Teensey Elf Executables are explained here at this link.
Boogles my mind!
Size is Everything!
Is this an example of reduction to the lowest possible granular level, in this case Linux programming code, that serves greater efficiency by focus on what a thing (code) "is" by design to produce a result of what it does by virtue of what it is? By what it does by virtue of the attributes baked into the thing to accomplish its action to produce a result.
Is this the dominance of the object oriented approach and its design elegance and efficiency over the an alternate old school functional oriented approach to get the job done? The fundamental approach that I apply to solve the Money Problem by designing what it is as a lowest level granular discrete object encapsulating meaning and methods and messages to implement them?
What is that?
Create a thing to do something at the lowest possible granular level appropriate to the problem domain. Give it the attributes to do it and the methods to apply its attributes then it will do what it was designed to do in relationship to all other entity objects in the problem domain from the lowest level to the highest level of entity relationship of integration to solve the problem.
Complex but I see a structure. Well written. I can follow it for two pages but I can see where it is going and why.
Reduce complexity to simplicity.
Was this taken from the link my Ah-ha, I get it moment????
"What went wrong is that we treated _start as if it were a C function,
and tried to return from it. In reality, it's not a function at all.
It's just a symbol in the object file which the linker uses to locate
the program's entry point."
I like that.
This is the first line on the link:
"If you're a programmer who's become fed up with software bloat, then
may you find herein the perfect antidote."
Is the bloat in software a functional programming bloat? Functions to be removed to background by use of objects to implement them with the object entity attributes, methods and messages also in the background. I think that one of the rules is that any one thing can and will do more than one action. A system is a few things and a multitude of actions. Manage all the actions directly in functional programming? Manage fewer things that do built in actions by design. That of course requires front end investment in object design.
If Objects are more persistent in system life span and functions change faster than objects then a more efficient and controllable system is built on front end object oriented design at a higher level of abstraction that focus on more direct functional design at the lower level.
Old school programming was programming functions. Programming what a thing does.
Newer school, using newer more efficient tools is programming things. Like creating robots with inherent ability as objects to do things they are taught to do by investing them in the programming design structures with the means to do them in response to messages to perform them.
Money is that kind of robot. The current monetary system is product of what money does as a singular functional thing, not what it is enabled to do as an object with the built in attributes and methods to do it. Its primary attribute must be a matter of accounting. That has been extracted from Money by stripping it of owning an accounting method function and placing that function in an object called Account. It is the most important attribute of Money but owned by an Entity that is not Money. Owned by Account. Bankers own Account Entities. Money is a function of account.
The solution to the Problem Domain called Money is to take the fundamental accounting attribute from Account and invest it as an attribute of Money. The specific attribute and associated methods and messages that make Money account for itself and its own creation independent of debt at both the micro and macro level.
Restructuring of ownership of fundamental attributes in of two Super Class object entities one being Money the other being Account is required and demanded in order to produce a better conceptual system vital to management of our affairs:
Money must have accounting attributes necessary for its designed role as an independent Super Class entity. Account has different accounting attributes necessary for its designed role.
The problem with the current system is the Money does not own and operate its own account for itself attributes. They are misplaced and incorporated in the Account system based on balance sheet accounting that puts money a child of the Object Entity: Accounting Class. A child created by the Accounting Class, inheriting some attributes of its Parent Class:Accounting.
Banks own Accounting. They do not own Money created as a child of Accounting function. Literally that child Money is a Liability of the Bank to account for as well as an Asset.
The key to the restructure and appropriate assignment of Entity Attributes is:
1. Assign Money its own Object Class attributes necessary to define itself as a Super Class object independent of Account but with methods to account for itself as a class inherited by all object children of its class to the lowest granular instance of the Class:Money
2, Assign Account its own Object Class attributes to define itself as a and account entirely for itself as a Super Class object with methods to account for itself as a class inherited by all children of its Object Class to the lowest granular level of the Class:Account
The purpose of Money and its relationship to Account is to be a system for a purpose of serving the allocation of resources. A social purpose accomplished in different ways around the world but the universal tool in accomplishing whatever those may be.
Money and Account are the two big things used for social purposes but are also the best metrics in terms of what they are and what they do to evaluate how well they work to serve us.
They do not serve well because of failure in design. It can be corrected and these are my ideas for doing it. In many ways the nature of information systems that we are designing for so many applications are pointing the way for how to design new systems to serve us and restructure old systems to serve us better. This general trend will apply itself to our Monetary System or even save us when it collapses and collapses the associated functions its serves us.
There is a need to get ahead of the problem that is written on the wall by correcting the most obvious relationship flaw between Money and Account at the root of the problem.
Essential attributes of Money must be extracted from the banking domain of Accounts and management of Money as an Object independent of Accounts that it may relate to assigned to a different agency.
Account structure creates and manages money values in a balance sheet system of debits and credits.
The extraction of Money as a child of the Account system sets up a higher level balancing relationship between Money and Account. All money, currency of 12 trillion dollars or whatever in base money equals all 12 trillion dollars total of all Accounts.
All currency money in all accounts serve all of us. We all use money.
The first step by mandate , or last step if progressively applied, is that all entities, all citizens and all other non-citizen entities that use Money be registered at the Bank Account level to transact business among account. Their assigned primary identification number, and every user entity of the Monetary Account system must have one to pay or receive money is the same as their Bank Account number or related child of that number if money is held in different account managing institutions.
Sure a long ways from Teensey Executables but that is how things get built. From the smallest things structured to make bigger things. Simplicity reduces complexity.
Size matters.
Saturday, October 24, 2015
Friday, October 23, 2015
Internet of Things Growth
Information at this link displaying geometric growth of the Internet of Things (IoT)
The discrete uniquely identified thing at the most granular level of the collective Class:InternetofThings that includes all things on the internet is called an instance of the class. The singular unit of the plural name to which all members of the class belong. Why do they belong? because they share a common designated attribute.
No, I am not an English Major but I do know the structure of the English language. Learned it in the first or second grade. All we really need to know about the Object Oriented paradigm was learned there as its foundation in the world of things. It is simply a language and our conceptual thinking interface with the world.
"Things" are the big thing in an Object Oriented structure! They connect among themselves and other things by relationship actions.
People are things, my friend!............................(All things being equal)
A thing is a thing is a thing...etc. Another way of expressing that is thing = thing.
Same, same. Not really connected if they are equal, just associated by a a shared attribute.
We are creating an internet of things as we connect things by an ability to communicate with us and other things on the IoT.
Read the link with the thought in mind that we are simply another thing on the IoT. A disturbing thought that challenges an idea that we as human beings are the center of the universe and the most important thing on this planet that we own and dominate because it was given to us. There is no constant dominant thing in a relational system. Every dog has its day depending on its state of being. Environment is telling us humans that there has been a change in state.
This is from the link. Read it with the primary thought that substitutes "human being" for the word thing. Human being = Thing. Same, same.
The Internet of Things (IoT) is the network of physical objects or “things” (human beings) embedded with electronics, software, sensors, and network connectivity, which enables these objects (object = human being) to collect and exchange data. The Internet of Things (including humans) allows objects to be sensed and controlled remotely across existing network infrastructure, creating opportunities for more direct integration between the physical world and computer-based systems, and resulting in improved efficiency, accuracy and economic benefit ("economic" is a uniquely human being related conceptual structure and operating system and an shared attribute among all members of our class) . Each thing (human) is uniquely identifiable through its embedded computing system but is able to interoperate within the existing Internet infrastructure.
With a billion-plus connected smart devices (are humans a smart device?) and machines (yes to the latter but not a machine) worldwide, the Internet of Things (IoT) provides vast amounts of actionable data in near real time.
Organizations (that conduct business processes, a function of the economic system) of all kinds and across all industries use this
information to create new operating models, bring products to market
faster, and develop more efficient business processes.
The last sentence is a tell. It tells the a purpose of the system of the IoT.
The purpose of the IoT is to serve us or make us subservient to a higher Object Class. A higher level Object Class that does place itself at the center of a conceptual object oriented system called Economics.
Discovery of class relationships in an object oriented system is simple. Simply pick any "Thing" and ask what is the parent class of this thing to work toward the top of the class total class structure by asking the question: And what class does this class belong to? We create a conceptual structure of object and class relationships that way for the plant and animal kingdoms. Learned all of that in school too but I did not see it as object oriented thinking.
It is all a Parent/Child relationship. Much of the world of physical and conceptual things is like that when we organize it. That is what the IoT is all about. Application of Parent/Child thinking that is simply extended by our computational ability applied to organizing them with technical tools. IoT is simply an application of a more fundamental relationship model of the physical world called Nature.
The secret sauce that we humans bring to the model of Nature is our ability to conceive (create) "things and their conceptual relationships" that do not exist in the real physical world. Religion, politics, economics, movies, Facebook...etc. Often modeled on nature, sometimes not or even counter to the long term model of nature but nature has a way of resolving those anomalies in system structure and operation by propagation or elimination at the lowest level of the instance of its class. Things we call dinosaurs, literally or figuratively. Sharks evolved to be long term survivors, if they can survive humans. Cockroaches rule all. Humans?
The subject of this blog entry displays the future. We will be a thing on the Internet of Things. Will that system rule us or will we rule the system. Same question is applied to conceptual structures we call Nation/States. Each with a unique identifying name, all members of the same Parent Class but having different attributes. Maybe the primary universal one being geographic boundaries and a form of governance.
The IoT is the new (kid) Parent Class in town. A new physical and conceptual system that has economic attributes. Applying my Parent/Child relationship discovery question to the class of thing called "Economic" What is the Parent:ClassName to which the Child:ClassName=Economic belongs? Class:Nation/State? And a child of what class is that? Class World?
This is where some wisdom is required.
What is wisdom?
Child of what ParentClass?
Unless we go through the conceptual door to the other side which is generally called totally not of this world but another where belief=truth I think wisdom is a object in Class:TopofClass or another way of expressing it TopofClass = SuperClass. The top class beyond which there is no Parent Class by definition in the real world.
This is where it goes blue sky philosophical with the question "What is this thing called Wisdom". It takes me to that well known an frequented place that I have referred to often in the course of this blog called the top of the tree where a monkey finds itself on the way to climbing to the moon. Others have climbed higher trees. Mine is not very tall.
Where I am is where I'm at. From that point I can see this:
We humans are things on the IoT. We are each discretely unique. We all share a single attribute called life with a state of real world being called living or dead. That includes a lot of people. All I think unless there is an exception. Oh, yes, some say there was one. Only one though and there is some doubt.
Each unique instance of the Class:HumanBeing:State:Living has an unique identity one to one relationship to their life. The relationship to that makes each human a discrete object of the class. We generally have personal names to identify us. A social construct with some degree of ambiguity and that is the bane of computer based conceptual structures. Used to work well but along came computers and their course of evolution has been one of progression of fitting human/computer relationship into the computer system to one of fitting the computer system structure to legacy conceptual system human structures.
Fine, computers work for us. The rule remains that they do not operate with well with ambiguity. That means lack of precision of identification of any conceptual or real entity. Computer systems and the things they do are essentially on a one and a zero. No ambiguity. They can however manage or tolerate ambiguity given allowable tolerances of precision. Fuzzy logic to come up with a best possible precision. Precisely identified entities are preferred. It all math, a precise language unlike natural language.
All things on the IoT are uniquely identified by an IP number. Without it they cannot communicate. It is a mandatory data element entity identifier to exist on the IoT. If it does not have an IP it is not a member of the IoT.
If Human Beings, collectively and as unique instances of a class are things on the IoT then each must have a unique IP identifier like all other things.
IoT is an unfortunate name assigned to the concept. Too bad it has become so well established as an identifier and a meaning. As previously examined in this blog, what we call the Internet as a generic thing we interface with daily is descriptive of the electronic based computer system upon which is structured the its application to the conceptual things we do with it. What it should be called is the World Wide Web (WWW) and that term should replace our popular application of the word Internet to describe what is really the WWW.
The Internet is the physical communication system. The WWW is the conceptual application of the physical system structure. It is a victim of ambiguity of identification that is the nature of natural language. We did the same thing with televisions. Watching TV means not the TV thing but the conceptual things that the TV connects us with. Programs. Further confused by watching Programming, a verbalized noun called a gerund. Ah, natural language. Often an art, sometimes precise. Subject to ambiguity as a bug and a feature.
Tim Berners-Lee is the founder of the WWW. He proposes that everyone has a uniquely person IP address of a specific specification to protect the use of information about them through their ability to monitor who uses personal private information about them and a persons authorization to use that information.
Tim is a genius! Absolutely! No ambiguity about it!
Every single human being is a discrete entity in a conceptual economic system. That system is implemented on the IoT. Economics is the function of a relationship between People and Money.
Economics is term that is as ambiguous in use and meaning, syntax and semantics, as the word Internet.
One site defines it as: Economics is the social science that seeks to describe the factors which determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services.
Another site: Economics is the study of how people choose to use resources.
I like the second one. It is less ambiguous of course. When in doubt choose the path of least ambiguity!
Economics is the study of choice. Choice is an action of decision. Economics focuses on decisions. Economics is what money does. Money is a thing. At the discrete unit level transaction is the action evidence of a mutual micro or macro decision relating two parties in an exchange of value where value is generally = Money, a token of value.
