Pushing myself to problem solve last couple of days gave me a not surprising answer that when it came to money making matters should focus on making proper business connections. Which am sure is correct. And defining the problem is key to getting a good answer.
With other areas realized that maybe had not focused on properly defining the problem.
Like imagine you are in a bank, to make a deposit, and you see the vault door is open, and some people calmly walk into the bank, into the vault, and back out with bags of cash. They are clearly just ordinary looking people hopping into their cars after they leave and there is a steady stream as you watch. You look at teller aghast and demand to know what's going on. The teller calmly looks at you, says nothing is happening and that did NOT happen.
You worriedly leave the bank, and head for nearest police station, but simply when you enter the police station, is the SAME teller smiling at you, asking to be of service...and yeah, sounds like a nightmare, right?
That is an analogy to the academic world.
Academics in a field of study both are to be the dedicated experts in that area, and the policing authority usually for problems within that area of study. Academics primarily police themselves in their area of expertise. Is an old system that dates back to medieval periods.
Yes there are ways academic fraud can bring in other policing authority. And sometimes like at a university the administration supposedly has some. But especially with tenured faculty, where tenure is something from ancient times, reality can be is functionally rarely if ever used as to the academic field of study.
Academics would probably roar in fury if say, a college administrator dared question them on procedures for checking validity of their research. They check each other. Yeah is an old system dating back to medieval periods.
Yet I found a problem where mathematicians can create a fake paper that is correct by their own mathematical rules, so you need to fix the rules, right?
Paper instead gets yanked by chief editor claiming withdrawn, and journal shuts down after one more issue. European Mathematical Information Service, which is an agency learned archives mathematical journals, puts paper back up thankfully in its own separate file, where is to this day, where have talked this story and over a decade goes by with me wondering what can be done.
The mathematicians still as far as I know can create fake math papers with this problem that look correct. But they are also the policing authority in this area.
Gave a functional definition that authority relative to one entity is when some other entity has information needed.
Like mathematicians are expected to be authorities on mathematics. And they have information needed by others in their field of study on which that authority rests. We can often think of authority as represented by the position itself, while my point is to focus on the knowledge needed for that position.
Like a person can be a police officer and wear the uniform but what if slept through all classes in police academy then could fumble with actually performing duties of a police officer.
Well there that explains it. With academics and a problem where needed to go to the authorities with mathematicians, was right back with mathematicians which I did not see as a huge problem--over a decade ago.
But just accepted the system that was there. And what else could I do really?
Also explains why can't just let it go. We're talking about a serious societal problem, like that bank robbing analogy above. To let it go, have to give up on society in the broad. And imagine trying to build your life in some other area, knowing such a huge flaw existed in such a prestigious and important one?
Where also can be scary. YOU know the problem exists. THEY know you know.
One powerful concept that is helping me out recently: yes, you can become witness to something and have a social duty, and it can be difficult, but worth fighting for what you believe.
Well that defines the problem space better I think. But then, what is the solution?
James Harris
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
Monday, January 29, 2018
Discovery is worth it regardless
Well a very thorough assessment with bouncing ideas off web which is part of my process concluded no conspiracy with regard to my difficulty making money. Focused on lack of business connections which to me in retrospect is like, duh. And once again to me revealed that simple explanation is usually correct.
But was fun as well and covered a lot of territory, where put a lot out in a tweet stream as bounced ideas in an interesting process know how to do more than explain. Is very thorough though.
Still there are things here that fascinate me as to demonstrated at this point.
Yes, have these major discoveries. Actually have solid guess about what is going on with math ones, but is weird to watch play out over so many years. With other things am now thinking different things may be in play as well.
The age of the discoverer may simply be passed.
Today is more about celebrity and people jealous over and fighting for attention.
The simple notion that truth is important in and of itself is lost in the modern world. Academics primarily chase their own type of celebrity claiming is about funding. And a public increasingly sees it all as some kind of entertainment, which has made it more difficult to talk certain things, like climate change.
People know they just don't like the idea of climate change. Is like they can't figure out how to turn the channel on the subject. But slowly is gaining more awareness is not a movie or a television show, but is a very dangerous thing that will impact us all.
Maybe I am the last. Here at the early part of the computer age when maybe AI's will take over better anyway. Having struggled even with massive discoveries that would have been eagerly cheered and accepted in the past.
If so that is so...weird. Eventually will figure out some kind of way to get major discoveries their due.
But to be the last great discoverer of humanity. What an honor would rather not have.
Maybe not though as how would you know? Still the resistance am facing? Is kind of telling.
