currency" where the gross total of all Currency always equals the total of value of all Money called currency Appearing in Owner (Currency User) Accounts managed by an Accounting agent of the User's choice.
In the current Money System everything is confused. It is a Banking and Finance System. There are, however, a large number of educational explanations of the system. Good luck in knowing which way is up after reading all of them. They all explain what money does in a Banking System. Not so much what Money is.
One way the current Banking and Finance System is explained is Retail and Wholesale levels. A little end user level is Retail level in a "Consumer: frame of business reference. A big end user Wholesale level in the same hard goods frame of business reference. Logical to the extent that the Wholesale banking customer user is doing big business with some product to sell to the Retail level user and requires big money as a raw material wholesale level product of a Bank System to do it.
Mint.com that I commented about in the previous blog entry is in the Retail level business of Money that is related to the Currency nature of Money as it exists in the Retail end user level of the Account services provided by a Bank.
That entry by Financial Aggregators like Mint.com begs the question: Who might be the Financial Aggregators for the Wholesale level banking business?
Good question. Maybe that is the aspiration of the Dark Money, Dark Banking System? Interesting to speculate about that but I will leave it in the question realm for now.
As an aside observation: The traditional concepts of Retail and Wholesale level business do not exist any longer in a digital information age. eBay? There is direct connection at the most granular peer to peer level. Going granular is a business model.
Yippee Skipee! Once more my day is made by saying something with a word phrase that has never been indexed before in quotes by Google! I own this claim to fame by being the first one to say it and have it appear as the only hit in a Google search result on the phrase: "going granular is a business model". Check it out using the link! Score one for my bragging rights claim to fame! The concept is not a new one as shown by Googling the phrase: granular business model. Lesser point for not creating the concept.
In some regards, Outsourcing is going granular? Interesting idea. Googling the phrase; outsourcing is going granular does not win me any bragging rights it is a conceptual idea expressed before thought of it. However "outsourcing is going granular" in quotes does get me a small point for never having been indexed by Google.
Mint.com gets the point: Go granular, steal the business from under the "ownership" of a big business that due to the Information Age now has a legacy system that they used to exclusively own. It is the same situation as telephone numbers that once were a fixed association to Ma Bell that became portable.
The concept of Granularity is relative when it comes to the ability as well as the expense and reward of going more granular in the basic building blocks of a system. Physicists and micro biologists go exceedingly granular. Facebook goes granular. How much more granular can it go at the user person level. There is vertical and horizontal granularity opportunity. Vertical opportunity looking toward upper level that were structured on a legacy level of granularity that has become undermined by a lower level of granularity making old legacy structures vulnerable to restructuring. Associated horizontal levels of legacy systems equally vulnerable.
Looks like termites eating from the bottom up until the whole house takes on a new look for new occupants!
That is what might be the business progression of Mint.com? Others that take the same business model approach?
It is my business model by going granular in a Currency System structured on an independent virtual digital dollar each with a value of one existing in a Currency Record of a universe of all Currency Dollars as an independent but related entity to the universe of all Accounts that each have total value numbers expressing the aggregate amount of unit dollars of Currency owned by the Account User and available to that user to use in a Currency transaction as a medium of buy/sell exchange.
Mint.com and Financial Account Aggregation is a slick idea. Pregnant with growth upward and outward to higher level and broader lateral relationship magnitude as it restructures legacy systems and procedures.
Looks like a Power to the People thing.
Restructuring our Currency system is returning Power to the People that was theirs in the first place until the sovereign right of the nation to its own Currency System was given to the Banks and their Debt Money System.
Saturday, November 14, 2015
Mint.com Financial Account Aggregator
Mint.com website here at this link.
Banks don't like Mint.com according to this link:
Why banks want you to drop Mint, other 'aggregators' - Reuters
"Millions of people share their bank account passwords with third-party sites and apps that help them track their spending, but some of the biggest financial institutions, wary of hacking risks, are trying to scare people into not using them."
Banks worry about risk. They worry about their own exposure and risk reduction. They "worry" about the risk of others in any financial dealing to the extent of maximizing the risk to the other party.
Banking model: Minimize Risk, Maximize Return. ....Duh!
From the Reuters link:
"Federal banking rules known as Regulation E (here) sharply limit customers' liability for unauthorized electronic transactions from their accounts, provided they report the fraud promptly. "
Looks like a risk to the bank to me, unless they shift it to a third party insurer. Banks are good at shifting risk. However it does not pay if the insurance is costly. Unless however the insurance is provided by the US Government in the form of no prosecution.
Banks better get their lobby to strike down Regulation E. That is a risk reduction business plan: Negate or repeal the government rule.
New bank business model: Reduce Rules, Maximize Return.
Account Aggregation is described here by Wikipedia
A broader look at; Financial Account Aggregator, used as a Google search term here.
I like the concept and had not looked at it in the bigger picture frame. It not only fits in the scheme of my Digital Monetary System, it is a critical tier player to which I should assign a Major Entity Identity in the "Account" Entity Class structure triad: Currency, Account, and User. Each is structured on the granular level unit discrete identity below which there is no child of the granular level identity. The identifier of the granular unit in all cases.......... (for want of a better universal more elegant numbering system integrating things in the Information Age Internet of Things on the World Wide Web).........IpV6.
It is a network where base level granular nodes at the end of the line.
The end of the line being:
User: A unique person or government registered financial entity.
Unit of Currency: A single dollar, unit of assigned value of one each.
Account: A single base level account below which there is no division of total funds or any portion in that specific account to a lower level account. There may be earmarks of funds in the account but those earmarks are a solely owned attribute of the specific owning account to which they are related.
The identifier of the granular unit in all cases is.......... (for want of a better universal or more elegant numbering system integrating things in the Information Age Internet of Things on the World Wide Web).........is:........IpV6. There are a lot of those unique numbers. Enough for a lot of things on the IoT. Currency, User and Account simply being things on the IoT.
That is the base level granular foundation. Laid down repeatedly in this blog. It is a bottom up oriented system structure assembly methodology. Building an aggregation network relation from the bottom up. A network structure can also be built from the top down. Looking at the system object class "Account" from the top down it is composed of probable tiers of Child Classes and Child of Child Classes all the way to the Granular Unique Child.
Plodding in a linear step by step assembly fashion from bottom up design to the top is the brick layer approach when it comes time to build. That is construction. Construction is not possible unless the nature and properties of the bricks are established. When it comes time to build then the brick layer can be hired.
I have satisfied myself that I have established by definition the nature of the basic bricks of a monetary system. They are throughout this entire blog. I should bring them all together in a Wiki, blogged about that way back but it still is only in my head and scattered among all the entries of this blog. The blog is only for my own self so the Wiki that draws it all together is still in my head. Read the blog. Nobody does. Maybe one reader.
There is one very important entity however that is new to conventional thinking but what is old is new again. That was a subject of a prior blog entry.