This is where wisdom steps in. How is this relationship to be conceptually structured on the IoT between two entities, call them unique people for the sake of example because the same relationship applies at all levels of players and accounting exchange.
Wisdom and logic have some sort of relationship. What is one is not always the other. It looks like a yin and yang thing to me. Maybe wisdom is a product of logic and another thing? Function of time and experience over time? Who knows. I won't even bother to look at what the Internet, oops, the WWW says about it. Maybe wisdom is old age intuition? The result of past decisions that taught lessons?
In any event, what I think tells me that the three things that are related in our conceptual Economic world are two different uniquely identified entities exchanging value most often involving an entity identified as Money as a medium of exchange. It is increasingly done on the IofT which should be called the WWW. An IP number identifies all things on the IoT as well as the WWW. The domain of the IoT is a physical domain. The WWW is a conceptual domain built of the physical structure of the IoT. There is at every level a Physical/Conceptual nature. The IP number joins them.
All physical entities on the IoT must have an IP address.
All physical and conceptual entities on the WWW must have an IP number at the discrete granular lowest level defining an entity for purposes of participation in the WWW.
Money is a conceptual entity of the WWW. Entities, physical or conceptual that transact or associate in the transaction of money must have unique identifiers to do business on the Internet/WWW. Money must also be uniquely identified at the lowest unit granular level to facilitate its efficiency as a medium of exchange.
A conceptual system assigning unique identity in accordance with the Internet/WWW IPv6 (or better as time and progress go on to enumerate everything in the world) to each/every/all entities transacting with Money as well as Money itself (subject to block chain accounting technology) seems to me to be..........
A wise idea.
Everybody must get IP'd.
Everything must get IP'd
If it wants to play on the IoT/WWW.
If not then it is off grid. Go for it if it is your thing. How long can anyone go without the means of money as a medium of exchange if it is all digital and the only way to transact with money is through the IoT?
The discrete uniquely identified thing at the most granular level of the collective Class:InternetofThings that includes all things on the internet is called an instance of the class. The singular unit of the plural name to which all members of the class belong. Why do they belong? because they share a common designated attribute.
No, I am not an English Major but I do know the structure of the English language. Learned it in the first or second grade. All we really need to know about the Object Oriented paradigm was learned there as its foundation in the world of things. It is simply a language and our conceptual thinking interface with the world.
"Things" are the big thing in an Object Oriented structure! They connect among themselves and other things by relationship actions.
People are things, my friend!............................(All things being equal)
A thing is a thing is a thing...etc. Another way of expressing that is thing = thing.
Same, same. Not really connected if they are equal, just associated by a a shared attribute.
We are creating an internet of things as we connect things by an ability to communicate with us and other things on the IoT.
Read the link with the thought in mind that we are simply another thing on the IoT. A disturbing thought that challenges an idea that we as human beings are the center of the universe and the most important thing on this planet that we own and dominate because it was given to us. There is no constant dominant thing in a relational system. Every dog has its day depending on its state of being. Environment is telling us humans that there has been a change in state.
This is from the link. Read it with the primary thought that substitutes "human being" for the word thing. Human being = Thing. Same, same.
The Internet of Things (IoT) is the network of physical objects or “things” (human beings) embedded with electronics, software, sensors, and network connectivity, which enables these objects (object = human being) to collect and exchange data. The Internet of Things (including humans) allows objects to be sensed and controlled remotely across existing network infrastructure, creating opportunities for more direct integration between the physical world and computer-based systems, and resulting in improved efficiency, accuracy and economic benefit ("economic" is a uniquely human being related conceptual structure and operating system and an shared attribute among all members of our class) . Each thing (human) is uniquely identifiable through its embedded computing system but is able to interoperate within the existing Internet infrastructure.
With a billion-plus connected smart devices (are humans a smart device?) and machines (yes to the latter but not a machine) worldwide, the Internet of Things (IoT) provides vast amounts of actionable data in near real time.
The last sentence is a tell. It tells the a purpose of the system of the IoT.
The purpose of the IoT is to serve us or make us subservient to a higher Object Class. A higher level Object Class that does place itself at the center of a conceptual object oriented system called Economics.
Discovery of class relationships in an object oriented system is simple. Simply pick any "Thing" and ask what is the parent class of this thing to work toward the top of the class total class structure by asking the question: And what class does this class belong to? We create a conceptual structure of object and class relationships that way for the plant and animal kingdoms. Learned all of that in school too but I did not see it as object oriented thinking.
It is all a Parent/Child relationship. Much of the world of physical and conceptual things is like that when we organize it. That is what the IoT is all about. Application of Parent/Child thinking that is simply extended by our computational ability applied to organizing them with technical tools. IoT is simply an application of a more fundamental relationship model of the physical world called Nature.
The secret sauce that we humans bring to the model of Nature is our ability to conceive (create) "things and their conceptual relationships" that do not exist in the real physical world. Religion, politics, economics, movies, Facebook...etc. Often modeled on nature, sometimes not or even counter to the long term model of nature but nature has a way of resolving those anomalies in system structure and operation by propagation or elimination at the lowest level of the instance of its class. Things we call dinosaurs, literally or figuratively. Sharks evolved to be long term survivors, if they can survive humans. Cockroaches rule all. Humans?
The subject of this blog entry displays the future. We will be a thing on the Internet of Things. Will that system rule us or will we rule the system. Same question is applied to conceptual structures we call Nation/States. Each with a unique identifying name, all members of the same Parent Class but having different attributes. Maybe the primary universal one being geographic boundaries and a form of governance.
The IoT is the new (kid) Parent Class in town. A new physical and conceptual system that has economic attributes. Applying my Parent/Child relationship discovery question to the class of thing called "Economic" What is the Parent:ClassName to which the Child:ClassName=Economic belongs? Class:Nation/State? And a child of what class is that? Class World?
This is where some wisdom is required.
What is wisdom?
Child of what ParentClass?
Unless we go through the conceptual door to the other side which is generally called totally not of this world but another where belief=truth I think wisdom is a object in Class:TopofClass or another way of expressing it TopofClass = SuperClass. The top class beyond which there is no Parent Class by definition in the real world.
This is where it goes blue sky philosophical with the question "What is this thing called Wisdom". It takes me to that well known an frequented place that I have referred to often in the course of this blog called the top of the tree where a monkey finds itself on the way to climbing to the moon. Others have climbed higher trees. Mine is not very tall.
Where I am is where I'm at. From that point I can see this:
We humans are things on the IoT. We are each discretely unique. We all share a single attribute called life with a state of real world being called living or dead. That includes a lot of people. All I think unless there is an exception. Oh, yes, some say there was one. Only one though and there is some doubt.
Each unique instance of the Class:HumanBeing:State:Living has an unique identity one to one relationship to their life. The relationship to that makes each human a discrete object of the class. We generally have personal names to identify us. A social construct with some degree of ambiguity and that is the bane of computer based conceptual structures. Used to work well but along came computers and their course of evolution has been one of progression of fitting human/computer relationship into the computer system to one of fitting the computer system structure to legacy conceptual system human structures.
Fine, computers work for us. The rule remains that they do not operate with well with ambiguity. That means lack of precision of identification of any conceptual or real entity. Computer systems and the things they do are essentially on a one and a zero. No ambiguity. They can however manage or tolerate ambiguity given allowable tolerances of precision. Fuzzy logic to come up with a best possible precision. Precisely identified entities are preferred. It all math, a precise language unlike natural language.
All things on the IoT are uniquely identified by an IP number. Without it they cannot communicate. It is a mandatory data element entity identifier to exist on the IoT. If it does not have an IP it is not a member of the IoT.
If Human Beings, collectively and as unique instances of a class are things on the IoT then each must have a unique IP identifier like all other things.
IoT is an unfortunate name assigned to the concept. Too bad it has become so well established as an identifier and a meaning. As previously examined in this blog, what we call the Internet as a generic thing we interface with daily is descriptive of the electronic based computer system upon which is structured the its application to the conceptual things we do with it. What it should be called is the World Wide Web (WWW) and that term should replace our popular application of the word Internet to describe what is really the WWW.
The Internet is the physical communication system. The WWW is the conceptual application of the physical system structure. It is a victim of ambiguity of identification that is the nature of natural language. We did the same thing with televisions. Watching TV means not the TV thing but the conceptual things that the TV connects us with. Programs. Further confused by watching Programming, a verbalized noun called a gerund. Ah, natural language. Often an art, sometimes precise. Subject to ambiguity as a bug and a feature.
Tim Berners-Lee is the founder of the WWW. He proposes that everyone has a uniquely person IP address of a specific specification to protect the use of information about them through their ability to monitor who uses personal private information about them and a persons authorization to use that information.
Tim is a genius! Absolutely! No ambiguity about it!
Every single human being is a discrete entity in a conceptual economic system. That system is implemented on the IoT. Economics is the function of a relationship between People and Money.
Economics is term that is as ambiguous in use and meaning, syntax and semantics, as the word Internet.
One site defines it as: Economics is the social science that seeks to describe the factors which determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services.
Another site: Economics is the study of how people choose to use resources.
I like the second one. It is less ambiguous of course. When in doubt choose the path of least ambiguity!
Economics is the study of choice. Choice is an action of decision. Economics focuses on decisions. Economics is what money does. Money is a thing. At the discrete unit level transaction is the action evidence of a mutual micro or macro decision relating two parties in an exchange of value where value is generally = Money, a token of value.
This is where wisdom steps in. How is this relationship to be conceptually structured on the IoT between two entities, call them unique people for the sake of example because the same relationship applies at all levels of players and accounting exchange.
Wisdom and logic have some sort of relationship. What is one is not always the other. It looks like a yin and yang thing to me. Maybe wisdom is a product of logic and another thing? Function of time and experience over time? Who knows. I won't even bother to look at what the Internet, oops, the WWW says about it. Maybe wisdom is old age intuition? The result of past decisions that taught lessons?
In any event, what I think tells me that the three things that are related in our conceptual Economic world are two different uniquely identified entities exchanging value most often involving an entity identified as Money as a medium of exchange. It is increasingly done on the IofT which should be called the WWW. An IP number identifies all things on the IoT as well as the WWW. The domain of the IoT is a physical domain. The WWW is a conceptual domain built of the physical structure of the IoT. There is at every level a Physical/Conceptual nature. The IP number joins them.
All physical entities on the IoT must have an IP address.
All physical and conceptual entities on the WWW must have an IP number at the discrete granular lowest level defining an entity for purposes of participation in the WWW.
Money is a conceptual entity of the WWW. Entities, physical or conceptual that transact or associate in the transaction of money must have unique identifiers to do business on the Internet/WWW. Money must also be uniquely identified at the lowest unit granular level to facilitate its efficiency as a medium of exchange.
A conceptual system assigning unique identity in accordance with the Internet/WWW IPv6 (or better as time and progress go on to enumerate everything in the world) to each/every/all entities transacting with Money as well as Money itself (subject to block chain accounting technology) seems to me to be..........
A wise idea.
Everybody must get IP'd.
Everything must get IP'd
If it wants to play on the IoT/WWW.
If not then it is off grid. Go for it if it is your thing. How long can anyone go without the means of money as a medium of exchange if it is all digital and the only way to transact with money is through the IoT?
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Joe Firestone - The Platinum Coin Returns
Joe Firestone - The Platinum Coin Returns
Joe's crazy idea is orders of magnitude less crazy than mine and much closer to a real solution to the the immediate problem. Fundamentally, he looks at what money is and gives it a discrete value at the macro-level of One (or maybe more as necessary or a variable amount beyond current need to draw from as required) Platinum Coin rather than my micro granular level of a discretely identifiable unit instance of an aggregate class of all Money.
I have followed everything he has written and it is fascinating. One of the comments on his entry said it makes him proud to be an engineer. It is an engineering problem and Joe is an engineer. Information is subject to engineering using basic objects subject to inherent conceptual attributes as well defined in substance and performance as the metrics of physical things employed by engineers to build physical things. On the information level there is latitude to assign attributes to conceptual things rather than work with the inherent attributes of physical thing or create new physical structures to satisfy engineering requirement.
The end is the same, physical or conceptually. The engineering design must work. Prove all the structural components and their relationship functions do what is intended as the design objective.
Joe is a hell of an engineer!
I'm not sure but intuitively I feel that his design approach is similar to mine: Move the matter of debt to a sub-system component of the Monetary System. Get the horse before the cart and stop the tail wagging the dog.
Engineers built on a foundation of fact and factual relationships. Conceptual structures must have the same degree of integrity as physical structures or they fall down.
Joe's crazy idea is orders of magnitude less crazy than mine and much closer to a real solution to the the immediate problem. Fundamentally, he looks at what money is and gives it a discrete value at the macro-level of One (or maybe more as necessary or a variable amount beyond current need to draw from as required) Platinum Coin rather than my micro granular level of a discretely identifiable unit instance of an aggregate class of all Money.
I have followed everything he has written and it is fascinating. One of the comments on his entry said it makes him proud to be an engineer. It is an engineering problem and Joe is an engineer. Information is subject to engineering using basic objects subject to inherent conceptual attributes as well defined in substance and performance as the metrics of physical things employed by engineers to build physical things. On the information level there is latitude to assign attributes to conceptual things rather than work with the inherent attributes of physical thing or create new physical structures to satisfy engineering requirement.