Human beings have moved on somehow in some weird and deep way. Besides, I locked up quite a few. Defined mathematical proof, and found a better way to define science and entertainment and so much more.
Still I know there is an infinity of knowledge available. But a finite amount relevant to the human species. Still there is so much more cool and important that is a major discovery that could be discovered I believe. But maybe I would always so believe just as part of who I am.
Scientists are relentlessly working with what past major discoverers opened up. Eventually yes, they will also am sure be finding much more with mine as well. But that is different from the big ones.
Those massive discoveries that just shift so much. They are so cool. Take SO much effort to find.
Humanity though? Just may no longer be that curious for anyone to bother, or even if they do, get it properly acknowledged. Reality is, we do have enough things for very comfortable lives, if we can quit messing each other and our planet up.
Maybe the lack of that pressure...no. Will refuse to believe it. Am NOT the last great discoverer.
Will simply trust that am not, on faith. Humanity will stay curious enough. I just know it.
James Harris
But was fun as well and covered a lot of territory, where put a lot out in a tweet stream as bounced ideas in an interesting process know how to do more than explain. Is very thorough though.
Still there are things here that fascinate me as to demonstrated at this point.
Yes, have these major discoveries. Actually have solid guess about what is going on with math ones, but is weird to watch play out over so many years. With other things am now thinking different things may be in play as well.
The age of the discoverer may simply be passed.
Today is more about celebrity and people jealous over and fighting for attention.
The simple notion that truth is important in and of itself is lost in the modern world. Academics primarily chase their own type of celebrity claiming is about funding. And a public increasingly sees it all as some kind of entertainment, which has made it more difficult to talk certain things, like climate change.
People know they just don't like the idea of climate change. Is like they can't figure out how to turn the channel on the subject. But slowly is gaining more awareness is not a movie or a television show, but is a very dangerous thing that will impact us all.
Maybe I am the last. Here at the early part of the computer age when maybe AI's will take over better anyway. Having struggled even with massive discoveries that would have been eagerly cheered and accepted in the past.
If so that is so...weird. Eventually will figure out some kind of way to get major discoveries their due.
But to be the last great discoverer of humanity. What an honor would rather not have.
Maybe not though as how would you know? Still the resistance am facing? Is kind of telling.
Human beings have moved on somehow in some weird and deep way. Besides, I locked up quite a few. Defined mathematical proof, and found a better way to define science and entertainment and so much more.
Still I know there is an infinity of knowledge available. But a finite amount relevant to the human species. Still there is so much more cool and important that is a major discovery that could be discovered I believe. But maybe I would always so believe just as part of who I am.
Scientists are relentlessly working with what past major discoverers opened up. Eventually yes, they will also am sure be finding much more with mine as well. But that is different from the big ones.
Those massive discoveries that just shift so much. They are so cool. Take SO much effort to find.
Humanity though? Just may no longer be that curious for anyone to bother, or even if they do, get it properly acknowledged. Reality is, we do have enough things for very comfortable lives, if we can quit messing each other and our planet up.
Maybe the lack of that pressure...no. Will refuse to believe it. Am NOT the last great discoverer.
Will simply trust that am not, on faith. Humanity will stay curious enough. I just know it.
James Harris
What is missing in analysis then?
At least should be clear am not seeking attention from math folks. The math controversy WAS fun, will admit. That of course makes sense when a person is correct and never really bugged me too much. But shifted as started taking money problem seriously, without effect.
Reality is most people do not care in that area, one way or the other, and I do not blame them.
Still folks don't want to feel stupid from talking up someone who is way wrong. And trolls can test an ability to check, and why bother? Is like, if is correct, why are they after a person, is easy to think.
My distancing from people in the math field I guess does not help.
But why should I care if some mathematicians don't believe things mathematically correct really? It will outlast them.
The trolls aren't checking either I found out. They just look for targets, and couldn't be bothered to verify if math is wrong or not. Reality is, I don't care about them much. But am debating how much they can influence.
Where think is better now, as more people learn such behavior. And if believe in web search can check things quickly. Which have addressed recently noting a divide, where will focus on the people with the modern point of view. So yeah, if wish to check people can rapidly.
And web attention draw was cool and addictive. Especially as I tested it.
Yeah and don't like that addictive aspect which I believe is under control now. Kind of gets to that power corrupts...but have no power. Is more like influence can corrupt.
Could shift so many things. And not like was hiding it either. Was funny to think of world leaders getting weird updates about my latest, trying to understand it, if they did. If they didn't then they just have crappy analysis missing important. Plenty of things were most definitely ME, and I'd talk it out before, during and after.