The new thing is that Currency once again takes on an identity as a unique object of unit of value that it once had as a single Greenback dollar bill with a serial number (denomination variable). That was a good old physical dollar. As a conceptual object in the digital money world the "New" digital dollar is reassigned a unique serial ID (IpV6) that it lost when it became a total on hand dollar value number in an account. The new digital dollar of Currency is an independent Object Class. It is extracted from Account but related and equal to the total dollar value of each/all Accounts.
Maybe another way to say the same thing is:
Currency is the accounting for dollars on the uniquely identified unit dollar level of one dollar each. (less than one dollar has a plan but that is a sub-plan not explained at this point)
Account is accounting for dollars at the total level of the on hand balance dollar value of the account.
The old is new again.
It is simply me going on a surprise basis down to my Disbursing Officer's safe and saying "Surprise!" Show me how much money is on your accounting record then lets count each dollar bill (various denominations) in the safe. The only difference in the conceptual rebirth of the dollar bill as it is "reborn" again in its new digital conceptual domain is that it no longer needs a related denomination amount. They are all just one each. Computers count fast. Digital dollars have no mass or weight like they did when we had to carry a bag full of money with a float attached while in a small boat going out to the ship.
I remember fondly the old days of paying in MPC.
Jumping to the top down break down Monetary System level design:
All Currency is in a Master Vault (Cloud). Each single unit of currency has a value of one and is uniquely identified. Currency never leaves the vault. It accounts for itself internally because each "conceptual" unit of one dollar has a physical electronic binary representation counterpart. That is how computers work. For any given range of sequential identification of dollars there must be an equal range of logically addressed and binary electronic one for one equality and presence.
After all this beating around the bush and re-statement to get my thinking in order again the point of this blog entry to to exclaim: Hey! An Account Aggregator is a great idea!!! This is the next step down in the top down breakdown of the parent Class:Account. An Aggregator responsible for all accounts held by all Accounting Entities registered and authorized by the government to do currency accounting for cash currency funds. This covers public and private accounting entities. The Government and Banks and other authorized bank like function institution entities.
With a given protocol for all Accounts of registered cash transaction accounting entities there is a standard numbering system for all accounts. Suggested: IpV6.
Any authorized User of the Monetary Currency System (all currency is digital) may have any number of accounts held by any number of authorized accounting entities. It is a Free Private Enterprise free-for-all.
However all accounts of all authorized Currency Transaction Accounting Entities maintaining customer cash accounts must be aggregated and connected to a single Account Aggregator that is the interface between the Account domain of the Digital Currency System and the Currency domain.
This would place the Financial Account Aggregator in the role of a clearing house between all accounts in the Account Domain and all Currency in the Currency domain. Currency transactions between any accounts would be passed from the accounting agencies is accordance with the present existing Clearing House system. Public and private systems.
Then the Financial Account Account Aggregator would pass related transaction information to the Currency System Cyber Cloud Vault. The Vault would change ownership of each dollar unit of the total account transaction value from current owner of each and every single unit of one dollar value identified by its known relationship to current owner involved to new (now the current) owner relationship.
A confirming crypto secure message from the Currency System to the Financial Account Aggregator and that Aggregator's message to the Accounting entity completes the transaction.
Users may go directly to the Financial Account Aggregator to see all transactions and balances in any or all of their Accounts with their chosen Account managers, Public and Private sector.
Works for me. Plain and simple just like balancing the cash book with what is really on hand in the vault. There is a security procedure called the Two Man Rule. I used it for a highly secure item in the navy. Either or both may now be a woman. New navy. That is good.
In effect this sets up a Two Man Rule for Currency. Any authorized entity may do the accounting. Only one, the Financial Account Aggregator may deal with the Cyber Cloud Vault custodian to enter the Cyber Cloud Vault and make changes from current owner to new owner ownership of Cyber Cash Greenback Dollars in the vault.
How's that work for ya Mr. Bankster. You are no longer trusted to keep Digital Currency. You only maintain the Account record for it. You, Mr. Bankster do not even create Digital Currency out of nothing. That is done for you by the Sovereign Currency Creation entity and changes to Currency in the Cyber Vault are accomplished by an trusted cyber virtual employee of the Sovereign Currency creator and a trusted cyber virtual employee of the Financial Account Aggregator.
Those two virtual cyber employees are actually the two men in the "Two Man Rule" but in this modern age of gender identity they are neither a man or a woman but a System entity, consider it a gender neutral robot creation of ours to handle our currency transactions in a modern Digital Currency system.
Does that work for ya Bankster?
Of course not! You would not like it.
It introduces the element of Accountability to the system of Accounts.
Banks don't like Mint.com according to this link:
Why banks want you to drop Mint, other 'aggregators' - Reuters
"Millions of people share their bank account passwords with third-party sites and apps that help them track their spending, but some of the biggest financial institutions, wary of hacking risks, are trying to scare people into not using them."
Banks worry about risk. They worry about their own exposure and risk reduction. They "worry" about the risk of others in any financial dealing to the extent of maximizing the risk to the other party.
Banking model: Minimize Risk, Maximize Return. ....Duh!
From the Reuters link:
"Federal banking rules known as Regulation E (here) sharply limit customers' liability for unauthorized electronic transactions from their accounts, provided they report the fraud promptly. "
Looks like a risk to the bank to me, unless they shift it to a third party insurer. Banks are good at shifting risk. However it does not pay if the insurance is costly. Unless however the insurance is provided by the US Government in the form of no prosecution.
Banks better get their lobby to strike down Regulation E. That is a risk reduction business plan: Negate or repeal the government rule.
New bank business model: Reduce Rules, Maximize Return.
Account Aggregation is described here by Wikipedia
A broader look at; Financial Account Aggregator, used as a Google search term here.
I like the concept and had not looked at it in the bigger picture frame. It not only fits in the scheme of my Digital Monetary System, it is a critical tier player to which I should assign a Major Entity Identity in the "Account" Entity Class structure triad: Currency, Account, and User. Each is structured on the granular level unit discrete identity below which there is no child of the granular level identity. The identifier of the granular unit in all cases.......... (for want of a better universal more elegant numbering system integrating things in the Information Age Internet of Things on the World Wide Web).........IpV6.
It is a network where base level granular nodes at the end of the line.
The end of the line being:
User: A unique person or government registered financial entity.
Unit of Currency: A single dollar, unit of assigned value of one each.
Account: A single base level account below which there is no division of total funds or any portion in that specific account to a lower level account. There may be earmarks of funds in the account but those earmarks are a solely owned attribute of the specific owning account to which they are related.
The identifier of the granular unit in all cases is.......... (for want of a better universal or more elegant numbering system integrating things in the Information Age Internet of Things on the World Wide Web).........is:........IpV6. There are a lot of those unique numbers. Enough for a lot of things on the IoT. Currency, User and Account simply being things on the IoT.