The end is the same, physical or conceptually. The engineering design must work. Prove all the structural components and their relationship functions do what is intended as the design objective.
Joe is a hell of an engineer!
I'm not sure but intuitively I feel that his design approach is similar to mine: Move the matter of debt to a sub-system component of the Monetary System. Get the horse before the cart and stop the tail wagging the dog.
Engineers built on a foundation of fact and factual relationships. Conceptual structures must have the same degree of integrity as physical structures or they fall down.
Shadow Banking and Money Creation
This blog is called Greenbacks for a reason.
This blog is about what money is. What kind of entity is this thing called money? That is my question. What money does is another matter. I view what money does as a function of what it is. Maybe that differs from the reality that created what money is today?
It is clearly a chicken and egg question. Which came first? The difference in application of that riddle to what money is may be found in not which of two things came first, in other words which is the subject of the relationship and which is the object. The money question is which came first the thing called money, what it is as an object or the action that created it?
Actions are a function of need. There was a need for a thing called money to facilitate trade.
This sounds like circular thinking like a dog chasing its tail. Getting nowhere except in amusing circles but it is not the dog that is laughing but the spectator.
The spectator is the banking system. The object of its amusement, much to its bottom line of money, is us. We are the users of money. Money in our primary perception is more related to its action, what it does, rather than what it is. Its singing, dancing, talking action personal created by the man behind the curtain. As long as the curtain hides the true nature of the creation of the object which we perceive as most important in is function the bankers amusement and profit is eternal.
That is what I think.
I also think that the situation is changing.
The Information Age is changing our view of things. The Information Age started with human consciousness, whenever that was. It has evolved as we learned to stand upright. Exponential growth of information, our ability to generate it and manage it is a revolution. The follow on to the Industrial Revolution. So we gave the revolution a name, not so much because it is new but its magnitude has grown to huge proportions that drive what we do with it.
The Information Age is a product of our ability to reduce Information to its lowest granular level. That level is binary, computer machine based to physically store and process electronically at the lowest representational level conceptual abstractions that are equally reduced from thought processes to the same one to one lowest granular level where there is an exact one to one relationship to a segment of electronically differentiated ones and zeros that relate to the lowest granular level of conceptual intelligence. That is where our any of our thought concepts can be can be abstractly processed. A lowest physical/conceptual level analogous to what exists our brain that can be used to build upon and express through functional processing all those expressions that we as humans are capable of creating and expressing.
It all starts at the that lowest granular level where there is a functional relationship between two things. The Computational Trinity that I have explored several times in this blog.
My credo is that the need for a yet to be created thing to "do some thing" comes first. The need comes first. Where does that need come from? It simply springs forth from our minds. I don't go any deeper than that. It is a creation thing and the creation of some thing from nothing in our minds is a mystery. Just like money is created from nothing. While the nature of the genesis of money at an initial creation point of time be a mystery like the creation of the physical universe we can in hindsight discover explanations and meaning. More discovery and meaning as we develop better tools.
Discovery and development of better tools can look back in time to origins. They can also be better tools upon which to build better structures. Better structures that are both physical and conceptual, independently or with mixtures of inter-related relationships.
All of this so far is simply me getting my mental conceptual ducks in a row to think about shadow banking. Shadow banking as a perverted development of the macro money system that should serve us all that has been created to serve a few at the expense of almost all of us. Talking 1% here if there is any doubt.
How to attack that.
Simple Plan: It is exactly the same plan at the base of our Information Age except a few steps up the conceptual ladder from the binary level where two granular electronic entities..... (One being presence the other being absence which are physical states of being, or is absence of a thing purely conceptual?)
The Shadow Banking System creates money out of nothing just like the Established Banking System. The difference between the two is that one is regulated by government, more or less, and the other is regulated less, far less. System Regulation is a system bug to both not a feature.
I see Shadow Banking as the sub-optimized evolution of the banking system. Sub-optimized on the production of benefit, profit in terms of money, to the operators of the monetary system, not the general beneficiaries.
As a side line here: Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism has done an outstanding job of throwing light on the murky operations of private equity general and limited partnerships. My gratitude to her express in a donation. It is a situation that is an excellent example of sub-optimizing to benefit the operators and hiding it all behind a curtain intentionally by a few that also take advantage of the willful ignorance or incompetence of those being the victims of sub-optimized benefit to the general partners. Its a representation example of the general Banking System relationship which is not Enterprise and Customer in a mutually beneficial trade relationship but Enterprise and Victim in an extractive relationship.
Back to Shadow Banking.
Banking in general comes out of the shadows and Shadow Banking emerges from the shadows first when the thing called Money is identified as a discrete entity at the lowest possible granular level.
That identification of the instance of the Object Class called Money at the lowest granular level is the soul foundation of the structure of the monetary system I propose. It puts and end to all the shadows in the Banking System.
The Shadow sector of the Banking System is the easiest to attack. The attack tool works as well on the established Banking System that is only relatively less shadowed.
At the most discrete granular level "things" are created only once. Discrete level being the magnitude of one whether it is the Universe at the super macro level of totality or the super micro level of its smallest discrete unit of composition. How far either end extends remains a mystery but that mystery is always a function of the state of the art in the metrics of identification, measurement and extension of the entire structure from a starting point somewhere in the middle when the first human defined itself as human by having an abstract concept of being.
The level smallest discrete unit of any system is relative to nature of the system. Our language only has a limited number of representational characters and sounds. That is all it needed until we parsed them smaller and smaller down to the digital level. Before that spoken and written language was always sufficient to build higher levels of conceptual expression to do the job of communication. Technological parsing to lower levels enables us to express more faster to communicate with a wider number. It also extends our conceptual structures as it enables us to stand on the shoulders of past giants and extend the legacy with better Information Age tools.
Better information structures and their related knowledge enhance good legacy systems. They also improve poorly structured legacy systems with better ones or simply destroy the inherently bad legacy systems and consign them to the dust bin of history.
The Information Age sword cuts on legacy systems but has a bias to improve but destroys by attacking and leaving behind bad components or entire systems.
The Shadow Banking System should be eliminated like a cancer on the Established Banking System. The Established Banking System, or simply the one and only Banking System needs to be improved by restructuring.
Both objectives are accomplished by the same tool and capabilities we have created in the Information Age: Reduction of the unit of system structure to the lowest granular discrete instance of a class building block. What is that?
A digital discretely identified unit of monetary value of positive money free from functional dependence for its creation on a debt counterpart. The relationship of Positive Money.... (as the class to which all instance of money at the discrete unit level belong)....to debt is an application function of one of the vast multitude of things money can be applied to. Once money is created at the discrete unit level it is persistent over time. More may be created. Existing units may be held in circulatory suspense for system control and maintenance.
When the foundation of the monetary system has been established by the prior paragraph then all monetary transactions are recorded in a block chain system recording changes in ownership of money. Money as an aggregate class object as well as discrete instances of a class exists as a single record against which transactions in change of ownership in an variable number of registered accounts are recorded. Only registered financial entities may have accounts and transact with money through their account . All human being citizens of the USA have the constitutional right to be a financial entity entitled to an financial account. (Provisions for foreigners that are interesting to explore). All other financial entities are either public or private businesses registered by Banking system account to conduct money transactions among any and all other account holders. (Provisions for foreign business entities that are also interesting to explore.
There are no shadows when the universe of positive money is discretely identified at the granular level and equally identified and totaled at the aggregate level. There are no shadows when all users of the monetary system are conclusively identified by account registration as individual human beings or other than human financial entities. There are no shadows in a block chain system that records and validates all monetary transactions in accounts recorded as changes of ownership of discretely identified units of money.
Money and the Account are two separate and related records of the Monetary System.
The Money Record establishes what money is.
The Account Record establishes what money does as well as what Account Entity owns what units of money in the Money Record. Changes of ownership are recorded in the Account Record Block Chain.
Total value of all money in the Money Record = Total claim to ownership of all money in the Money Record by all accounts in the Account Record. That is the new balance sheet for Positive Money Accounting. Monetary Debt accounting and debit/credit matters are contractual agreements between and among any financial entities registered in the Accounting System. A structured Debt Accounting sub-system of the Positive Money System handles contractual debt agreement where block chain management methodology is applied to contracts.
Systems and procedures are established to convert present debt structure systems in the Banking System and is Shadow Financial sub-system to the Debt Sub-System of the Monetary System in conjunction is conversion of a Debt Based Monetary System to a Positive Money Based Monetary System.
No more Shadow Banking System.
This blog is about what money is. What kind of entity is this thing called money? That is my question. What money does is another matter. I view what money does as a function of what it is. Maybe that differs from the reality that created what money is today?
It is clearly a chicken and egg question. Which came first? The difference in application of that riddle to what money is may be found in not which of two things came first, in other words which is the subject of the relationship and which is the object. The money question is which came first the thing called money, what it is as an object or the action that created it?
Actions are a function of need. There was a need for a thing called money to facilitate trade.
This sounds like circular thinking like a dog chasing its tail. Getting nowhere except in amusing circles but it is not the dog that is laughing but the spectator.
The spectator is the banking system. The object of its amusement, much to its bottom line of money, is us. We are the users of money. Money in our primary perception is more related to its action, what it does, rather than what it is. Its singing, dancing, talking action personal created by the man behind the curtain. As long as the curtain hides the true nature of the creation of the object which we perceive as most important in is function the bankers amusement and profit is eternal.
That is what I think.
I also think that the situation is changing.
The Information Age is changing our view of things. The Information Age started with human consciousness, whenever that was. It has evolved as we learned to stand upright. Exponential growth of information, our ability to generate it and manage it is a revolution. The follow on to the Industrial Revolution. So we gave the revolution a name, not so much because it is new but its magnitude has grown to huge proportions that drive what we do with it.
The Information Age is a product of our ability to reduce Information to its lowest granular level. That level is binary, computer machine based to physically store and process electronically at the lowest representational level conceptual abstractions that are equally reduced from thought processes to the same one to one lowest granular level where there is an exact one to one relationship to a segment of electronically differentiated ones and zeros that relate to the lowest granular level of conceptual intelligence. That is where our any of our thought concepts can be can be abstractly processed. A lowest physical/conceptual level analogous to what exists our brain that can be used to build upon and express through functional processing all those expressions that we as humans are capable of creating and expressing.
It all starts at the that lowest granular level where there is a functional relationship between two things. The Computational Trinity that I have explored several times in this blog.
My credo is that the need for a yet to be created thing to "do some thing" comes first. The need comes first. Where does that need come from? It simply springs forth from our minds. I don't go any deeper than that. It is a creation thing and the creation of some thing from nothing in our minds is a mystery. Just like money is created from nothing. While the nature of the genesis of money at an initial creation point of time be a mystery like the creation of the physical universe we can in hindsight discover explanations and meaning. More discovery and meaning as we develop better tools.
Discovery and development of better tools can look back in time to origins. They can also be better tools upon which to build better structures. Better structures that are both physical and conceptual, independently or with mixtures of inter-related relationships.
All of this so far is simply me getting my mental conceptual ducks in a row to think about shadow banking. Shadow banking as a perverted development of the macro money system that should serve us all that has been created to serve a few at the expense of almost all of us. Talking 1% here if there is any doubt.
How to attack that.
Simple Plan: It is exactly the same plan at the base of our Information Age except a few steps up the conceptual ladder from the binary level where two granular electronic entities..... (One being presence the other being absence which are physical states of being, or is absence of a thing purely conceptual?)
The Shadow Banking System creates money out of nothing just like the Established Banking System. The difference between the two is that one is regulated by government, more or less, and the other is regulated less, far less. System Regulation is a system bug to both not a feature.
I see Shadow Banking as the sub-optimized evolution of the banking system. Sub-optimized on the production of benefit, profit in terms of money, to the operators of the monetary system, not the general beneficiaries.
As a side line here: Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism has done an outstanding job of throwing light on the murky operations of private equity general and limited partnerships. My gratitude to her express in a donation. It is a situation that is an excellent example of sub-optimizing to benefit the operators and hiding it all behind a curtain intentionally by a few that also take advantage of the willful ignorance or incompetence of those being the victims of sub-optimized benefit to the general partners. Its a representation example of the general Banking System relationship which is not Enterprise and Customer in a mutually beneficial trade relationship but Enterprise and Victim in an extractive relationship.
Back to Shadow Banking.
Banking in general comes out of the shadows and Shadow Banking emerges from the shadows first when the thing called Money is identified as a discrete entity at the lowest possible granular level.
That identification of the instance of the Object Class called Money at the lowest granular level is the soul foundation of the structure of the monetary system I propose. It puts and end to all the shadows in the Banking System.
The Shadow sector of the Banking System is the easiest to attack. The attack tool works as well on the established Banking System that is only relatively less shadowed.
At the most discrete granular level "things" are created only once. Discrete level being the magnitude of one whether it is the Universe at the super macro level of totality or the super micro level of its smallest discrete unit of composition. How far either end extends remains a mystery but that mystery is always a function of the state of the art in the metrics of identification, measurement and extension of the entire structure from a starting point somewhere in the middle when the first human defined itself as human by having an abstract concept of being.