And none of that is gone AT ALL. Right now could fiddle with any number of things as all through free things, without concern that will go away. And am much more responsible now. Before didn't seem real, but now it does.
Am beginning to pay more attention to others maybe lying now about their current influence as it has rapidly waned. THEY can be convincing to many including global leaders. As how would those know?
Web has changed so much so fast.
The quiet is what is messing me up. But I LIKE the quiet. Ok. Maybe progress?
Yeah that has to be key. Means am NOT getting necessary information which of course is important when you talk about a product or service sold to others.
My lack of work on feedback and enjoyment of the quiet as I like to call it, may be the thing.
And then it is just about what am doing. No mysterious conspiracy or others needed.
Makes sense. But then if love the quiet so much, how would I change? How do you start the conversation then? Still is a possibility am evaluating, along with others.
Well there is the problem because that back-and-forth flow of information is STILL key regardless. Even to determine if there is some other type of interference.
There focus should be as the problem to be solved. Getting necessary conversation going, and maintaining it.
Yup. Analysis so far where think is for the most part is complete is: no conspiracy. Best analysis is: failure to make meaningful social connections that will move towards business goals.
That is not what was thinking answer would be.
James Harris
Reality is most people do not care in that area, one way or the other, and I do not blame them.
Still folks don't want to feel stupid from talking up someone who is way wrong. And trolls can test an ability to check, and why bother? Is like, if is correct, why are they after a person, is easy to think.
My distancing from people in the math field I guess does not help.
But why should I care if some mathematicians don't believe things mathematically correct really? It will outlast them.
The trolls aren't checking either I found out. They just look for targets, and couldn't be bothered to verify if math is wrong or not. Reality is, I don't care about them much. But am debating how much they can influence.
Where think is better now, as more people learn such behavior. And if believe in web search can check things quickly. Which have addressed recently noting a divide, where will focus on the people with the modern point of view. So yeah, if wish to check people can rapidly.
And web attention draw was cool and addictive. Especially as I tested it.
Yeah and don't like that addictive aspect which I believe is under control now. Kind of gets to that power corrupts...but have no power. Is more like influence can corrupt.
Could shift so many things. And not like was hiding it either. Was funny to think of world leaders getting weird updates about my latest, trying to understand it, if they did. If they didn't then they just have crappy analysis missing important. Plenty of things were most definitely ME, and I'd talk it out before, during and after.
And none of that is gone AT ALL. Right now could fiddle with any number of things as all through free things, without concern that will go away. And am much more responsible now. Before didn't seem real, but now it does.
Am beginning to pay more attention to others maybe lying now about their current influence as it has rapidly waned. THEY can be convincing to many including global leaders. As how would those know?
Web has changed so much so fast.
The quiet is what is messing me up. But I LIKE the quiet. Ok. Maybe progress?
Yeah that has to be key. Means am NOT getting necessary information which of course is important when you talk about a product or service sold to others.
My lack of work on feedback and enjoyment of the quiet as I like to call it, may be the thing.
And then it is just about what am doing. No mysterious conspiracy or others needed.
Makes sense. But then if love the quiet so much, how would I change? How do you start the conversation then? Still is a possibility am evaluating, along with others.
Well there is the problem because that back-and-forth flow of information is STILL key regardless. Even to determine if there is some other type of interference.
There focus should be as the problem to be solved. Getting necessary conversation going, and maintaining it.
Yup. Analysis so far where think is for the most part is complete is: no conspiracy. Best analysis is: failure to make meaningful social connections that will move towards business goals.
That is not what was thinking answer would be.
James Harris
Narrowing focus on money problem
One thing have noticed is that I become more forthcoming about things when running out of money, which is routine, or when in a difficult situation from lack of it. Maybe I need to just work at more transparency as a basic principle. But originally supposed would NOT bring up certain speculative things as simply being polite, where also could impact money-making potential.
Lots of idea success with ideas that draw attention have discussed much, so can shift focus from there. And DID ponder money as explained before from the troubling lack. Which wasn't completely puzzling to me in the past, as there are just certain things do not want to do. So you accept consequences.
Now though really have ran into a wall, which has me focusing also on facts that have not moved things.
Facts which do not depend on the source. Which was part of the point. I'd put certain things out there where didn't matter where came from, as so useful would pull things along.
And talking about action driving information. Facts which should drive decisions. Those can separate from myself as source too. That is key. Is one of the indicators of some kind of other influence.
That plan did not work as it should have.
In one case am looking at apparently people behaving with increasing energy to do double-think when they should not try, and world is allowing. Is a huge area too, with growing negative consequences.
That is SO weird. But am hand's off to a large extent as study it. Is is NOT my fault either. I just find the facts. But what some people do is so very strange to me, with facts.