That is the base level granular foundation. Laid down repeatedly in this blog. It is a bottom up oriented system structure assembly methodology. Building an aggregation network relation from the bottom up. A network structure can also be built from the top down. Looking at the system object class "Account" from the top down it is composed of probable tiers of Child Classes and Child of Child Classes all the way to the Granular Unique Child.
Plodding in a linear step by step assembly fashion from bottom up design to the top is the brick layer approach when it comes time to build. That is construction. Construction is not possible unless the nature and properties of the bricks are established. When it comes time to build then the brick layer can be hired.
I have satisfied myself that I have established by definition the nature of the basic bricks of a monetary system. They are throughout this entire blog. I should bring them all together in a Wiki, blogged about that way back but it still is only in my head and scattered among all the entries of this blog. The blog is only for my own self so the Wiki that draws it all together is still in my head. Read the blog. Nobody does. Maybe one reader.
There is one very important entity however that is new to conventional thinking but what is old is new again. That was a subject of a prior blog entry.
The new thing is that Currency once again takes on an identity as a unique object of unit of value that it once had as a single Greenback dollar bill with a serial number (denomination variable). That was a good old physical dollar. As a conceptual object in the digital money world the "New" digital dollar is reassigned a unique serial ID (IpV6) that it lost when it became a total on hand dollar value number in an account. The new digital dollar of Currency is an independent Object Class. It is extracted from Account but related and equal to the total dollar value of each/all Accounts.
Maybe another way to say the same thing is:
Currency is the accounting for dollars on the uniquely identified unit dollar level of one dollar each. (less than one dollar has a plan but that is a sub-plan not explained at this point)
Account is accounting for dollars at the total level of the on hand balance dollar value of the account.
The old is new again.
It is simply me going on a surprise basis down to my Disbursing Officer's safe and saying "Surprise!" Show me how much money is on your accounting record then lets count each dollar bill (various denominations) in the safe. The only difference in the conceptual rebirth of the dollar bill as it is "reborn" again in its new digital conceptual domain is that it no longer needs a related denomination amount. They are all just one each. Computers count fast. Digital dollars have no mass or weight like they did when we had to carry a bag full of money with a float attached while in a small boat going out to the ship.
I remember fondly the old days of paying in MPC.
Jumping to the top down break down Monetary System level design:
All Currency is in a Master Vault (Cloud). Each single unit of currency has a value of one and is uniquely identified. Currency never leaves the vault. It accounts for itself internally because each "conceptual" unit of one dollar has a physical electronic binary representation counterpart. That is how computers work. For any given range of sequential identification of dollars there must be an equal range of logically addressed and binary electronic one for one equality and presence.
After all this beating around the bush and re-statement to get my thinking in order again the point of this blog entry to to exclaim: Hey! An Account Aggregator is a great idea!!! This is the next step down in the top down breakdown of the parent Class:Account. An Aggregator responsible for all accounts held by all Accounting Entities registered and authorized by the government to do currency accounting for cash currency funds. This covers public and private accounting entities. The Government and Banks and other authorized bank like function institution entities.
With a given protocol for all Accounts of registered cash transaction accounting entities there is a standard numbering system for all accounts. Suggested: IpV6.
Any authorized User of the Monetary Currency System (all currency is digital) may have any number of accounts held by any number of authorized accounting entities. It is a Free Private Enterprise free-for-all.
However all accounts of all authorized Currency Transaction Accounting Entities maintaining customer cash accounts must be aggregated and connected to a single Account Aggregator that is the interface between the Account domain of the Digital Currency System and the Currency domain.
This would place the Financial Account Aggregator in the role of a clearing house between all accounts in the Account Domain and all Currency in the Currency domain. Currency transactions between any accounts would be passed from the accounting agencies is accordance with the present existing Clearing House system. Public and private systems.
Then the Financial Account Account Aggregator would pass related transaction information to the Currency System Cyber Cloud Vault. The Vault would change ownership of each dollar unit of the total account transaction value from current owner of each and every single unit of one dollar value identified by its known relationship to current owner involved to new (now the current) owner relationship.
A confirming crypto secure message from the Currency System to the Financial Account Aggregator and that Aggregator's message to the Accounting entity completes the transaction.
Users may go directly to the Financial Account Aggregator to see all transactions and balances in any or all of their Accounts with their chosen Account managers, Public and Private sector.
Works for me. Plain and simple just like balancing the cash book with what is really on hand in the vault. There is a security procedure called the Two Man Rule. I used it for a highly secure item in the navy. Either or both may now be a woman. New navy. That is good.
In effect this sets up a Two Man Rule for Currency. Any authorized entity may do the accounting. Only one, the Financial Account Aggregator may deal with the Cyber Cloud Vault custodian to enter the Cyber Cloud Vault and make changes from current owner to new owner ownership of Cyber Cash Greenback Dollars in the vault.
How's that work for ya Mr. Bankster. You are no longer trusted to keep Digital Currency. You only maintain the Account record for it. You, Mr. Bankster do not even create Digital Currency out of nothing. That is done for you by the Sovereign Currency Creation entity and changes to Currency in the Cyber Vault are accomplished by an trusted cyber virtual employee of the Sovereign Currency creator and a trusted cyber virtual employee of the Financial Account Aggregator.
Those two virtual cyber employees are actually the two men in the "Two Man Rule" but in this modern age of gender identity they are neither a man or a woman but a System entity, consider it a gender neutral robot creation of ours to handle our currency transactions in a modern Digital Currency system.
Does that work for ya Bankster?
Of course not! You would not like it.
It introduces the element of Accountability to the system of Accounts.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Person as a Thing On The Internet of Things (IoT)
This video presents the state of the art in surveillance. It is big bucks!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLxZ36oOvOQ
Note the portion that deals with a police person as a connected thing on the IoT. Looks like something out of science fiction but it is science fact.
The video covers pre-crime prediction as well.
There should be a metric, and I am sure that it is being measured somewhere, describing the degree to which a person is a Thing on the IoT. To what degree are they hardwired or softwired into the system.
Some people today are more wired into the system than others. Certainly the police person in the video is close to being Robocop. What profession or group is most wired into the IoT today. Under surveillance and monitored at the individual level? What about consumers?
Any metric measuring the degree to which any individual is a Thing on the IoT would probably require an ultimate nth degree benchmark. Some kind of total information all the time measure. Perhaps in two different measurement methods which are used in sensing technology: Active sensing and passive sensing. There must also be some consideration to the exactness degree of accuracy of the identity of the person as the thing on the Iot.
Maybe a doomsday clock would be a display tool?
What would be midnight on the clock? The all seeing and knowing point. Past, present an future.
What would progress toward the ultimate point look like over time? The past 100 years for example?
Where would the hands of the clock be today for the general population? 6pm? 9pm? Where would they be for any given person?
Wouldn't we like to know what our own personal IoT measurement is?
There are known knows.............
Who "owns" the knowns.
Who has the right to know?
How much do they know?