The level smallest discrete unit of any system is relative to nature of the system. Our language only has a limited number of representational characters and sounds. That is all it needed until we parsed them smaller and smaller down to the digital level. Before that spoken and written language was always sufficient to build higher levels of conceptual expression to do the job of communication. Technological parsing to lower levels enables us to express more faster to communicate with a wider number. It also extends our conceptual structures as it enables us to stand on the shoulders of past giants and extend the legacy with better Information Age tools.
Better information structures and their related knowledge enhance good legacy systems. They also improve poorly structured legacy systems with better ones or simply destroy the inherently bad legacy systems and consign them to the dust bin of history.
The Information Age sword cuts on legacy systems but has a bias to improve but destroys by attacking and leaving behind bad components or entire systems.
The Shadow Banking System should be eliminated like a cancer on the Established Banking System. The Established Banking System, or simply the one and only Banking System needs to be improved by restructuring.
Both objectives are accomplished by the same tool and capabilities we have created in the Information Age: Reduction of the unit of system structure to the lowest granular discrete instance of a class building block. What is that?
A digital discretely identified unit of monetary value of positive money free from functional dependence for its creation on a debt counterpart. The relationship of Positive Money.... (as the class to which all instance of money at the discrete unit level belong)....to debt is an application function of one of the vast multitude of things money can be applied to. Once money is created at the discrete unit level it is persistent over time. More may be created. Existing units may be held in circulatory suspense for system control and maintenance.
When the foundation of the monetary system has been established by the prior paragraph then all monetary transactions are recorded in a block chain system recording changes in ownership of money. Money as an aggregate class object as well as discrete instances of a class exists as a single record against which transactions in change of ownership in an variable number of registered accounts are recorded. Only registered financial entities may have accounts and transact with money through their account . All human being citizens of the USA have the constitutional right to be a financial entity entitled to an financial account. (Provisions for foreigners that are interesting to explore). All other financial entities are either public or private businesses registered by Banking system account to conduct money transactions among any and all other account holders. (Provisions for foreign business entities that are also interesting to explore.
There are no shadows when the universe of positive money is discretely identified at the granular level and equally identified and totaled at the aggregate level. There are no shadows when all users of the monetary system are conclusively identified by account registration as individual human beings or other than human financial entities. There are no shadows in a block chain system that records and validates all monetary transactions in accounts recorded as changes of ownership of discretely identified units of money.
Money and the Account are two separate and related records of the Monetary System.
The Money Record establishes what money is.
The Account Record establishes what money does as well as what Account Entity owns what units of money in the Money Record. Changes of ownership are recorded in the Account Record Block Chain.
Total value of all money in the Money Record = Total claim to ownership of all money in the Money Record by all accounts in the Account Record. That is the new balance sheet for Positive Money Accounting. Monetary Debt accounting and debit/credit matters are contractual agreements between and among any financial entities registered in the Accounting System. A structured Debt Accounting sub-system of the Positive Money System handles contractual debt agreement where block chain management methodology is applied to contracts.
Systems and procedures are established to convert present debt structure systems in the Banking System and is Shadow Financial sub-system to the Debt Sub-System of the Monetary System in conjunction is conversion of a Debt Based Monetary System to a Positive Money Based Monetary System.
No more Shadow Banking System.
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Sander's Plan to Turn Post Offices into Banks
Good idea Bernie! Link is here.
For the benefit of the people (is that Socialism) this is the business practice what Bernie wants to correct. Conservative Free Private Enterprise has a different view.
I commented previously in this blog about the importance of a federal government physical presence at the local level in every city and town in the USA. A presence to extends physically to every postal address. Nothing else in the federal government has such a physical presence down to the granular level of connection to an individual citizen.
The growth of the Information Age is made possible by the logical separation of information from its tight binding to a physical medium. Nothing illustrates it more or better than an old school letter that has been replaced by email. The letter carrier agency is now the internet. The letter now called email is still carried physically by wire and or by radio wave or other form of physical carrier method. The Information Age breaks the tight physical binding of logical information to its physical medium that we can hold in our hands and takes the abstract concept of language which is the wrapper of the information and places it in a higher degree of abstraction that does not require paper to convey.
While information and its physical connection to the medium that stores and transmits it is becoming increasingly separated by higher levels of conceptual abstraction distance between the physical and logical connection layers I believe this to be true: There is always a connection.....until we can read each others thoughts and then there must still be some physical connection to transmit and store and process those thoughts. We have not come up with that yet but when we do it will still involve a physical relationship between our mind's conceptual representations/interpretation and all those electrical impulses and synapses in the brain to process them.
So that is my case for the never ending connection between the nature of conceptual thought and the physical real world. They grow farther apart and become more independent entities freeing each other of the inter-dependent nature that impose mutual restrictions on efficiency in communication processing and meaning but must always have the connection between physical medium and logical meaning no matter how many abstract steps it takes to connect them.
Post Offices and the physical postal communication system, down to the local geographical level are a physical entity that we must preserve. It is our link as citizens to our federal government and its services. It will be our only physical link when federal government evolves to become e-government. It will be our fail-safe physical presence connection among ourselves at the federal/state and local level.
Maintaining that physical/logical conceptual relationship to the extent that we can always resurrect the binding nature of the relationship to the extent of degree necessary to backtrack historical separation made possible by technology to a level that provides the necessary services to maintain our functions as a nation is vitally important.
There are two examples of the physical representation of a thing and its abstract conceptual expression.
To clarify this idea before I express the idea in the following paragraph: What is being read here in letters, words is physical as if they were written on paper yet the physical medium is electronic. Still physical viewed on the screen, relatively unchained from any physical representation format like paper but tightly tied to its conceptual meaning. However, with a keystroke I can send it all back to the its historic (pre-historic considering the Information Age progress over my own life time) form of printed on paper! The backward chain remains unbroken! And it is quicker than monks transcribing the bible!
Two examples: Maybe not the best ones but off the top of my head they seem to fit. Maybe not after I finish writing about them but food for thought in any event if the chain of my thoughts have any connection value? Don't know yet.
Military/Police Establishment Entity and Power as agency of State.
and
Spiritual Establishment Entity and Power as an agency of Religion.
Two ends of a continuum of power separated by their ultimate degree of tightness of binding, communication and expression between the nature of their physical and conceptual relationship.
Both have a physical presence. I contend that they have an equal degree of presence and a variable degree of conceptual influence from centralized to localized. Think about it.
Military/Police Establishment are boots on the ground in town at the local level as our city police force and its police presence in offices and patrols.
Spiritual Establishment entity are boots on the ground in town at the local level as our spiritual ministers and their church presence.
Guns and force are hardware tools of expressing the physical oriented nature of Military/Police in purpose/application and relate through several degrees of software abstraction to their associated controlling conceptual entity.
Beliefs are tools of the conceptual oriented nature of Spiritual Ministers that relate through several degrees of software abstraction to their physical application and connection to their associated controlling entity.
Two ends of a spectrum book ended by Physical and Logical
Each with a founding footing at an opposite end with a conceptual chain of implementation toward the other. One entity chooses to implement the relationship with a software program based on one or the other ends as the Subject of the relationship and the other as the Object of the relationship that gives meaning to the resulting Subject/Action/Object entity relationship.
This is going somewhere. For me at least.
Maybe the way to sum it up is:
There are many a slip between the cup and the lip.
The meaning of the slip is really embedded in the choice of the cup or the lip playing in the role of subject or object. They are each only physical entities that serve a higher conceptual relationship expressed in some mystical format called the cup of life?
Bringing this all back to what Bernie expressed as a good idea to enhance the purpose of the Post Office:
There is not another agency entity like the Post Office other than Police or Ministers and their associated physical locations in our communities and direct delivery of services to our citizens with an equally strong link of "software" connecting abstraction to the associated controlling entity.
In the case of Police at the local level the controlling entity is the state up through the Local/State/National level for law enforcement. The Post Office delivers a different service to all our citizens that is not security related but has a different service orientation that it performs as an established and well known geographic specific entity in every city/town in our country.
The Post Office is a socialized institution providing social services. Its services should be expanded to serve our citizens. It is in an excellent position to do this due to its localized presence as sole source of physical services to community as well as physical portal to conceptual services of government.
It is the objective of private enterprise extremist to adopt or eliminate government services to increase profit and/or reduce government control of private enterprise for the public good.
Reduction of Postal Services at the community level or elimination of the Post Office as an end game serves the objectives of Private Enterprise Extremism.
In the broader view of the thinking expressed in this blog entry it is Free Private Enterprise that stands equal to state and religion in its geographic and conceptual presence through out our entire nation at the local level. Its specific controlling entity at the national level its is local connection through "software" operations of business is not a equally defined. That is the nature of the concept of competition. On the other hand a goal of business is to eliminate competition but it must be done in accordance with "business rules". Self controlling, regulating and enforcing, of course.
For the benefit of the people (is that Socialism) this is the business practice what Bernie wants to correct. Conservative Free Private Enterprise has a different view.
I commented previously in this blog about the importance of a federal government physical presence at the local level in every city and town in the USA. A presence to extends physically to every postal address. Nothing else in the federal government has such a physical presence down to the granular level of connection to an individual citizen.
The growth of the Information Age is made possible by the logical separation of information from its tight binding to a physical medium. Nothing illustrates it more or better than an old school letter that has been replaced by email. The letter carrier agency is now the internet. The letter now called email is still carried physically by wire and or by radio wave or other form of physical carrier method. The Information Age breaks the tight physical binding of logical information to its physical medium that we can hold in our hands and takes the abstract concept of language which is the wrapper of the information and places it in a higher degree of abstraction that does not require paper to convey.
While information and its physical connection to the medium that stores and transmits it is becoming increasingly separated by higher levels of conceptual abstraction distance between the physical and logical connection layers I believe this to be true: There is always a connection.....until we can read each others thoughts and then there must still be some physical connection to transmit and store and process those thoughts. We have not come up with that yet but when we do it will still involve a physical relationship between our mind's conceptual representations/interpretation and all those electrical impulses and synapses in the brain to process them.
So that is my case for the never ending connection between the nature of conceptual thought and the physical real world. They grow farther apart and become more independent entities freeing each other of the inter-dependent nature that impose mutual restrictions on efficiency in communication processing and meaning but must always have the connection between physical medium and logical meaning no matter how many abstract steps it takes to connect them.
Post Offices and the physical postal communication system, down to the local geographical level are a physical entity that we must preserve. It is our link as citizens to our federal government and its services. It will be our only physical link when federal government evolves to become e-government. It will be our fail-safe physical presence connection among ourselves at the federal/state and local level.
Maintaining that physical/logical conceptual relationship to the extent that we can always resurrect the binding nature of the relationship to the extent of degree necessary to backtrack historical separation made possible by technology to a level that provides the necessary services to maintain our functions as a nation is vitally important.
There are two examples of the physical representation of a thing and its abstract conceptual expression.
To clarify this idea before I express the idea in the following paragraph: What is being read here in letters, words is physical as if they were written on paper yet the physical medium is electronic. Still physical viewed on the screen, relatively unchained from any physical representation format like paper but tightly tied to its conceptual meaning. However, with a keystroke I can send it all back to the its historic (pre-historic considering the Information Age progress over my own life time) form of printed on paper! The backward chain remains unbroken! And it is quicker than monks transcribing the bible!
Two examples: Maybe not the best ones but off the top of my head they seem to fit. Maybe not after I finish writing about them but food for thought in any event if the chain of my thoughts have any connection value? Don't know yet.
Military/Police Establishment Entity and Power as agency of State.
and
Spiritual Establishment Entity and Power as an agency of Religion.
Two ends of a continuum of power separated by their ultimate degree of tightness of binding, communication and expression between the nature of their physical and conceptual relationship.
Both have a physical presence. I contend that they have an equal degree of presence and a variable degree of conceptual influence from centralized to localized. Think about it.
Military/Police Establishment are boots on the ground in town at the local level as our city police force and its police presence in offices and patrols.
Spiritual Establishment entity are boots on the ground in town at the local level as our spiritual ministers and their church presence.
Guns and force are hardware tools of expressing the physical oriented nature of Military/Police in purpose/application and relate through several degrees of software abstraction to their associated controlling conceptual entity.
Beliefs are tools of the conceptual oriented nature of Spiritual Ministers that relate through several degrees of software abstraction to their physical application and connection to their associated controlling entity.
Two ends of a spectrum book ended by Physical and Logical
Each with a founding footing at an opposite end with a conceptual chain of implementation toward the other. One entity chooses to implement the relationship with a software program based on one or the other ends as the Subject of the relationship and the other as the Object of the relationship that gives meaning to the resulting Subject/Action/Object entity relationship.
This is going somewhere. For me at least.
Maybe the way to sum it up is:
There are many a slip between the cup and the lip.
The meaning of the slip is really embedded in the choice of the cup or the lip playing in the role of subject or object. They are each only physical entities that serve a higher conceptual relationship expressed in some mystical format called the cup of life?
Bringing this all back to what Bernie expressed as a good idea to enhance the purpose of the Post Office:
There is not another agency entity like the Post Office other than Police or Ministers and their associated physical locations in our communities and direct delivery of services to our citizens with an equally strong link of "software" connecting abstraction to the associated controlling entity.