Reality is that to a large extent I just find such things curious. Am focusing more now on what may be deliberate efforts to make certain I find it difficult to monetize ANYTHING at all. Now THAT is what has me shifting gears a bit. Have ran through some possibles but keep bumping into one problem: What's the motivation?
There shouldn't be sufficient motivation for any entities capable of pulling off the feat. So shouldn't be happening? Or is it? Maybe is just me.
There should focus. Is not easy to make money on the web I tell myself. But is that true? Challenge each assumption. But also I constantly have very puzzling data. Vast reach with very low audience numbers according to sources where numbers act odd I think. But checked, and re-checked and re-checked the primary source for that data which is Google, and also have other sources. My analysis came up empty every time. Data apparently is legit.
Yeah but that is a benefit and a problem. Get kind of stuck with just enough information you NEED to be concerned. Where also I've had little ability to be certain of the context or why. Who are these people from all over the globe and with what interest really?
Which becomes SO very important to monetization. So yeah, the interest is there from objective sources. Checking them doesn't give reason to doubt. But then have just enough information to wonder about the rest.
There must be some other effect in operation. And not even trying to make MUCH money. Am finding it difficult to make any at all.
Which is unfortunate. Is not like I need much. And would rather be doing other research than pondering such things. Well is now my most interesting problem though. And that is something.
James Harris
Lots of idea success with ideas that draw attention have discussed much, so can shift focus from there. And DID ponder money as explained before from the troubling lack. Which wasn't completely puzzling to me in the past, as there are just certain things do not want to do. So you accept consequences.
Now though really have ran into a wall, which has me focusing also on facts that have not moved things.
Facts which do not depend on the source. Which was part of the point. I'd put certain things out there where didn't matter where came from, as so useful would pull things along.
And talking about action driving information. Facts which should drive decisions. Those can separate from myself as source too. That is key. Is one of the indicators of some kind of other influence.
That plan did not work as it should have.
In one case am looking at apparently people behaving with increasing energy to do double-think when they should not try, and world is allowing. Is a huge area too, with growing negative consequences.
That is SO weird. But am hand's off to a large extent as study it. Is is NOT my fault either. I just find the facts. But what some people do is so very strange to me, with facts.
Reality is that to a large extent I just find such things curious. Am focusing more now on what may be deliberate efforts to make certain I find it difficult to monetize ANYTHING at all. Now THAT is what has me shifting gears a bit. Have ran through some possibles but keep bumping into one problem: What's the motivation?
There shouldn't be sufficient motivation for any entities capable of pulling off the feat. So shouldn't be happening? Or is it? Maybe is just me.
There should focus. Is not easy to make money on the web I tell myself. But is that true? Challenge each assumption. But also I constantly have very puzzling data. Vast reach with very low audience numbers according to sources where numbers act odd I think. But checked, and re-checked and re-checked the primary source for that data which is Google, and also have other sources. My analysis came up empty every time. Data apparently is legit.
Yeah but that is a benefit and a problem. Get kind of stuck with just enough information you NEED to be concerned. Where also I've had little ability to be certain of the context or why. Who are these people from all over the globe and with what interest really?
Which becomes SO very important to monetization. So yeah, the interest is there from objective sources. Checking them doesn't give reason to doubt. But then have just enough information to wonder about the rest.
There must be some other effect in operation. And not even trying to make MUCH money. Am finding it difficult to make any at all.
Which is unfortunate. Is not like I need much. And would rather be doing other research than pondering such things. Well is now my most interesting problem though. And that is something.
James Harris
Sunday, January 28, 2018
Considering possibilities
Have some serious intellectual achievements which really are not moving the needle as the saying goes. That is, there is not the expected reaction to these various tools which help humanity understand our reality better. Kind of makes me wonder where is the block.
With over a decade to seriously ponder have eliminated a variety of possibilities. Early one made sure to consider was aliens from outer space. Yeah sounds silly but we have a planet full of people STILL dumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. Situation is actually capable of ending most life on the planet if a runaway greenhouse effect occurs, which most people do not understand. Would kill everything but hardy bacteria. You'd die gasping for air as your lungs burned out.
However my analysis indicated that was just cynical human behavior at work.
Try as I could, could only eliminate not only the possibility of aliens from outer space doing anything here on our planet, but could eliminate through all of human history. We have not been visited during the lifetime of our species. The aliens are out there, yes. But they have no reason to come here. And plenty of reasons to avoid.