Shoot first, think later. When a person is totally monitored as a thing on the IoT then there is a great amount of information available to post judge their actions as well as predict them!
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/sotomayor-rips-supreme-court-for-letting-cops-get-away-with-a-shoot-first-think-later-approach-to-violence/
If Robocop is a totally sensing thing on the IoT then it is also Totally Sensed.
Judgment always will be a difficult thing to judge no matter how many sensing monitors will be applied to a person's action. Those monitors will however establish real facts.
https://medium.com/matter/dear-jessica-we-are-hiring-a-generation-of-fearful-inexperienced-and-poorly-trained-cops-10273ec1fcab
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLxZ36oOvOQ
Note the portion that deals with a police person as a connected thing on the IoT. Looks like something out of science fiction but it is science fact.
The video covers pre-crime prediction as well.
There should be a metric, and I am sure that it is being measured somewhere, describing the degree to which a person is a Thing on the IoT. To what degree are they hardwired or softwired into the system.
Some people today are more wired into the system than others. Certainly the police person in the video is close to being Robocop. What profession or group is most wired into the IoT today. Under surveillance and monitored at the individual level? What about consumers?
Any metric measuring the degree to which any individual is a Thing on the IoT would probably require an ultimate nth degree benchmark. Some kind of total information all the time measure. Perhaps in two different measurement methods which are used in sensing technology: Active sensing and passive sensing. There must also be some consideration to the exactness degree of accuracy of the identity of the person as the thing on the Iot.
Maybe a doomsday clock would be a display tool?
What would be midnight on the clock? The all seeing and knowing point. Past, present an future.
What would progress toward the ultimate point look like over time? The past 100 years for example?
Where would the hands of the clock be today for the general population? 6pm? 9pm? Where would they be for any given person?
Wouldn't we like to know what our own personal IoT measurement is?
There are known knows.............
Who "owns" the knowns.
Who has the right to know?
How much do they know?
Shoot first, think later. When a person is totally monitored as a thing on the IoT then there is a great amount of information available to post judge their actions as well as predict them!
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/sotomayor-rips-supreme-court-for-letting-cops-get-away-with-a-shoot-first-think-later-approach-to-violence/
If Robocop is a totally sensing thing on the IoT then it is also Totally Sensed.
Judgment always will be a difficult thing to judge no matter how many sensing monitors will be applied to a person's action. Those monitors will however establish real facts.
https://medium.com/matter/dear-jessica-we-are-hiring-a-generation-of-fearful-inexperienced-and-poorly-trained-cops-10273ec1fcab
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Platform Coops
This is a big idea.
Platform Coops = Power to the People.
The alternative to Death Stars.
A very interesting read:
http://www.shareable.net/blog/how-platform-coops-can-beat-death-stars-like-uber-to-create-a-real-sharing-economy
Is the Financial Innovation Coalition a Death Star creation of Big Tech or a Coop Platform?
Platform Coops = Power to the People.
The alternative to Death Stars.
A very interesting read:
http://www.shareable.net/blog/how-platform-coops-can-beat-death-stars-like-uber-to-create-a-real-sharing-economy
Is the Financial Innovation Coalition a Death Star creation of Big Tech or a Coop Platform?
Watching Visio Watch Me - Its Granular, Jake
My new Visio 65" UHD 4K TV is glorious.
It thinks I am glorious also. It watches me as much as I watch it. I admit. I watch dumb stuff. So does my TV.
This Ars Technica link tells about it.
It thinks I am glorious also. It watches me as much as I watch it. I admit. I watch dumb stuff. So does my TV.
This Ars Technica link tells about it.
"Own a Vizio Smart TV? It’s watching you"
I missed the opt out setting but have corrected that. I was opt in by default.
To Visio I am (was) my IP number for personal info. Not exactly since temporarily I am using a residence and its ISP cable box that has an IP number. Using it through a device that transmits the cable signal through electric lines since I am at some distance from the house. My computer connects to it by ethernet. So does the Visio. Either directly or through my new Apple TV.
With all these connections, I really don't know how accurately I am identified to my IP address. I can use wifi on my new iPhone 6s if I am close to the house, Cell if not. The phone has an IP address. All the devices have a MAC address. I got my new phone yesterday. By default its apps will use cell to connect to the Internet if Wifi is not available. Used to be they only used Wifi until the recent iOS update and people discovered why their phones were using more data than they expected for some reason. I will have to opt out of that on my new iPhone.
I think that all smart devices on the IoT have, by definition, an internet IP number. Maybe not interactive to the extent that communication is only directed to them and they can't return beyond some communication hand shaking. However that would be dumb by design to not incorporate in the smartness of the thing on the IoT. That would be the equivalent of a one way messaging system!
Am I my IP number? Not yet but the tech trend is in that direction. On my new iPhone 6s I am my IP number if it can only when it is accessed for communication by my finger print. And I am my IP number beyond a biometric doubt only at the instant in time that I press me finger to the button. If it has voice ID when I talk to Sire (hey, Siri) then ID as me to my IP is continuous probably.
IP numbers are not ambiguous in their numerical identity selves. They are unique to a device. Me, the real me person association to any given IP that I may be interacting with has an ambiguous connection to that IP. It may or may not really be me! If there is a financial transaction involved then it most likely will be me but not beyond a shadow of a doubt unless the relationship is biometric and persistent in real time.
Positive ID is a matter of security.
Positive IP ID on the IoT and its related WWW is coming.
I am absolutely positive of that!
Everything is a thing on the internet of things. Every thing absolutely identified to be the the unique thing that it is without any doubt.
That is why I have chosen IPv6 to be the positive identifier for every single digital dollar with a unit value of one in the monetary system. All accounts that are containers of aggregate units of dollars expressed in amount totals will also be assigned discrete IP numbers. Users that have accounts to receive and spend currency will have discrete IP numbers.
Those are the three key things in the Digital Monetary System. Their interactions validated by block chain. The only other things that are involved are the actual things involved in the medium of exchange transactions. They too will have IP numbers if they are of significant value like houses and cars, etc. Also block chain verified as they pass to new owners. Related to the big things that will have IP numbers are Contracts expressing the terms of exchange as appropriate, like a loan.
Currency, Accounts and Loans are conceptual things related to real things. As conceptual things they are as much a thing on the IoT because they are "Smart" things. Made to be smart conceptual things by the specific attributes and methods they have to do things.
The IoT/WWW like the computers that make the Information Age possible must identify all significant things, physical and conceptual by its discrete IP number at the unit identity level.
That is the system rule and Every Thing is going in that direction of absolute certainty as the system grinds exceedingly granular.
Its Granular, Jake.
Monday, November 9, 2015
TPP - Tyranny and Treason
I could have added this link as a foot note reference in my last blog entry on TPP.
http://offthegridmpls.blogspot.com/2015/11/tpp-tyranny-and-treason.html
It deserves a blog entry of its own to highlight it. TPP is center stage actor in the current tyranny. However it is a single actor in a bigger tyranny described by Off The Grid in Minneapolis.