In the case of Police at the local level the controlling entity is the state up through the Local/State/National level for law enforcement. The Post Office delivers a different service to all our citizens that is not security related but has a different service orientation that it performs as an established and well known geographic specific entity in every city/town in our country.
The Post Office is a socialized institution providing social services. Its services should be expanded to serve our citizens. It is in an excellent position to do this due to its localized presence as sole source of physical services to community as well as physical portal to conceptual services of government.
It is the objective of private enterprise extremist to adopt or eliminate government services to increase profit and/or reduce government control of private enterprise for the public good.
Reduction of Postal Services at the community level or elimination of the Post Office as an end game serves the objectives of Private Enterprise Extremism.
In the broader view of the thinking expressed in this blog entry it is Free Private Enterprise that stands equal to state and religion in its geographic and conceptual presence through out our entire nation at the local level. Its specific controlling entity at the national level its is local connection through "software" operations of business is not a equally defined. That is the nature of the concept of competition. On the other hand a goal of business is to eliminate competition but it must be done in accordance with "business rules". Self controlling, regulating and enforcing, of course.
Sunday, October 18, 2015
The Loft
When I was little, hard to tell when (it is a vague memory and maybe it did not really happen like this but this is the way I remember it). It did happen, really.
Rather than guess at an age I will just say that I was small enough for my older by 11 years sister, Mardell, lifted me up to a closest shelf. I must have been small enough for her to lift and the closest shelf, if it was a closet, was not that high. Just above her face level. But that is the way I remember it. On a shelf up high. It felt that way.
It also felt good. A small space. Up where I had a view, maybe my first view, from a vantage point of height. A safe place that somehow I felt was my own. A feeling of security. I liked it.
I have always liked lofts in a house. My house had two lofts on the third story level. I closed off one that was open to the bedroom below but made a doorway to it from the third story loft on the other side of the wall. That loft is reachable by a ladder.
8 years ago we added a new master bedroom on the main floor and converted a downstairs bedroom to a bathroom and small walk in closet. The converted bedroom prior to the remodel had a shed roof/ceiling. The vertical wall at one end under which would be the walk-in closet was two stories high. I had an 8 foot high ceiling put in over the walk-in closet creating an upper 12x8 foot space and a pull down folding ladder to access it. My space. A special place like a loft. A refuge filled with my most personal things and memories.
Yesterday I finished a ladder to another loft in a shop at my sisters house. I made the loft and the stairs. The stairs are hinged so they can be pulled up to the loft level. I am living in a 13 ft trailer below and inside the shop. An 8X12 foot loft where I can store my things. Things that I had moved from my house in town that now await below in the shop for sorting and Keep/Dispose decisions. The keepers will go up into the loft. Mostly old things. Keepsakes. Family things. Videos and pictures. Things that have value associated with memories of people, places, accomplishments. Things from a lifetime that require further attention to give them meaning to say something about me when I am no longer here to say it myself.
Things that I keep in the shop below are all things that could be disposed of when I am gone.
How much will finally remain up in the loft at the end of that project?
Not very much but important to me and anyone that may ever find it to be important to them for some reason. Who knows?
The last of my presence remaining in a loft I created.
I like lofts.
Rather than guess at an age I will just say that I was small enough for my older by 11 years sister, Mardell, lifted me up to a closest shelf. I must have been small enough for her to lift and the closest shelf, if it was a closet, was not that high. Just above her face level. But that is the way I remember it. On a shelf up high. It felt that way.
It also felt good. A small space. Up where I had a view, maybe my first view, from a vantage point of height. A safe place that somehow I felt was my own. A feeling of security. I liked it.
I have always liked lofts in a house. My house had two lofts on the third story level. I closed off one that was open to the bedroom below but made a doorway to it from the third story loft on the other side of the wall. That loft is reachable by a ladder.
8 years ago we added a new master bedroom on the main floor and converted a downstairs bedroom to a bathroom and small walk in closet. The converted bedroom prior to the remodel had a shed roof/ceiling. The vertical wall at one end under which would be the walk-in closet was two stories high. I had an 8 foot high ceiling put in over the walk-in closet creating an upper 12x8 foot space and a pull down folding ladder to access it. My space. A special place like a loft. A refuge filled with my most personal things and memories.
Yesterday I finished a ladder to another loft in a shop at my sisters house. I made the loft and the stairs. The stairs are hinged so they can be pulled up to the loft level. I am living in a 13 ft trailer below and inside the shop. An 8X12 foot loft where I can store my things. Things that I had moved from my house in town that now await below in the shop for sorting and Keep/Dispose decisions. The keepers will go up into the loft. Mostly old things. Keepsakes. Family things. Videos and pictures. Things that have value associated with memories of people, places, accomplishments. Things from a lifetime that require further attention to give them meaning to say something about me when I am no longer here to say it myself.
How much will finally remain up in the loft at the end of that project?
The last of my presence remaining in a loft I created.
I like lofts.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Targeted Killing - Death by Drone
The Drone Papers
Secret military documents expose the inner workings of Obama’s drone wars.The link reveals secret details of the official Drone program. Simply secret details about the nature of a very unsecret program we are all aware of.
We have a new whistle blower:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-intercept-source-another-snowden_561f9cc6e4b0c5a1ce621c97?ry41v2t9
Read the comments to the link. Wet your finger and put it up in the air. I feel growing dissension and fractionalization in the USA. The symptom of a state-less social conflict? Who benefits?
Warfare has evolved over centuries in terms of "stand-off" capability to target and kill. From up close and personal with a blunt or sharp weapon to impersonal death dealt from thousands of miles away. Target detection has likewise evolved. So has the strategy of kill more of them than they kill us. The ultimate winning end of that game is kill them all at no cost of death to our side.
Is that a simple enough picture?
Drones are the ultimate weapon. Used to be the atom bomb. Still is. We have plenty. They are not used, except twice and how many enemy combatants did they kill? It was a different war then. Civilians populations were targeted. Not the sword and spear clashes of huge armies on open fields.
In 1996 I visited Ho Chi Minh's headquarters. Also his home. This is link to pictures:
https://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/vietnam/hanoi/hcm/stilthouse.html
He had his meetings in half of the downstairs. Lived upstairs. Bunker in the back. Next to the old Provincial French palace which he refused to occupy. I'm sure that his home was hard to see from the air. The palace however stood out plainly.
Is it possible that we did not know, could not find out where his house was and conclude that he was probably at home at some time?
It was never bombed but hundreds of thousands of bombs were dropped. Missions were flown over Hanoi. John McCain was fished out of a lake in the center of Hanoi.
It was a different war. The top leader of the enemy was not targeted. Village leaders were. By both sides. NVA and Viet Cong got a lot of media attention killing village leaders. US and ARVN did it also but not publicized.
Civilians are killed in drone strikes. A cost of doing business. Like and cost/benefit analysis there is a break even point. There are also probabilities of success/failure and definition of terms. It is a cold calculation when it comes to human lives. A calculation that involves moral values. What are they? Anything we wish them to be. The statistical probability criteria for civilian deaths? A low number I hope but probably contingent on the value of the target. Morally justified perhaps by proximity being guilt by association. Any reason will do.
Drone targets are not heads of state. They are stateless therefore not covered by the gentleman's war agreement not to officially target heads of state. "Terrorists" are free fire zone targets. The Drone Papers describe some official dissent that we cannot capture them for interrogation. Better alive than dead in that case. There is a point to be considered there. Probably being made by those government agencies in the torture business, which may have declined. Who knows, it is secret.
I admire Tom Engelhardt. He often writes and feature writers on the subject of drone warfare and related matters.
Examples:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175978/tomgram%3A_gregoire_chamayou,_hunting_humans_by_remote_control/
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175990/tomgram%3A_engelhardt,_counting_bodies,_then_and_now/
"Stateless" enemies are "free fire" targets. There is no "State" country with military power to retaliate the attack. Were American Indians stateless targets? Indigenous peoples of other colonized countries? Something to ponder in the rules of war. Terrorists are stateless, little or no rights until they become a state. 1776?
Being or becoming a nation state has its security advantages. An attack on its citizens is an attack on the state. 9/ll?
It works in reverse. A nation-state may officially retain a name like Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria but in essence becomes a stateless entity in the eyes (unofficially) of external states when it is composed of warring factions. Then different rules of warfare apply, those generally applicable to stateless entities. Stateless entities have State of Being heads that can be targeted.
The long term game plan of Israel is getting increased attention lately as things go to hell in a handbasket in the Middle East. The plan for "Securing the Realm" is being looked at in terms of current progress and it seems to be doing so much better than other countries overt plans for the Middle East. The question arises: Are they the same plan? If so what is that plan?
If there is such a plan? Google "Strategy for Securing the Realm" selecting just the past week and there are 8 pages of hits. The strategy names countries, Nation States, what better strategy than to reduce a Nation State to stateless. A nation in name only but a geographic area of stateless actors.
Stateless actors become targets of different rules and have internal agenda not so much external unless they become a combined official state like a Caliphate which given their fractional divisions is a dream held by zealots to the advantage of Israel.
How does that benefit the USA? The USA has a nation building agenda based on Freedom. Might the true USA strategy be based on the Israeli strategy of reducing nation-states to basic statelessness.
The USA does not do nation building well.
I admire Andrew Bachavich and everything he writes:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176055/tomgram%3A_andrew_bacevich%2C_vietnamization_2.0/
The USA attacked Iraq. A nation-state. Afghanistan. A nation-state. No so good result. Shouldn't attack nations states so much any more. But factions within a nation state might be a better way to attack a nation-state. The only trick is to support the nation-state head of state until there is no longer a state to be head of because it is broken up into factions that we simply wash our hands of. A threat only unto itself, not us, not Israel.
Mission Accomplished.
Remain allied to one of the factions sending in the drones for support until they become "enemies" and side with another faction that become the good guys.
Perpetual war. Out of sight, out of the public mind.
The "Let's you and him fight" Strategy.
No rules for stateless entities or those with centralized power to impose it rules.
Jay Gould had a strategy:
Frequently attributed: "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."
Is the USA hiring half the population (or some faction with half the power) and paying them in Drone Strikes?
The "rules of war" should be re-written. Only hand held weapons weapons can be used and only those that can inflict death on another either held in the hand like a knife or club or thrown by hand like a spear. Inflicting death in such a manner can only be done upon an enemy holding in their hand one of the authorized weapons of war. Killing the old fashion way. Up close and personal with skin in the game.
Friday, October 9, 2015
Information Age Identification of Uniquely Identified Objects at the Granular Level
Summary to the point. I had an idea in to run with in this blog but if I put a gps tracker on on it then it would reveal that I was running all over the playing field. Sometimes headed for the goal to the extent that any spectator watching the play on the field would wonder where the goal was as well as the name of game. For clarification I have later added the following in bold as I Monday morning quarterbacked it.
Who is on First? First thing is to name the players and identify their unique attributes associated with their role in the game and relationships. It is (or is it?) a simple matter (or is it?) of defining (or proclaiming) Object Oriented Parent Class and Child of the Parent Class relationships and attributes.
Start Monday morning quarterbacking of what I wrote yesterday and follows the conclusion of this analysis
Money Game Players:
Money is a a Child Class of the Parent Class: Medium of Exchange
People is a Parent Class in an Object Oriented Parent/Child relationship structure.
People Play (with) Money.
Parsing the previous sentence: People is the the Subject noun. Play is the implementing verb. Money is the object noun. Play is the action that relates the Subject to the Object and gives it some relationship meaning. The verb action nature of the play is Transaction. That applies when Money is in the conditional state of Transaction between any instance of the class "People" where any two instances of the class People are in a mutually exclusive conditional state of either Have Money or Want Money.
There are two children of the class People that share all attributes of the parent class People in the Money Game:
Human Being
and
Business
Human Being child of the class People has the attribute state of Living Breathing. When state is dead then Human Being is a child of the sub class of people: Business. Yeah, I know, crude but this is about the Money Game.
ParentClass:People:ChildSubClass:Business is any entity mutually exclusive of;;;;;;
ParentClass:People:ChildSubClass:Human Being that transacts with Money.
Comment: Yes, I know I am changing to a descriptive format not consistent with the way of describing these "things" not used previously. Its a progressively developmental thinking thing that starts to look like it is some kind of crude programming thing.
Any children of the Class:People play exclusively with and among any other children of the class and/or children of their class.
Human Being has no children of its class. By definition they are all distinct, discrete and equal in the money game. Any two or more instances of the Human Being class of People transacting with Money in a contractual relationship are by definition children of the Parent Class:Business.
Business has two children of its class:
People:Business:Public and,
People:Business:Private
Why?
This Parent:Child relationship is structured to deal with traditional entity relationship of Government and Business. I am unplugging entities and reconnecting them in different ways for different reasons. The objective is to answer the riddle: "Who's on First" or as I looked at in a prior blog entry: Untie the Gordian Knot.
Business wants to share attributes of Human Being in the Game of Money. Business wants to share attributes of Government and social governance (social governance being the verb that implements the relationship between Government and Human Being Parent Classes). that relate to the money game. OK, let's look at that Object Oriented relationship in various structurally connected ways.
