An (e.g.) 1/2 cent payment connected to the current Like button (whether it was credited to the likee or something else) would stop the Facebook Fraud problem by making them non-viable for clickfarms.. and still not seriously impact the original button's usability?
for instance a user could designate a charity recipient for his likes
If you could BUY a download or certain number of plays of the song for a nickel or a few cents (one-click and without transaction costs making it impractical)...
Would you?
patent issued... demo built and tested... its called a pooled-user-determined account which forms the root for an internet wallet.
I'm a terrible entrepreneur but despite that the concept seems to be making progress... especially for its potential in lobbying.
Patents are important protections designed to protect the hard work of individuals from the onslaught of more powerful forces... I've got one myself (a utility patent)
THIS IS NOT THE CASE HERE!
This is more akin to privatizing the alphabet...
Not exactly a great way to stimulate civilization's advance.
If Blodget really bilked money from widows and orphans (and I don't doubt it) how come he's not running a bank? Seems like the perfect item for the resume.
Maybe he's just pissed-off because he was the sacrificial lamb for a lot of other widow-and-orphan-bilkers and wants to make his amends by bringing his old friends to some sort of reckoning?
It really is all just security theater... keeping the peanut gallery scared, entertained... and at the same time self-satisfied about their unearned 'exceptionalism'...
BTW, has it occurred to anyone that someone intending a terrorist act could just blow up a carry-on before ever getting to the ridiculous scanner...
It'll shut down the airport for sure... and do it at a couple of airports simultaneously and you'll shut down the whole network for a day or two...
Stop letting government treat us like childish idiots... yes... things could happen... reasonable precautions should be taken. But this isn't a smart approach.
What you're referring to is a "soft target". You have to pay rather close attention, but terrorists have long recognized the opportunity presented by soft targets: malls, hotels, and yes, the TSA waiting line. Interestingly enough, it's the real security machinations of the US that have been preventing attacks of this form. Which raises the question further: if we already have real security, why do we even need security theater?
In theory you need cheap security theatre to distract people from the very expensive, secretive, and sometimes unconstitutional (or nearly so) real security work.
In practice, security theatre turns out to be pretty expensive.
Well more than that CulturalNgineer, if you do this in multiple locations thanks the congestion caused by the TSA you can get similiar death counts as the original attacks. Atleast low thousands.
The killing comes from the disruption of the food supply that occurs when Internet logistics fail.
However, I'm more worried about an EMP attack than a devastating Internet attack. A couple of well-placed EMPs could take the US back to the Victorian period very quickly. One Second After is a great read on the subject.
The killing comes from the disruption of the food supply that occurs when Internet logistics fail.
Really? You can't imagine that people would fall back on their word and paper? And that after a huge shock we would shake it off and get back to work?
Imagine a trucker. All the "logistics" went poof on Monday, it's Wednesday. Imagine the trucker decided to drive anyway, stops at a gas station he frequents a lot, him and the manager agree on a handshake and he fills up, and truck on. Makes his delivery, the local store clerks are still working despite now knowing how or if they'd get paid and for how many hours. Imagine that despite the huge confusion and uncertainty and everything taking 100 times longer, life still goes on. Can you imagine that?
Or alternatively, OMG the internet's down, everybody starve to death!
Or perhaps the trucker, the gas station attendant, or both get nabbed by crazed mobs of people wanting to loot the contents of the truck and the gas station. Watch some videos of, say, the LA Riots. Here's a video of truck driver Reginald Denny getting beat by a mob. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc_SgpyJWRY During the LA Riots there was a lot less reason for people to loot and go crazy than there would be in a food and money disruption situation. I admire your confidence in believing in the best in people, but personally I'm skeptical about that.
This looks to be a campaign intentionally designed to confuse with the goal of restricting a truly free Internet in order to benefit big money interests.
Frankly I've had more than enough of mega-corporations corrupting good governance.
Speech, association, politics, mutual assistance (charity), etc...
are transactions between humans that pre-date the commercial transaction.
The first ICT was perhaps a bird call constructed out of a leaf made by a hunter to notify his mates of where the prey was…
And the first journalism was Ooga running into camp and announcing she’d just seen the first spring sprout on a favorite berry bush.
And if the message was false, misleading or dangerous… the onus certainly didn’t fall upon the air through which the information was transmitted!
There was no gatekeeper, no intermediary…
ICT AND JOURNALISM were BOTH strictly peer-to-peer.
The same could be said for politics and charity within the hunter-gatherer world... peer-to-peer.
The commercial transaction (and the creation of money, trade tokens, etc) arose with the need for interaction within or between larger or multiple 'social organisms'... an important and needed development.
At its root, a civilization (or any social organism) is a product of individual and group decisions (ideas+actions) operating within the confines of the physical environment and natural law.
Money was developed originally as a technology for the allocation of excess social energy where complexity (and loss of various forms of proximity) required conventions beyond the less formalized methods of a hunter-gatherer group.
I believe this suggest some re-thinking about the nature of money and capital (and capital creation) but that's another story...
The point here is that the nature of this "social energy" in a scaled organism requires that the exchange of this energy NOT be bound by transaction costs or other complications (like carrier censorship) IN AREAS RELATED TO COMMONS-DEDICATED FUNCTIONS ESPECIALLY...
These particular areas of exchange actually pre-date the need for or existence of the commercial transaction and require special attention.
This problem (which extends also into the political participation sphere especially) is directly linked to neglected scaling issues in this new landscape... and the capabilities required for Commons-oriented transactions in that space... and why that requires a viable, simple and secure MICRO-transaction.
A needed institution for a pragmatic approach to solution:
The Commons-dedicated Account Network:
A self-supporting , Commons-owned neutral network of accounts for both political and charitable monetary contribution... which for fundamental reasons of scale must allow a viable micro-transaction* (think x-box points for action in the Commons).
(I note that journalism is often a for-profit enterprise and that this presents a complicating factor. I believe this is an addressable issue.)
I also suggest that such a distributed account network should own and maintain its own cloud and bank(s)... giving it a certain independence and resilience.
*Re the potentials of the networked political microtransaction:
"A full 90 members of Congress who voted to bailout Wall Street in 2008 failed to support financial reform reining in the banks that drove our economy off a cliff. But when you examine campaign contribution data, it's really no surprise that these particular lawmakers voted to mortgage our economic future to Big Finance: This election cycle, they've raked in over $48.8 million from the financial establishment." ("Crony Capitalism: Wall Street's Favorite Politicians", Zach Carter, ourfuture.org)
I don't like the way money is controlling politics either. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire...
$48.8 million? It's disgusting how these special interests can network their money!
$48.8 million is less than 35 cents per registered voter...
It's just a matter of implementing the technologies to harvest other sides of the debate..
Most people NEVER give to a cause or campaign. It's a hassle and unless you're giving substantial bucks you feel pretty impotent anyway.
It doesn't need to be that way. Its just a matter of catalyzing the network.
One-Click Micropayment Capability for Volume Solicitations and Multiple Providers http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2013/12/one-click-micro...
Represented by Perkins Coie