"A healthier model would be that of South Africa and Apartheid: reconciliation. Not just about TPP, but about an economic model that has become parasitic and cannibalistic, in its growth imperative and expectations of consumption, and what it will do to sustain that, something like a death cult. But not just about TPP or economics, but about this privatized War of Terror, the surveillance infrastructure of total tyranny, and 9/11. America never had a fair, open and honest hearing about 9/11, and has yet to heal from that wound. The horrors that have been unleashed since, need to be reconciled, not by more bloodshed, but by shining light."
The above quote is the penultimate paragraph. Off the Grid is an optimist and follows it with the closing sentence:
"That is the true opportunity of TPP. That is good news to share."
Thanks for sharing some excellent analysis and thinking!
Pay it forward.
http://offthegridmpls.blogspot.com/2015/11/tpp-tyranny-and-treason.html
It deserves a blog entry of its own to highlight it. TPP is center stage actor in the current tyranny. However it is a single actor in a bigger tyranny described by Off The Grid in Minneapolis.
"A healthier model would be that of South Africa and Apartheid: reconciliation. Not just about TPP, but about an economic model that has become parasitic and cannibalistic, in its growth imperative and expectations of consumption, and what it will do to sustain that, something like a death cult. But not just about TPP or economics, but about this privatized War of Terror, the surveillance infrastructure of total tyranny, and 9/11. America never had a fair, open and honest hearing about 9/11, and has yet to heal from that wound. The horrors that have been unleashed since, need to be reconciled, not by more bloodshed, but by shining light."
The above quote is the penultimate paragraph. Off the Grid is an optimist and follows it with the closing sentence:
"That is the true opportunity of TPP. That is good news to share."
Thanks for sharing some excellent analysis and thinking!
Pay it forward.
Sunday, November 8, 2015
First They Came for the Pennies
Don Quijones post at Naked Capitalism
Good stuff in it that hits on many of my thoughts.
Unfortunately there is the ambiguity of cash and currency that is illustrated in the post as well as the comments. It is analogous to Internet and WWW. Using one to mean the other is inaccurate as well as confusing the issue.
Using Pennies in the title of the link sets it in the frame of currency. Physical money in the hand. Coins and Greenback US dollar bills. Cash on the other conceptual hand is an a numerical amount of money value in an account maintained by a bank or other institution that may exchange physical currency for an equal value of "money" expressed in an account to be used as cash from which a payment from the account can be deducted. Might even be airline points paid for in currency or cash from a bank account. I don't know where I would go to buy airline points with currency. Not possible I think. Only by cash from an account?
A cashless monetary system is meant to mean a currency-less system as opposed to cash in the bank. Cash in the bank is not a cashless system but is a system to which negative interest rates can be applied that cannot be applied to currency.
Please, oh please. Money is an important matter that is muddied by inaccurate use of what it is in its various forms. The vernacular use of the term for money is ambiguous!
Cash
Currency
Mumbo Jumbo words when one is used interchangeably with the other, especially in the Information Age where conceptual things carry forward their physical connotation and meaning by their physical properties that they shed in transition from physical to logical entities.
The related things that Don Q's link hit on are numerous. One of them being the monetizing of the information data base by banks (and other banking like money account institutions) that know everything we do with money in our accounts, when and where it is spent to buy what.
Many excellent reader comments on the link. Wish I had all day to go into it all.
This is enough for a Sunday.
I got up at 5:30. Its noon. Where has the day gone?
Into cyberspace....
Good stuff in it that hits on many of my thoughts.
Unfortunately there is the ambiguity of cash and currency that is illustrated in the post as well as the comments. It is analogous to Internet and WWW. Using one to mean the other is inaccurate as well as confusing the issue.
Using Pennies in the title of the link sets it in the frame of currency. Physical money in the hand. Coins and Greenback US dollar bills. Cash on the other conceptual hand is an a numerical amount of money value in an account maintained by a bank or other institution that may exchange physical currency for an equal value of "money" expressed in an account to be used as cash from which a payment from the account can be deducted. Might even be airline points paid for in currency or cash from a bank account. I don't know where I would go to buy airline points with currency. Not possible I think. Only by cash from an account?
A cashless monetary system is meant to mean a currency-less system as opposed to cash in the bank. Cash in the bank is not a cashless system but is a system to which negative interest rates can be applied that cannot be applied to currency.
Please, oh please. Money is an important matter that is muddied by inaccurate use of what it is in its various forms. The vernacular use of the term for money is ambiguous!
Cash
Currency
Mumbo Jumbo words when one is used interchangeably with the other, especially in the Information Age where conceptual things carry forward their physical connotation and meaning by their physical properties that they shed in transition from physical to logical entities.
The related things that Don Q's link hit on are numerous. One of them being the monetizing of the information data base by banks (and other banking like money account institutions) that know everything we do with money in our accounts, when and where it is spent to buy what.
Many excellent reader comments on the link. Wish I had all day to go into it all.
This is enough for a Sunday.
I got up at 5:30. Its noon. Where has the day gone?
Into cyberspace....
Going Granular in the Media
My thinking is that going granular to choose the lowest level physical or conceptual building block on which to structure a system of things and actions to achieve an objective is the the most effective planning model to make anything.
Nature, the natural world is a model of that idea.
Abstraction representations of nature and the natural world existing in our minds is the model upon which we build our human conceptual structures that don't exist in the natural world but use the natural world as leverage into flights of fancy into the conceptual world.
Take Natural Language for example. The kind we speak. Physically creating sounds with our bodies. Making symbols with tools of some kind that represent the sound, symbols going to a higher level of abstraction. Far out in the never, never land (because there is not end to it, we abstract to a level beyond the physical world) of abstraction we have computers and the Information Age.
There is a book that tells the story of humans abstracting themselves out of the physical universe to a higher level of abstraction. They leave their clothes behind in one version of the story. I don't go wherever they went. Beyond my level of abstract comprehension other than thinking they "really" believe in it.
However if we can take the abstract thought of non-being and make a less abstract concept out of it by saying that the non-existent state of being called "nothing there" in fact means something by its non-presence then we have dragged that purely conceptual thought down to an incarnation in the real world.
It is a mystery but we do it with logic. Maybe the granular level of logic is pulling a rabbit out of a hat that had no rabbit in it?
Neat trick!
Its just magic.
With that prelude diving into deeper thought I will come back up to the surface to breath in some air and say what I want to say with this linear string of symbolic characters.
What kicked of my desire to say something about going granular and the media was this:
Comcast Orders MSNBC To Remove Anti-TPP Hosts
Comcast is Big Media. Big enough to bully. Call it Big Bully.
Media granular level real and conceptual building block of the Media System is where the message gets delivered. Big Media delivers the message with media stars. That is where Big Media rubber at its granular level of vehicle delivery meets the road.