There is a Public/Private conflict to be resolved here in the Money Game.
"We the People" is a collective Human Being enterprise for relationship governance. Traditionally viewed in conceptual belief (but always divorced form the reality of implementation) as the Parent with collective proclamation of attribute rights that are inherited to children of our enterprise maybe called Freedom.
Free Private Enterprise?
Yes, that too.
Business has always been a collective enterprise for relationship governance.
This is where the thought mangled by my own way of thinking goes:
If Business wants to have the attributes of Human Being then discrete unique instances of the ParentClass:Business must be as uniquely identified at the lowest granular level as finely and equal to the identification of Human Beings. In an equally exact manner of who, on an equally information specific manner, who the entity called a business is, where it is located, what it does and who it interacts with.
In other words, if a business wants to share the attributes of Human Being in the money game, and that is its only game, profit or non-profit, then it is subject to the same discrete indentification surveillance as any Human Being citizen of the USA. All citizens are subject to "secret" surveillance by our own government for our own good because it is a freedom and right to privacy that we have given up to protect us from an small number of "bad actors". There are a number of "bad actor" businesses that justify treating all businesses in the same manner as all Human Being citizens.
Yes, Business, you can have the attributes of Human Being citizens too.
Yes, Business. You too can and must be assigned an official identity equal in nature to a distinct Human Being surveilled in the same manner to collect all and any private information about the business and who it has what relationships with, not as an invasion of privacy but as absolutely necessary for our shared security and protection from those that would do us harm.
Ultimately all Businesses are Human enterprises. They all relate to human beings in some monetary system structure and exchange of ownership of goods and services through a medium of exchange. There is a key to problem solution there. Might it be total information all the time? We are certainly farther down that road for human citizens because other human beings want to do us harm and that is how we want to protect ourselves from them. Some specific business enterprises and structures want to do harm to us individually and collectively. Likewise we must be ably to know, when necessary and with controls, everything related to money about all Business entities and all the human beings they relate to directly as employees/benficiaries as well as what other business enterprises they relate to.
Trade secrets? They are protected? Are they like a person's rights to privacy?
A whole new assignment for the NSA.
End of Monday morning quaterbacking.
Beginning of what was Monday morning quarterbacked......................
What is a more uniquely granular entity object than a human being? Each is a distinct one of a kind. There really are a multitude of uniquely existing unlike any other object things in its collective class of things but to us we are most important. A good thing and a bad thing when we define our relationships to the other things in the world. Over time that definition has been largely in terms of the physical world. Now it is rapidly increasing its expansion into the conceptual world of information and what we do with it.
We, individually as human beings are becoming more uniquely identified in information systems. Information systems like the computers they exist on reduce ambiguity. Which Joe Doe are we talking about. Where Joe lives, his age, eye color driver license serve to uniquely identify him. Biometric information identifies him beyond a shadow of a doubt.
http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/10/08/the-fbi-wants-your-face-and-fingerprints/
Where is this going?
We are becoming increasingly more defined as unique individuals. It has been a progression from being defined by things we are associated with, like a name, age, occupation, telephone number, address to things that we are: Our biometrics and there are many of them that uniquely identify us.
Biometric identification is progressive. More markers and detection is accumulating at a greater sensor distance of time and space as well as the here and now real time of a uniquely identified individual. Tracks of where and when we are located in real time and space become the historical record of where we were and increasingly why. The volume of the historical record grows as more real time information grows and is maintained in history.
My concept of a Monetary System involves unique digital identification of every unit of money value and who owns it. Who owns it in real time as well as who owned it in history and who the new owner was in a monetary transaction. A block chain record.
The entities that conduct monetary transactions are individuals or monetary entities that are not unique individual people. People transaction with personal money they own are uniquely identified. They are becoming increasingly identified by biometrics.
Collective entities transacting with money are not as uniquely identified. They range from uniquely identified to unknown and untraceable. A situation probably often a function of design. Collective entities are public or private. Public ones are well defined. Private ones are business either for profit or non profit. Some are well defined others obscure as far as their links to the money they transact with in real time as well as in past history.
In order to have full information control of the monetary system all entities beyond unique individuals that transact with money in their personal account must be as uniquely identified directly to the money to which they claim ownership.
Maybe only the first direct link of a non-human being money transacting entity need be known? In a block chain record of all transactions of all entities each entity receiving money becomes known. A shell company might be the direct link to an account that receives or spends money in my monetary system but knowing where the money trail goes from there tells all.
Money only changes ownership for goods or services or is a charitable donation or gift. Giving something for nothing. The exception of the money world both private individuals or collective monetary entities.
All "Collective Monetary Entities" dealing with money must be identified as conclusively as individual people. They must have the equivalent of biomarkers to identify them and perhaps more evidence of the good or service they are exchanging for money than is required of most individuals. Individuals that are paid a wage or salary for the good or service they provide.
Who is on First? First thing is to name the players and identify their unique attributes associated with their role in the game and relationships. It is (or is it?) a simple matter (or is it?) of defining (or proclaiming) Object Oriented Parent Class and Child of the Parent Class relationships and attributes.
Start Monday morning quarterbacking of what I wrote yesterday and follows the conclusion of this analysis
Money Game Players:
Money is a a Child Class of the Parent Class: Medium of Exchange
People is a Parent Class in an Object Oriented Parent/Child relationship structure.
People Play (with) Money.
Parsing the previous sentence: People is the the Subject noun. Play is the implementing verb. Money is the object noun. Play is the action that relates the Subject to the Object and gives it some relationship meaning. The verb action nature of the play is Transaction. That applies when Money is in the conditional state of Transaction between any instance of the class "People" where any two instances of the class People are in a mutually exclusive conditional state of either Have Money or Want Money.
There are two children of the class People that share all attributes of the parent class People in the Money Game:
Human Being
and
Business
Human Being child of the class People has the attribute state of Living Breathing. When state is dead then Human Being is a child of the sub class of people: Business. Yeah, I know, crude but this is about the Money Game.
ParentClass:People:ChildSubClass:Business is any entity mutually exclusive of;;;;;;
ParentClass:People:ChildSubClass:Human Being that transacts with Money.
Comment: Yes, I know I am changing to a descriptive format not consistent with the way of describing these "things" not used previously. Its a progressively developmental thinking thing that starts to look like it is some kind of crude programming thing.
Any children of the Class:People play exclusively with and among any other children of the class and/or children of their class.
Human Being has no children of its class. By definition they are all distinct, discrete and equal in the money game. Any two or more instances of the Human Being class of People transacting with Money in a contractual relationship are by definition children of the Parent Class:Business.
Business has two children of its class:
People:Business:Public and,
People:Business:Private
Why?
This Parent:Child relationship is structured to deal with traditional entity relationship of Government and Business. I am unplugging entities and reconnecting them in different ways for different reasons. The objective is to answer the riddle: "Who's on First" or as I looked at in a prior blog entry: Untie the Gordian Knot.
Business wants to share attributes of Human Being in the Game of Money. Business wants to share attributes of Government and social governance (social governance being the verb that implements the relationship between Government and Human Being Parent Classes). that relate to the money game. OK, let's look at that Object Oriented relationship in various structurally connected ways.
There is a Public/Private conflict to be resolved here in the Money Game.
"We the People" is a collective Human Being enterprise for relationship governance. Traditionally viewed in conceptual belief (but always divorced form the reality of implementation) as the Parent with collective proclamation of attribute rights that are inherited to children of our enterprise maybe called Freedom.
Free Private Enterprise?
Yes, that too.
Business has always been a collective enterprise for relationship governance.
This is where the thought mangled by my own way of thinking goes:
If Business wants to have the attributes of Human Being then discrete unique instances of the ParentClass:Business must be as uniquely identified at the lowest granular level as finely and equal to the identification of Human Beings. In an equally exact manner of who, on an equally information specific manner, who the entity called a business is, where it is located, what it does and who it interacts with.
In other words, if a business wants to share the attributes of Human Being in the money game, and that is its only game, profit or non-profit, then it is subject to the same discrete indentification surveillance as any Human Being citizen of the USA. All citizens are subject to "secret" surveillance by our own government for our own good because it is a freedom and right to privacy that we have given up to protect us from an small number of "bad actors". There are a number of "bad actor" businesses that justify treating all businesses in the same manner as all Human Being citizens.
Yes, Business, you can have the attributes of Human Being citizens too.
Yes, Business. You too can and must be assigned an official identity equal in nature to a distinct Human Being surveilled in the same manner to collect all and any private information about the business and who it has what relationships with, not as an invasion of privacy but as absolutely necessary for our shared security and protection from those that would do us harm.
Ultimately all Businesses are Human enterprises. They all relate to human beings in some monetary system structure and exchange of ownership of goods and services through a medium of exchange. There is a key to problem solution there. Might it be total information all the time? We are certainly farther down that road for human citizens because other human beings want to do us harm and that is how we want to protect ourselves from them. Some specific business enterprises and structures want to do harm to us individually and collectively. Likewise we must be ably to know, when necessary and with controls, everything related to money about all Business entities and all the human beings they relate to directly as employees/benficiaries as well as what other business enterprises they relate to.
Trade secrets? They are protected? Are they like a person's rights to privacy?
A whole new assignment for the NSA.
End of Monday morning quaterbacking.
Beginning of what was Monday morning quarterbacked......................
What is a more uniquely granular entity object than a human being? Each is a distinct one of a kind. There really are a multitude of uniquely existing unlike any other object things in its collective class of things but to us we are most important. A good thing and a bad thing when we define our relationships to the other things in the world. Over time that definition has been largely in terms of the physical world. Now it is rapidly increasing its expansion into the conceptual world of information and what we do with it.
We, individually as human beings are becoming more uniquely identified in information systems. Information systems like the computers they exist on reduce ambiguity. Which Joe Doe are we talking about. Where Joe lives, his age, eye color driver license serve to uniquely identify him. Biometric information identifies him beyond a shadow of a doubt.
http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/10/08/the-fbi-wants-your-face-and-fingerprints/
Where is this going?
We are becoming increasingly more defined as unique individuals. It has been a progression from being defined by things we are associated with, like a name, age, occupation, telephone number, address to things that we are: Our biometrics and there are many of them that uniquely identify us.
Biometric identification is progressive. More markers and detection is accumulating at a greater sensor distance of time and space as well as the here and now real time of a uniquely identified individual. Tracks of where and when we are located in real time and space become the historical record of where we were and increasingly why. The volume of the historical record grows as more real time information grows and is maintained in history.
My concept of a Monetary System involves unique digital identification of every unit of money value and who owns it. Who owns it in real time as well as who owned it in history and who the new owner was in a monetary transaction. A block chain record.
The entities that conduct monetary transactions are individuals or monetary entities that are not unique individual people. People transaction with personal money they own are uniquely identified. They are becoming increasingly identified by biometrics.
Collective entities transacting with money are not as uniquely identified. They range from uniquely identified to unknown and untraceable. A situation probably often a function of design. Collective entities are public or private. Public ones are well defined. Private ones are business either for profit or non profit. Some are well defined others obscure as far as their links to the money they transact with in real time as well as in past history.
In order to have full information control of the monetary system all entities beyond unique individuals that transact with money in their personal account must be as uniquely identified directly to the money to which they claim ownership.
Maybe only the first direct link of a non-human being money transacting entity need be known? In a block chain record of all transactions of all entities each entity receiving money becomes known. A shell company might be the direct link to an account that receives or spends money in my monetary system but knowing where the money trail goes from there tells all.
Money only changes ownership for goods or services or is a charitable donation or gift. Giving something for nothing. The exception of the money world both private individuals or collective monetary entities.
All "Collective Monetary Entities" dealing with money must be identified as conclusively as individual people. They must have the equivalent of biomarkers to identify them and perhaps more evidence of the good or service they are exchanging for money than is required of most individuals. Individuals that are paid a wage or salary for the good or service they provide.
Who's on First in Yemen
If the Middle East is a confusing mish-mash of relationships then Yemen is the bush league child of the entire situation and the US relationship to it. I will enter the clear link rather than linking to it:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/08/why-is-the-us-aiding-and-enabling-saudi-arabias-genocidal-war-in-yemen/
Spokeo is an information tool presenting entity relationships. Wikipedia describes it as a tool presenting information about people. Relationships of a person to another person. Specific data element information about an individual person and extension to relationship to others based on connecting data elements.
"Strength" of connection between two and more people is not defined by a metric but is apparent by observation. When the connection is a business relationship money/asset/economics is therefore involved and strength or meaning might be considered relatively high. Money and its related asset/economic things has relationship to many other high level objects that are more conceptual. Power, politics, religion, philosophy, family, country, social standing, etc.
Maybe the old approach of "follow the money" might reveal the connection between an individual's relationship to another based money to further relationships based on other high level conceptual or real entities.
Maybe the Spokeo business plan is to expand into those other high level relationships but that is dangerous ground. More in the territory of the NSA where all information is sought and is fair game not only for the seeking but the deep meaning of its relationships.
"Who is on First?" requires a powerful information analysis tool to answer the question!
I would like to see how Spokeo would present that answer in a weighted relationship entity analysis not only of individual people but the entity analysis of higher level "aggregated groups" of people based on all significant relationships and their relative and/or competing/cooperating nature and strength.
Apply an analysis like that to the Middle East----if that was possible ----like not! -----and what would the Spokeo chart look like????
Perhaps I should submit a Freedom of Information request to the NSA to see it?
Maybe just Google for it.
In the old days before relational data bases any attempt to present a picture of information relationships resulted in a spaghetti chart. That of course is why relational data bases emerged as a better way to look at things. Mostly I think because it looked at "things" first rather than the actions that related them. Then by simply seeing the relationship between/among things with simple information rules and structures actions implementing them could be identified.
Of course I am an object oriented guy and that is the way I see "things". Organize and analyze the nature of things and the related actions fall into place. Then if the actions are not logically related to the nature of the thing (disconnected) then the entity definition of nature of the thing must be either be changed or the action implementing the relationship between/among the things involved must be changed.
Things and their related action (implementing interaction) is a fixed vs variable relationship. The dominant one -- Thing or Action -- drives the choice of which to change to bring them into logical true desired relationship. The catch is that often the logical true relationship is the private relationship that is intended by design to be different than its public relationship.
Media manipulation can do that at the macro level but once "things" and relationship to things at the granular level, like one person or one uniquely serialized and digitized dollar on a central cloud can be solidly linked at the most granular level there is a result: Macro level appearance of things and their actions is contrary to the micro level relationship of the entities.
The Information Mill continues to grind exceedingly small. The Information Age is on that trend line.
It is a good thing. We will increasingly see the dis-connection between the macro picture and the micro entity level relationship picture that creates it.
Better formalized information organization eyesight to see the detail lowest level entity relationships and associated implementing actions and build them structurally from the bottom up to either confirm or deny what we hear or are inclined to see from the top down view is what will change the ball game.
In my opinion the single most important micro to macro level entity having the determining role in the structure of our various social systems from the bottom to the top and their implementing relationships is money.
Structure a universal monetary system based on this to understand and manage our world:
A granular level uniquely identified digital debt free unit of value and uniquely identified entities (people and institutions, public or private) that transact with each other in exchanging ownership of each unit.
Record all transactions in a block chain establishing history of all monetary changes of ownership of money among transacting entities.
Go from there as we decide what are our values and how we govern accordingly individually and collectively.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/08/why-is-the-us-aiding-and-enabling-saudi-arabias-genocidal-war-in-yemen/
Spokeo is an information tool presenting entity relationships. Wikipedia describes it as a tool presenting information about people. Relationships of a person to another person. Specific data element information about an individual person and extension to relationship to others based on connecting data elements.
"Strength" of connection between two and more people is not defined by a metric but is apparent by observation. When the connection is a business relationship money/asset/economics is therefore involved and strength or meaning might be considered relatively high. Money and its related asset/economic things has relationship to many other high level objects that are more conceptual. Power, politics, religion, philosophy, family, country, social standing, etc.
Maybe the old approach of "follow the money" might reveal the connection between an individual's relationship to another based money to further relationships based on other high level conceptual or real entities.
Maybe the Spokeo business plan is to expand into those other high level relationships but that is dangerous ground. More in the territory of the NSA where all information is sought and is fair game not only for the seeking but the deep meaning of its relationships.
"Who is on First?" requires a powerful information analysis tool to answer the question!
I would like to see how Spokeo would present that answer in a weighted relationship entity analysis not only of individual people but the entity analysis of higher level "aggregated groups" of people based on all significant relationships and their relative and/or competing/cooperating nature and strength.
Apply an analysis like that to the Middle East----if that was possible ----like not! -----and what would the Spokeo chart look like????
Perhaps I should submit a Freedom of Information request to the NSA to see it?
Maybe just Google for it.
In the old days before relational data bases any attempt to present a picture of information relationships resulted in a spaghetti chart. That of course is why relational data bases emerged as a better way to look at things. Mostly I think because it looked at "things" first rather than the actions that related them. Then by simply seeing the relationship between/among things with simple information rules and structures actions implementing them could be identified.
Of course I am an object oriented guy and that is the way I see "things". Organize and analyze the nature of things and the related actions fall into place. Then if the actions are not logically related to the nature of the thing (disconnected) then the entity definition of nature of the thing must be either be changed or the action implementing the relationship between/among the things involved must be changed.
Things and their related action (implementing interaction) is a fixed vs variable relationship. The dominant one -- Thing or Action -- drives the choice of which to change to bring them into logical true desired relationship. The catch is that often the logical true relationship is the private relationship that is intended by design to be different than its public relationship.
Media manipulation can do that at the macro level but once "things" and relationship to things at the granular level, like one person or one uniquely serialized and digitized dollar on a central cloud can be solidly linked at the most granular level there is a result: Macro level appearance of things and their actions is contrary to the micro level relationship of the entities.
The Information Mill continues to grind exceedingly small. The Information Age is on that trend line.
It is a good thing. We will increasingly see the dis-connection between the macro picture and the micro entity level relationship picture that creates it.
Better formalized information organization eyesight to see the detail lowest level entity relationships and associated implementing actions and build them structurally from the bottom up to either confirm or deny what we hear or are inclined to see from the top down view is what will change the ball game.
In my opinion the single most important micro to macro level entity having the determining role in the structure of our various social systems from the bottom to the top and their implementing relationships is money.
Structure a universal monetary system based on this to understand and manage our world:
A granular level uniquely identified digital debt free unit of value and uniquely identified entities (people and institutions, public or private) that transact with each other in exchanging ownership of each unit.
Record all transactions in a block chain establishing history of all monetary changes of ownership of money among transacting entities.
Go from there as we decide what are our values and how we govern accordingly individually and collectively.
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Who's on First? ,,,,In the Middle East Baseball Game?
Preamble: The best part of many of my blog entries comes at the end. Seeing that I move the end to the beginning. So, here is the end up front: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_Knot . How I got from what follows to this end is even a mystery to me........................
I refer in the title the the famous comedy skit. Go to the link, even if you know the skit. It is a classic. Probably a classic because it presents in the context of comedy a confusing situation that cannot be understood to answer the question. I suppose there are variations on the same comedy theme but I won't take time to find them for my own amusement. If I did then one variation that comes to mind might be "What is Life?" set in the comedy context. Serious or comedy the answer remains the same in the end. Difficult to comprehend and it either leaves us laughing or mystified but still clueless in either case to grasp the ever elusive answer. A answer that might lead to a better quality of life if we had it.
Short of a universal fundamental answer we all find our own answer. Maybe the answer already established in doctrine of some social group. Maybe the one we find entirely ourselves wandering in the dessert populated by a multitude of of answers like a Chinese Menu. Independent discovery probably only reveals that we are not the first ones to find it but the first to find it for ourselves in our own journey to seek down a road well traveled.
This blog asks (and often goes astray from the question as it takes on similar questions):
"What is money?"
I find an answer by reducing money to a uniquely identified digital serialized instance of a class that is at the lowest granular level of "one" unique unit with a state of being existing as either:
1. Present
2. Absent
My Money Model looks like a Life Model.
The Money Model Looks exactly like the Life Model in the "Present" state. That being we have it.
The more abstract state, being non presence, the digital equal of Zero, is by abstraction a higher level concept that requires a frame of reference beyond physical existence in a different world, a different realm of being where "nothingness" has meaning like.....ah, like.....eternity? A strange world where all is also nothing? That is a round about way of defining "Unity".
Just thinking as I make this stuff up as I go................
Having lost sight of my objective, I doubled my thinking effort to go where it took me.
Back to "Who is on First" in the Middle East.
Bridging the preceding thinking to the question at hand, unique individuals are key players that are instances of their class. We all know their names. Start with Obama and the rest of the classroom is small. My rule of numbers says 8 to 12. Make it more like baseball and call it 9. These are the ones that supporting/opposing "stake holders" act through and the numbers go geometric quickly as sub-classes of power influence expand.
Focusing on the playing field of the Middle East, what is going on? I don't know. It is extremely confusing to me. Some stakeholders have no uniquely identified instance of a class. ISIS (what the heck is a Levant?) or Al Qaeda. At least until it is claimed that the leader has been killed but that is a game of Wack a Mole. Used to be it was one guy. Now we know who it was after the fact. They are the shadow players, the ones that are stakeholders represented by the Main Players. The fans that have influence power? Something like that but unlike a baseball game they do not always stand out as a cheering section would. Like a tree falling in the woods?
For example: Who is Bashar Hafez al-Assad? that is a Wikipedia link that describes him.
This link looks at USA and Russia (Obama and Putin) relationship to him.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/assad_putin_and_the_smart_move_that_obama_must_make.html
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcmanus-obama-syria-putin-20151004-column.html
Or simply look at a number of different view represented by a google search and pick one and try to get an accurate description of the relationship!!!!
Who's on First?
Obama is presented by this Wikipedia Link.
Putin at this Wikipedia link.
My first observation is that the Wikipedia link for Obama goes into detail about what he has done as a head of state.
The presentation of Putin and Assad in the Wikipedia links tend more toward the political influences that formed them and the nature of the power group constituencies that are their base.
That observation might help clarify an understanding of the situation.
The playing field is the Middle East. Off the top of my head I could not give a definition of the Middle East much beyond where all the trouble is. I could name some of the countries. Easy geographic divisions. How they came about from colonial days. The ethnics? The religions? Clans? Peoples that claim a common name? How they cross geographic/political boarders?
Much more difficult going down that road to get to some fundamental unique definable units of classes!
Wikipedia definition of "Middle East"
To conclude my thinking here before it eludes me:
In my simple model everything in our human mind and the organization of our existence in relation the world of physical reality or the conceptual reality we create beyond the physical world is coded into the beauty of a basic Noun and Verb cognition. The relationship of two nouns is implemented by a verb. The computational trinity model that I have referred to in so many blog entries that seems to have universal application from macro to micro level.
A prior entry called, I think, the Tower of Babel, is a myth describing the curse of fragmenting communication in to so many different forms of expression that a common language was not possible. It is the allegory of not just the language but the division of schools of thought that apply the language that all go their separate ways to divide us, not combine us.
What is the common school of thought that will unite us?
The two principal nouns that are are related by the single verb from which our conceptual structures are derived?
While my philosophy put the subject noun as supremely determining the structure of the concept in the noun/verb relationship I have to think that the dominant driver to the preceding question, as much as I do not like it, is a verb that determines the controlling nature of the Subject/Object noun situational relationship from top to bottom.
The verb is........
Violence.
It controls today.
There is an binary alternate verb that could take control.
How could that be applied to resolve the situation in the Middle East and answer the question "Who is on First?
That is even a greater challenge than figuring out "What is Money"
The algorithm solution, approach to the problem seems to be the same?
Does looking at the relationship of Violence and Money as a key give some insight as to the solution?
A key binary relationship in the world today looks to me like this binary state of being:
Have (presence of some thing)
and
Have Not (absence of same thing)
That thing being Money.
Money is a fungible as Power.
Both are as binary in their state of being as having natures of good and bad.
Is there a glimmer of a solution to be had somewhere in all of this?
Enough of this. I have wood to chop and water to carry.
As always, Yves links lead me to great thoughts:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/could-the-syrian-conflict-irrevocably-change-global-geopolitics.html
Syria. The Gordian Knot. An excellent eloquent way to describe the situation.
https://www.google.com/search?q=syria+gordian+knot&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=seamonkey-a
Gordian Knot Read about it at the link. Enlightening old view of the problem.
The Gordian Knot is a legend of Phrygian Gordium associated with Alexander the Great. It is often used as a metaphor for an intractable problem (disentangling an "impossible" knot) solved easily by cheating or "thinking outside the box" ("cutting the Gordian knot"):
I refer in the title the the famous comedy skit. Go to the link, even if you know the skit. It is a classic. Probably a classic because it presents in the context of comedy a confusing situation that cannot be understood to answer the question. I suppose there are variations on the same comedy theme but I won't take time to find them for my own amusement. If I did then one variation that comes to mind might be "What is Life?" set in the comedy context. Serious or comedy the answer remains the same in the end. Difficult to comprehend and it either leaves us laughing or mystified but still clueless in either case to grasp the ever elusive answer. A answer that might lead to a better quality of life if we had it.
Short of a universal fundamental answer we all find our own answer. Maybe the answer already established in doctrine of some social group. Maybe the one we find entirely ourselves wandering in the dessert populated by a multitude of of answers like a Chinese Menu. Independent discovery probably only reveals that we are not the first ones to find it but the first to find it for ourselves in our own journey to seek down a road well traveled.
This blog asks (and often goes astray from the question as it takes on similar questions):
"What is money?"
I find an answer by reducing money to a uniquely identified digital serialized instance of a class that is at the lowest granular level of "one" unique unit with a state of being existing as either:
1. Present
2. Absent
My Money Model looks like a Life Model.
The Money Model Looks exactly like the Life Model in the "Present" state. That being we have it.
The more abstract state, being non presence, the digital equal of Zero, is by abstraction a higher level concept that requires a frame of reference beyond physical existence in a different world, a different realm of being where "nothingness" has meaning like.....ah, like.....eternity? A strange world where all is also nothing? That is a round about way of defining "Unity".
Just thinking as I make this stuff up as I go................
Having lost sight of my objective, I doubled my thinking effort to go where it took me.