The "Road" it meets at the granular interface level? That in mass media is us. The target audience that mass media aims at. Sounds like warfare. It is stealth delivery of the most elegant design. Mass media delivers what we want. Riding on the back of what we want is what mass media wants beyond satisfying market demand. Or should I day satisfying demand of a different market in a different market place at the backdoor of the back office business of mass media.
Advertisers. The ones that sell us something. The ones that put a tax on what is delivered to us and make us pay the tax at specific intervals. The business plan is so elegant that we pay the tax (cable tv) up front in bucks to have the privilege of paying the the tax in the form of watching commercials.
Advertisers are anyone that has something to sell for their profit. Comcast has something to sell that profits them as their own best customer in the market of selling more of their product at a greater price or market dominance advantage.
Comcast has a vested interest in TPP. Its granular level of media delivery is the "Show" its even more granular level of delivery is the star of the show and maybe a supporting cast of characters. Stars command a following. Have influence.
Look and listen to the link, Comcast and TPP.
Maybe this is meta structure information level but the link is to YouTube. Comcast has tight control over its media empire. YouTube is more like an open system soap box upon which anyone can take a stand. It is up there on an equal level on the bottom of my new big 65" screen UHD 4k TV next to Netflix and Hulu and as many other apps that I want to add next to them as my personally chosen range of specifically desired apps that I like to watch.
Ring of Fire is the show delivered by YouTube. Pap is the star. YouTube is free but they get money from somewhere and some entity other than a bank that makes money from nothing but YouTube has an equally mysterious business model: Its product is free and they make money on it. The business model of the Information Age. How to give something for nothing and make money on it...........
Not exactly a new business model. Banks created it long ago.
YouTube gets its money from somewhere. The point is that it gets it from somewhere (I could find out where if I cared and how much) but it does not get it from somewhere at the expense of my bread and butter.
Comcast and even more and Bigger Business players will get a lot of our bread and butter from TPP. Obviously, even a kernel of truth or a whole boat load of it that is contrary to Comcast business objectives is not to be allowed. Self interest is the dominating rule and Comcast will not do anything contrary to their own self interest unlike lower economic level Republican voters. That however is another target of Comcast self interest.
YouTube has a lesser profit ax to grind. In doing that it leaves, can afford to leave, a little truth on the table for its players in the game. Used to be that the gentleman's game of big money was generous enough to leave a little on the table to keep the source of revenue playing. However when it becomes the only game in town it makes all the rules and the best rule is winner takes all.
Pap makes a point: Used to be hundreds of media players. Now there are 4 thanks to Clinton. The same Clinton that negated Glass-Steagall.
President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the Glass–Steagall law is no longer appropriate."[8]
And we have the opportunity to elect another Clinton to give away the store? And she will certainly do so if TPP goes into the next administration. The result will be the same for a Republican administration. Funny that she will campaign against it the Republican for it.
Obama said he would close down Guantanamo. First thing in office as I recall. Where did that get ya?
YouTube is a different path to go to the granular level where the rubber meets the road. The intersection of mass media and us. It is a different path and business model that does not have so much noise and static content intentionally introduced by YouTube. (format gone wrong here....who is introducing that noise to my entry??!!) The contributors to YouTube introduce their own more direct noise and static. Fortunately we can choose our own drug of choice. That is another business model that is becoming increasingly effective at the granular level but that another thing to smoke.
There are those among us that not only see the truth but seek it. Some more than others. Won't find it on Comcast because it is manipulated or eliminated there. Best to manipulate it and keep viewers. Eliminate it and that in a crude manner obvious even to Republican voters that still have some degree of self interest in how world affairs relate to their bread, butter and 6 packs and Comcast market share declines. YouTube share increases and Jon Stewart signs with HBO.
Is HBO owned by Comcast? No, it is owned by Time Warner.
YouTube is owned by.........YouTube! It has content of Big Media as well as content of anyone. It is equal opportunity media.
Maybe it is the difference between push media and pull media.
Big Business Media has/had a big "Push" business model by default. It was the only game in town. In the 50's there was only one TV station in my capitol city town. It started broadcast at 3:00 PM. Little choice for watchers to Pull when it Pushes the same old soap opera but with different labels and its the only game in town. Now there are hundreds of channels on TV but it is the same old Walled Garden until.......YouTube.
Secret of YouTube? No big secret. It went to a granular level creating not only the ability of viewer to pull whatever they wanted to pull but also push from the granular level whatever they wanted to push into it as a universe from which anyone could pull whatever they wanted when they wanted.
At least the truth is out there to be had for those that seek it. Some of us are compulsive truth seekers. Like the X-Files.
While generally we are not as compulsive as Mulder, the story line of seeking the truth became compulsive to the granular viewer. What was the story line? In the complexity of the scenario there was unfailing faith that truth was out there and could be discovered regardless of the intent of mysterious entities to hide it, twist it if it could not be hidden to make it look like the truth, eliminate it if it could not be hidden.
"You Can't Handle the Truth!" But that is another show.
"Know the Truth" That is a Wikipedia link. Wikipedia is an excellent example of "Going Granular".
"Going Granular" is "owning" something at the lowest level of ownership.
Owning is conceptual. At the most granular level we own our own lives. That is a given truth that is declared to be self evident. It does not derive from nothing or as a state of being contrasted as a real world incarnation of its non-existent state.
At the lowest granular level as citizens and ownership by right we own our own vote. One man one vote is enshrined in the constitution as what we endow ourselves with. Like the king put his own crown upon his head. Where that crown came from conceptually is an open ended freedom of choice in the "Truth" of belief. Implementation of that truth in the real world has been a trail of pushing back against a belief to approach the ultimate truth.
First it was all White Men then it was All Men, then it was all Men and Women. The ideal is now all citizens but that excludes the segment that is resident but not citizens. Always working into the more granular levels of national identity and entry to a Walled Garden.
Going granular at the foundation level has always been the check and balance of the coalescence of power at the aggregate level. Expressed as this:
"In political philosophy, the phrase consent of the governed refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised. This theory of consent is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings and has often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism. Article 21 of the United Nation's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government". "
TPP elevates governance above Political philosophy to Corporate philosophy by creating a structure and system to shape traditional Political philosophy founded on consent of the governed.
That is the problem.
All "Problem Domains" are solved by going to the the granular lowest level of foundational physical or conceptual truth. That is found conceptually at our sovereignty as a nation and the truth we hold to be self evident. Initially expressed as truth by those with the sight to see it, as clearly in concept as they could. Bless them. Continued to be defended by those pledged to defend it. Bless them on this November 11th. Defended by all of us actually by our responsibilities as citizens, to the extent that we choose to accept them in a free society, or not. When the majority does not then we are no longer really free.
The conclusion:
The minority at a higher conceptual level like Comcast or its higher level of Corporatism then is the granular level of significance in determining our affairs and where they will go to serve us or them.