Back to "Who is on First" in the Middle East.
Bridging the preceding thinking to the question at hand, unique individuals are key players that are instances of their class. We all know their names. Start with Obama and the rest of the classroom is small. My rule of numbers says 8 to 12. Make it more like baseball and call it 9. These are the ones that supporting/opposing "stake holders" act through and the numbers go geometric quickly as sub-classes of power influence expand.
Focusing on the playing field of the Middle East, what is going on? I don't know. It is extremely confusing to me. Some stakeholders have no uniquely identified instance of a class. ISIS (what the heck is a Levant?) or Al Qaeda. At least until it is claimed that the leader has been killed but that is a game of Wack a Mole. Used to be it was one guy. Now we know who it was after the fact. They are the shadow players, the ones that are stakeholders represented by the Main Players. The fans that have influence power? Something like that but unlike a baseball game they do not always stand out as a cheering section would. Like a tree falling in the woods?
For example: Who is Bashar Hafez al-Assad? that is a Wikipedia link that describes him.
This link looks at USA and Russia (Obama and Putin) relationship to him.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/assad_putin_and_the_smart_move_that_obama_must_make.html
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcmanus-obama-syria-putin-20151004-column.html
Or simply look at a number of different view represented by a google search and pick one and try to get an accurate description of the relationship!!!!
Who's on First?
Obama is presented by this Wikipedia Link.
Putin at this Wikipedia link.
My first observation is that the Wikipedia link for Obama goes into detail about what he has done as a head of state.
The presentation of Putin and Assad in the Wikipedia links tend more toward the political influences that formed them and the nature of the power group constituencies that are their base.
That observation might help clarify an understanding of the situation.
The playing field is the Middle East. Off the top of my head I could not give a definition of the Middle East much beyond where all the trouble is. I could name some of the countries. Easy geographic divisions. How they came about from colonial days. The ethnics? The religions? Clans? Peoples that claim a common name? How they cross geographic/political boarders?
Much more difficult going down that road to get to some fundamental unique definable units of classes!
Wikipedia definition of "Middle East"
To conclude my thinking here before it eludes me:
In my simple model everything in our human mind and the organization of our existence in relation the world of physical reality or the conceptual reality we create beyond the physical world is coded into the beauty of a basic Noun and Verb cognition. The relationship of two nouns is implemented by a verb. The computational trinity model that I have referred to in so many blog entries that seems to have universal application from macro to micro level.
A prior entry called, I think, the Tower of Babel, is a myth describing the curse of fragmenting communication in to so many different forms of expression that a common language was not possible. It is the allegory of not just the language but the division of schools of thought that apply the language that all go their separate ways to divide us, not combine us.
What is the common school of thought that will unite us?
The two principal nouns that are are related by the single verb from which our conceptual structures are derived?
While my philosophy put the subject noun as supremely determining the structure of the concept in the noun/verb relationship I have to think that the dominant driver to the preceding question, as much as I do not like it, is a verb that determines the controlling nature of the Subject/Object noun situational relationship from top to bottom.
The verb is........
Violence.
It controls today.
There is an binary alternate verb that could take control.
How could that be applied to resolve the situation in the Middle East and answer the question "Who is on First?
That is even a greater challenge than figuring out "What is Money"
The algorithm solution, approach to the problem seems to be the same?
Does looking at the relationship of Violence and Money as a key give some insight as to the solution?
A key binary relationship in the world today looks to me like this binary state of being:
Have (presence of some thing)
and
Have Not (absence of same thing)
That thing being Money.
Money is a fungible as Power.
Both are as binary in their state of being as having natures of good and bad.
Is there a glimmer of a solution to be had somewhere in all of this?
Enough of this. I have wood to chop and water to carry.
As always, Yves links lead me to great thoughts:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/could-the-syrian-conflict-irrevocably-change-global-geopolitics.html
Syria. The Gordian Knot. An excellent eloquent way to describe the situation.
https://www.google.com/search?q=syria+gordian+knot&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=seamonkey-a
Gordian Knot Read about it at the link. Enlightening old view of the problem.
The Gordian Knot is a legend of Phrygian Gordium associated with Alexander the Great. It is often used as a metaphor for an intractable problem (disentangling an "impossible" knot) solved easily by cheating or "thinking outside the box" ("cutting the Gordian knot"):
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
Truth Is A Weapon That Results in Colateral Damage
Sample coverage if the Afghan hospital bombing:
The Radically Changing Story of the U.S. Airstrike on Afghan Hospital: From Mistake to Justification Intercept (resilc). Important.
Afghan Forces Asked US Special Forces on the Ground in Kunduz To Call In Strike on Médecins Sans Frontières Marcy Wheeler
The U.S. Gunship that Slaughtered Doctors and Patients in Kunduz Daily Beast (furzy mouse)
CNN and the NYT Are Deliberately Obscuring Who Perpetrated the Afghan Hospital Attack Intercept (resilc)
Afghan Doctor Slaughter Pulls Back Curtain Consortium News (Judy B)
It all paints a picture of probability: A direct intentional hit. It also reveals a scramble to cover it up and minimize potential collateral damage done by truth as a weapon of destruction.
Can't wait to see the official report!
Makes me wonder.
No doubt about what Doctors Without Borders is and does. Little doubt about what a hospital is and does. Little doubt about the status of the Red Cross in war. It is not morally/legally (war crime) a target to attack.
An investigation will put US forces between a rock and a hard place.
Good. But who will be the scapegoat to twist in the wind?
Keep an eye on this one.
The Radically Changing Story of the U.S. Airstrike on Afghan Hospital: From Mistake to Justification Intercept (resilc). Important.
Afghan Forces Asked US Special Forces on the Ground in Kunduz To Call In Strike on Médecins Sans Frontières Marcy Wheeler
The U.S. Gunship that Slaughtered Doctors and Patients in Kunduz Daily Beast (furzy mouse)
CNN and the NYT Are Deliberately Obscuring Who Perpetrated the Afghan Hospital Attack Intercept (resilc)
Afghan Doctor Slaughter Pulls Back Curtain Consortium News (Judy B)
It all paints a picture of probability: A direct intentional hit. It also reveals a scramble to cover it up and minimize potential collateral damage done by truth as a weapon of destruction.
Can't wait to see the official report!
Makes me wonder.
No doubt about what Doctors Without Borders is and does. Little doubt about what a hospital is and does. Little doubt about the status of the Red Cross in war. It is not morally/legally (war crime) a target to attack.
An investigation will put US forces between a rock and a hard place.
Good. But who will be the scapegoat to twist in the wind?
Keep an eye on this one.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Information and Accounting Structures
Fall is coming. I feel it in the crispness of the air. It is a special time of year when my mind becomes clear and focused on conceptual things. Where they all fit together.....or don't. This blog displays the historical pattern of increased entries as well as depth and clarity............
Note pause here:
(to the extent the the writing on the wall clarity of the matters I become interested in see as information structures at least appear to be essentially more simple in their fundamental relationships as well as the extension of those Super Class relationships to the complexity of all the children of the Super Class that form the Object Oriented information and process structure).............
The nature of complexity gets easier to see when it is reduced to simplicity at the foundation. All complex systems are based on a few simple fundamental relationships. Information systems in this age are all reduced to digital simplicity representations according to some simple binary rules that become every more complex as they are expressions of things like money as an example at one end of the conceptual things we create or airplanes at the more solid end of putting materials rather than ideas together to create a thing.
The fun part of it all is connecting, building if you like that word, using concepts directly related to their real world identities (either physical existence or "things" whipped up out of our own fertile imaginations). Again, money is an excellent example. The new Boeing airplane designed and flown on a computer before it ever becomes reality is another example. What we conceive in our minds becomes reality. It has always been that way since a guy invented the wheel (in his mind) then made one and put it on a car.
This blog entry is the introduction to a new episode in my annual awakening of clarity of thought (my thoughts, clear to me) about whatever attracts my interest as a challenge to understand using my own approach to the problem. A
All problems have a simple foundation. Some problems are problems that have a wrong foundation or poorly designed one or one that is designed intentionally to be sub-optimized to the benefit of the creator. The more we look at problems that have an invalid foundation the more they tend to be recognized for what they are (faulty) and fall apart when the true or better foundation is recognized. It is becoming increasingly easier to the bad structures as the Information Age advances and all things become a conceptual internet of things in parallel with the real internet of things and their relationships.
The information structures that are the low hanging fruits for revision structured on a better conceptual base are those that have a base unit of unique identity during their existence that cannot be changed and are over a given period of time remain unchanged.
Human beings are like that. Each uniquely and instance of a class. No two ever alike but sharing variable characteristics of the class of human beings that makes them sub-classes in an progression that ends with each of us being our own unique sub-class of One Each unit of issue. Existing in a variable time frame. Each equal by our own collective definition of ourselves to those that believe that as a matter of faith and proclaim it as a national truth.
I see money like that and that is the essence of what I write about in this blog and apply the concept to things that are not money but their object oriented information structure is the same.
The whole world and everything in it is an object. The thing called time gives objects a stage upon which to perform actions.
That is all there is to it.
Objects
and
Actions........ as a function of two or more objects relating to each other over time.
No object can ever relate only to itself and no other unless it is purely eternal which makes it a non-entity by definition relating only to itself and no other object for eternity. For all intents and purposes of my mortal self that is maybe the one problem that is beyond me grasping through application of the the way I think. It is a matter of pure faith not reason.
Pure faith relates only to itself and no other thing. Plug in the word faith in any application you can think of. At the ultimate end, or bottom, or top, wherever the end is defined to be because by definition the ultimate end is undefinable and it is faith in what? Its faith in "whatever" we chose to be the ultimate end.
Like our own unique human existence that is our own being and reality while we dwell in this world for the time we call life, I think each of us conceptually defines our own faith in whatever we wish to believe in. It may be anything on the spectrum of reality that goes from rock solid to purely non-existent in reality beyond the frame of reference of space and time.
There, I took my running leap and jump of the diving board to a new season of thought!
On to the good stuff!
It's all good!
Note pause here:
(to the extent the the writing on the wall clarity of the matters I become interested in see as information structures at least appear to be essentially more simple in their fundamental relationships as well as the extension of those Super Class relationships to the complexity of all the children of the Super Class that form the Object Oriented information and process structure).............
The nature of complexity gets easier to see when it is reduced to simplicity at the foundation. All complex systems are based on a few simple fundamental relationships. Information systems in this age are all reduced to digital simplicity representations according to some simple binary rules that become every more complex as they are expressions of things like money as an example at one end of the conceptual things we create or airplanes at the more solid end of putting materials rather than ideas together to create a thing.
The fun part of it all is connecting, building if you like that word, using concepts directly related to their real world identities (either physical existence or "things" whipped up out of our own fertile imaginations). Again, money is an excellent example. The new Boeing airplane designed and flown on a computer before it ever becomes reality is another example. What we conceive in our minds becomes reality. It has always been that way since a guy invented the wheel (in his mind) then made one and put it on a car.
This blog entry is the introduction to a new episode in my annual awakening of clarity of thought (my thoughts, clear to me) about whatever attracts my interest as a challenge to understand using my own approach to the problem. A
All problems have a simple foundation. Some problems are problems that have a wrong foundation or poorly designed one or one that is designed intentionally to be sub-optimized to the benefit of the creator. The more we look at problems that have an invalid foundation the more they tend to be recognized for what they are (faulty) and fall apart when the true or better foundation is recognized. It is becoming increasingly easier to the bad structures as the Information Age advances and all things become a conceptual internet of things in parallel with the real internet of things and their relationships.
The information structures that are the low hanging fruits for revision structured on a better conceptual base are those that have a base unit of unique identity during their existence that cannot be changed and are over a given period of time remain unchanged.
Human beings are like that. Each uniquely and instance of a class. No two ever alike but sharing variable characteristics of the class of human beings that makes them sub-classes in an progression that ends with each of us being our own unique sub-class of One Each unit of issue. Existing in a variable time frame. Each equal by our own collective definition of ourselves to those that believe that as a matter of faith and proclaim it as a national truth.
I see money like that and that is the essence of what I write about in this blog and apply the concept to things that are not money but their object oriented information structure is the same.
The whole world and everything in it is an object. The thing called time gives objects a stage upon which to perform actions.
That is all there is to it.
Objects
and
Actions........ as a function of two or more objects relating to each other over time.
No object can ever relate only to itself and no other unless it is purely eternal which makes it a non-entity by definition relating only to itself and no other object for eternity. For all intents and purposes of my mortal self that is maybe the one problem that is beyond me grasping through application of the the way I think. It is a matter of pure faith not reason.
Pure faith relates only to itself and no other thing. Plug in the word faith in any application you can think of. At the ultimate end, or bottom, or top, wherever the end is defined to be because by definition the ultimate end is undefinable and it is faith in what? Its faith in "whatever" we chose to be the ultimate end.
Like our own unique human existence that is our own being and reality while we dwell in this world for the time we call life, I think each of us conceptually defines our own faith in whatever we wish to believe in. It may be anything on the spectrum of reality that goes from rock solid to purely non-existent in reality beyond the frame of reference of space and time.
There, I took my running leap and jump of the diving board to a new season of thought!
On to the good stuff!
It's all good!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)