Fascism is a word that is getting greater scrutiny. I find that Fascism is one of the hardest things to pin down in my mind to understand. It seems to be so elusive even after technical definition.
Socialism is getting a lot of play. Democratic Socialism. Not so hard to understand.
Each has its chosen level granular entity on which it is conceptually structured.
TPP draws a line in the sand.
The problem is that our "own" (owned) government is lining up on the Corporate side of the line.
The truth is known by where the grains fall on either side of the line in the sand.
The granular things called people are on one side.
Our higher level conceptual granular entities that we create are either on our side, for our best interest or on the other side for their higher level self serving self interest.
Media is a tool in the conflict. Like money it is a neutral medium of exchange, they are looking more alike in their fundamental nature as well as who fundamentally controls them as an operating system and their applications.
Things that look alike are in the same Problem Domain.
Big Business and Big Politics. Big Media that connects them both to the masses of grains called people but are run by a small fraction of the universe of people.
Power derives from the consent of the governed.
It seems that our society is increasingly becoming more increasingly dominated by the requirement stated by "Do you accept these terms and conditions?". Check "No" and there is no entry to a Walled Garden. Big problem when the system is structured so that "There Is No Alternative" TINA or that we are lead to believe TINA.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative
Truth says there always is. To believe otherwise puts us in a cell of our own design.
It is all about the Money. The alternative is a universal Currency system medium of exchange independent of the business commerce of exchanging it. A Currency system that we not only use to conduct commerce but gives us, all of us, clear concise information on how well the currency system is functioning or being applied to serve us and our endeavors. Currency with a solid conceptual entity identity that is independent but related to its application, not a sub-system component created by a Private Enterprise Banking System to serve itself as well as Big Business and Bigger Business beyond national sovereign while pretending to serve those that it is extracting money from.
Trench warfare evolved from fighting from holes dug in the earth with crude weapons to weapons both large and small with global reach. That has been the evolution of modern weapons as a medium of exchange. One side with bigger and badder with more reach winning. Or, in an equal match can win by attrition.
Trench warfare was physical. The conceptual warfare of ideas followed a similar evolution in magnitude of delivering the goods as well as global reach. Bigger and badder conceptual tools to deliver the goods faster. Conceptually however the basic bullet is not exceeded by bigger bullets with farther range. The conceptual granular bullet is still the element of truth to fight the enemy.
In economic warfare the most effective conceptual granular bullet is a unit of value. Each one has to have its own discrete and persistent unit identity to define what it is, other than something from nothing only existing by virtue of its relationship to a debt account, to know what it is as well as what it does and how effectively it does it.
Comcast is evil! But they do evil so elegantly that the cat does not even know it is skinned.
Nature, the natural world is a model of that idea.
Abstraction representations of nature and the natural world existing in our minds is the model upon which we build our human conceptual structures that don't exist in the natural world but use the natural world as leverage into flights of fancy into the conceptual world.
Take Natural Language for example. The kind we speak. Physically creating sounds with our bodies. Making symbols with tools of some kind that represent the sound, symbols going to a higher level of abstraction. Far out in the never, never land (because there is not end to it, we abstract to a level beyond the physical world) of abstraction we have computers and the Information Age.
There is a book that tells the story of humans abstracting themselves out of the physical universe to a higher level of abstraction. They leave their clothes behind in one version of the story. I don't go wherever they went. Beyond my level of abstract comprehension other than thinking they "really" believe in it.
However if we can take the abstract thought of non-being and make a less abstract concept out of it by saying that the non-existent state of being called "nothing there" in fact means something by its non-presence then we have dragged that purely conceptual thought down to an incarnation in the real world.
It is a mystery but we do it with logic. Maybe the granular level of logic is pulling a rabbit out of a hat that had no rabbit in it?
Neat trick!
Its just magic.
With that prelude diving into deeper thought I will come back up to the surface to breath in some air and say what I want to say with this linear string of symbolic characters.
What kicked of my desire to say something about going granular and the media was this:
Comcast Orders MSNBC To Remove Anti-TPP Hosts
Comcast is Big Media. Big enough to bully. Call it Big Bully.
Media granular level real and conceptual building block of the Media System is where the message gets delivered. Big Media delivers the message with media stars. That is where Big Media rubber at its granular level of vehicle delivery meets the road.
The "Road" it meets at the granular interface level? That in mass media is us. The target audience that mass media aims at. Sounds like warfare. It is stealth delivery of the most elegant design. Mass media delivers what we want. Riding on the back of what we want is what mass media wants beyond satisfying market demand. Or should I day satisfying demand of a different market in a different market place at the backdoor of the back office business of mass media.
Advertisers. The ones that sell us something. The ones that put a tax on what is delivered to us and make us pay the tax at specific intervals. The business plan is so elegant that we pay the tax (cable tv) up front in bucks to have the privilege of paying the the tax in the form of watching commercials.
Advertisers are anyone that has something to sell for their profit. Comcast has something to sell that profits them as their own best customer in the market of selling more of their product at a greater price or market dominance advantage.
Comcast has a vested interest in TPP. Its granular level of media delivery is the "Show" its even more granular level of delivery is the star of the show and maybe a supporting cast of characters. Stars command a following. Have influence.
Look and listen to the link, Comcast and TPP.
Maybe this is meta structure information level but the link is to YouTube. Comcast has tight control over its media empire. YouTube is more like an open system soap box upon which anyone can take a stand. It is up there on an equal level on the bottom of my new big 65" screen UHD 4k TV next to Netflix and Hulu and as many other apps that I want to add next to them as my personally chosen range of specifically desired apps that I like to watch.
Ring of Fire is the show delivered by YouTube. Pap is the star. YouTube is free but they get money from somewhere and some entity other than a bank that makes money from nothing but YouTube has an equally mysterious business model: Its product is free and they make money on it. The business model of the Information Age. How to give something for nothing and make money on it...........
Not exactly a new business model. Banks created it long ago.
YouTube gets its money from somewhere. The point is that it gets it from somewhere (I could find out where if I cared and how much) but it does not get it from somewhere at the expense of my bread and butter.
Comcast and even more and Bigger Business players will get a lot of our bread and butter from TPP. Obviously, even a kernel of truth or a whole boat load of it that is contrary to Comcast business objectives is not to be allowed. Self interest is the dominating rule and Comcast will not do anything contrary to their own self interest unlike lower economic level Republican voters. That however is another target of Comcast self interest.
YouTube has a lesser profit ax to grind. In doing that it leaves, can afford to leave, a little truth on the table for its players in the game. Used to be that the gentleman's game of big money was generous enough to leave a little on the table to keep the source of revenue playing. However when it becomes the only game in town it makes all the rules and the best rule is winner takes all.
Pap makes a point: Used to be hundreds of media players. Now there are 4 thanks to Clinton. The same Clinton that negated Glass-Steagall.
President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the Glass–Steagall law is no longer appropriate."[8]
And we have the opportunity to elect another Clinton to give away the store? And she will certainly do so if TPP goes into the next administration. The result will be the same for a Republican administration. Funny that she will campaign against it the Republican for it.
Obama said he would close down Guantanamo. First thing in office as I recall. Where did that get ya?
YouTube is a different path to go to the granular level where the rubber meets the road. The intersection of mass media and us. It is a different path and business model that does not have so much noise and static content intentionally introduced by YouTube. (format gone wrong here....who is introducing that noise to my entry??!!) The contributors to YouTube introduce their own more direct noise and static. Fortunately we can choose our own drug of choice. That is another business model that is becoming increasingly effective at the granular level but that another thing to smoke.
There are those among us that not only see the truth but seek it. Some more than others. Won't find it on Comcast because it is manipulated or eliminated there. Best to manipulate it and keep viewers. Eliminate it and that in a crude manner obvious even to Republican voters that still have some degree of self interest in how world affairs relate to their bread, butter and 6 packs and Comcast market share declines. YouTube share increases and Jon Stewart signs with HBO.
Is HBO owned by Comcast? No, it is owned by Time Warner.
YouTube is owned by.........YouTube! It has content of Big Media as well as content of anyone. It is equal opportunity media.
Maybe it is the difference between push media and pull media.
Big Business Media has/had a big "Push" business model by default. It was the only game in town. In the 50's there was only one TV station in my capitol city town. It started broadcast at 3:00 PM. Little choice for watchers to Pull when it Pushes the same old soap opera but with different labels and its the only game in town. Now there are hundreds of channels on TV but it is the same old Walled Garden until.......YouTube.
Secret of YouTube? No big secret. It went to a granular level creating not only the ability of viewer to pull whatever they wanted to pull but also push from the granular level whatever they wanted to push into it as a universe from which anyone could pull whatever they wanted when they wanted.
At least the truth is out there to be had for those that seek it. Some of us are compulsive truth seekers. Like the X-Files.
While generally we are not as compulsive as Mulder, the story line of seeking the truth became compulsive to the granular viewer. What was the story line? In the complexity of the scenario there was unfailing faith that truth was out there and could be discovered regardless of the intent of mysterious entities to hide it, twist it if it could not be hidden to make it look like the truth, eliminate it if it could not be hidden.
"You Can't Handle the Truth!" But that is another show.
"Know the Truth" That is a Wikipedia link. Wikipedia is an excellent example of "Going Granular".
"Going Granular" is "owning" something at the lowest level of ownership.
Owning is conceptual. At the most granular level we own our own lives. That is a given truth that is declared to be self evident. It does not derive from nothing or as a state of being contrasted as a real world incarnation of its non-existent state.
At the lowest granular level as citizens and ownership by right we own our own vote. One man one vote is enshrined in the constitution as what we endow ourselves with. Like the king put his own crown upon his head. Where that crown came from conceptually is an open ended freedom of choice in the "Truth" of belief. Implementation of that truth in the real world has been a trail of pushing back against a belief to approach the ultimate truth.
First it was all White Men then it was All Men, then it was all Men and Women. The ideal is now all citizens but that excludes the segment that is resident but not citizens. Always working into the more granular levels of national identity and entry to a Walled Garden.
Going granular at the foundation level has always been the check and balance of the coalescence of power at the aggregate level. Expressed as this:
"In political philosophy, the phrase consent of the governed refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised. This theory of consent is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings and has often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism. Article 21 of the United Nation's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government". "
TPP elevates governance above Political philosophy to Corporate philosophy by creating a structure and system to shape traditional Political philosophy founded on consent of the governed.
That is the problem.
All "Problem Domains" are solved by going to the the granular lowest level of foundational physical or conceptual truth. That is found conceptually at our sovereignty as a nation and the truth we hold to be self evident. Initially expressed as truth by those with the sight to see it, as clearly in concept as they could. Bless them. Continued to be defended by those pledged to defend it. Bless them on this November 11th. Defended by all of us actually by our responsibilities as citizens, to the extent that we choose to accept them in a free society, or not. When the majority does not then we are no longer really free.
The conclusion:
The minority at a higher conceptual level like Comcast or its higher level of Corporatism then is the granular level of significance in determining our affairs and where they will go to serve us or them.
Fascism is a word that is getting greater scrutiny. I find that Fascism is one of the hardest things to pin down in my mind to understand. It seems to be so elusive even after technical definition.
Socialism is getting a lot of play. Democratic Socialism. Not so hard to understand.
Each has its chosen level granular entity on which it is conceptually structured.
TPP draws a line in the sand.
The problem is that our "own" (owned) government is lining up on the Corporate side of the line.
The truth is known by where the grains fall on either side of the line in the sand.
The granular things called people are on one side.
Our higher level conceptual granular entities that we create are either on our side, for our best interest or on the other side for their higher level self serving self interest.
Media is a tool in the conflict. Like money it is a neutral medium of exchange, they are looking more alike in their fundamental nature as well as who fundamentally controls them as an operating system and their applications.
Things that look alike are in the same Problem Domain.
Big Business and Big Politics. Big Media that connects them both to the masses of grains called people but are run by a small fraction of the universe of people.
Power derives from the consent of the governed.
It seems that our society is increasingly becoming more increasingly dominated by the requirement stated by "Do you accept these terms and conditions?". Check "No" and there is no entry to a Walled Garden. Big problem when the system is structured so that "There Is No Alternative" TINA or that we are lead to believe TINA.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative
Truth says there always is. To believe otherwise puts us in a cell of our own design.
It is all about the Money. The alternative is a universal Currency system medium of exchange independent of the business commerce of exchanging it. A Currency system that we not only use to conduct commerce but gives us, all of us, clear concise information on how well the currency system is functioning or being applied to serve us and our endeavors. Currency with a solid conceptual entity identity that is independent but related to its application, not a sub-system component created by a Private Enterprise Banking System to serve itself as well as Big Business and Bigger Business beyond national sovereign while pretending to serve those that it is extracting money from.
Trench warfare evolved from fighting from holes dug in the earth with crude weapons to weapons both large and small with global reach. That has been the evolution of modern weapons as a medium of exchange. One side with bigger and badder with more reach winning. Or, in an equal match can win by attrition.
Trench warfare was physical. The conceptual warfare of ideas followed a similar evolution in magnitude of delivering the goods as well as global reach. Bigger and badder conceptual tools to deliver the goods faster. Conceptually however the basic bullet is not exceeded by bigger bullets with farther range. The conceptual granular bullet is still the element of truth to fight the enemy.
In economic warfare the most effective conceptual granular bullet is a unit of value. Each one has to have its own discrete and persistent unit identity to define what it is, other than something from nothing only existing by virtue of its relationship to a debt account, to know what it is as well as what it does and how effectively it does it.
Comcast is evil! But they do evil so elegantly that the cat does not even know it is skinned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)