Also considered possibility of a vast human conspiracy, and eliminated. After checking most weird things that humans are doing through studying news reports, realized that over and over again was just looking at wealth hoarding behavior. Yes, there are wealthy people destabilizing countries routinely and even starting wars, but is JUST to make more money. There is no other reason except for one case, which to me is just weird. Analysis indicated, and speculating wildly here, some powerful family with its own private army funded by selling drugs, prepared for Armageddon. But I think they're just deluded.
Finally am focusing on the money people. Analysis indicates strong resistance to web elimination of the distribution problem. Certain people behind the scenes am now concluding are taking extraordinary measures to try and maintain control, including faking popularity for certain people. Which just hit the news recently. But feel like am grasping at straws.
Kind of wished WAS aliens from outer space. And could convince them to take me away. But while I may be the one human capable of figuring out how to build a real starship, maybe but yeah even for me that maybe a major reach, am in a situation where clearly no one cares. Or apparently no one does. But why not?
To me is like a running joke--wanting a starship. That one is fantasy, far as I know now.
I keep advancing though, so part of me is like, who knows? Maybe, eventually.
Reality though is have demonstrated enough things to where there is no doubt on so much. Who knows if could design a starship engine, but definitely have some difficult to believe intellectual accomplishments, and keep piling them on. Yet this situation continues.
And no, fear is not a factor. Have things that go back well over a decade and that emotion dissipates.
Should really just seem cool. Major discoveries. What's not to like?
Am first major discoverer at my level to face such a situation. Is weird. Will continue to analyze. Beginning another phase of problem solving with the blog. So this post brings in web assistance as once again begin to bounce ideas around the planet.
Has worked before.
Am still an optimist then. Is just another problem to solve. And this post is just first real step.
James Harris
With over a decade to seriously ponder have eliminated a variety of possibilities. Early one made sure to consider was aliens from outer space. Yeah sounds silly but we have a planet full of people STILL dumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. Situation is actually capable of ending most life on the planet if a runaway greenhouse effect occurs, which most people do not understand. Would kill everything but hardy bacteria. You'd die gasping for air as your lungs burned out.
However my analysis indicated that was just cynical human behavior at work.
Try as I could, could only eliminate not only the possibility of aliens from outer space doing anything here on our planet, but could eliminate through all of human history. We have not been visited during the lifetime of our species. The aliens are out there, yes. But they have no reason to come here. And plenty of reasons to avoid.
Also considered possibility of a vast human conspiracy, and eliminated. After checking most weird things that humans are doing through studying news reports, realized that over and over again was just looking at wealth hoarding behavior. Yes, there are wealthy people destabilizing countries routinely and even starting wars, but is JUST to make more money. There is no other reason except for one case, which to me is just weird. Analysis indicated, and speculating wildly here, some powerful family with its own private army funded by selling drugs, prepared for Armageddon. But I think they're just deluded.
Finally am focusing on the money people. Analysis indicates strong resistance to web elimination of the distribution problem. Certain people behind the scenes am now concluding are taking extraordinary measures to try and maintain control, including faking popularity for certain people. Which just hit the news recently. But feel like am grasping at straws.
Kind of wished WAS aliens from outer space. And could convince them to take me away. But while I may be the one human capable of figuring out how to build a real starship, maybe but yeah even for me that maybe a major reach, am in a situation where clearly no one cares. Or apparently no one does. But why not?
To me is like a running joke--wanting a starship. That one is fantasy, far as I know now.
I keep advancing though, so part of me is like, who knows? Maybe, eventually.
Reality though is have demonstrated enough things to where there is no doubt on so much. Who knows if could design a starship engine, but definitely have some difficult to believe intellectual accomplishments, and keep piling them on. Yet this situation continues.
And no, fear is not a factor. Have things that go back well over a decade and that emotion dissipates.
Should really just seem cool. Major discoveries. What's not to like?
Am first major discoverer at my level to face such a situation. Is weird. Will continue to analyze. Beginning another phase of problem solving with the blog. So this post brings in web assistance as once again begin to bounce ideas around the planet.
Has worked before.
Am still an optimist then. Is just another problem to solve. And this post is just first real step.
James Harris
Money people scare me
Some of the most valuable celebrities on the planet--are dead. When analyzing their lives as pondered attention reality for many reasons, have noticed with some concern that over and over again there are people in the past barely visible who often started these celebrities out, who make money from them--dead or alive.
And starkly, alive a person can be a harm to a legacy. Which we can notice better in our times.
Am sure certain people figured it out long ago. Money people terrify me as spin what sounds conspiracy. And admit how can I be sure? But we can study so many cases.
Just consider what is happening to the value of certain intellectual property in our time as personal truths are making certain content plunge in value. Have looked at situations where if a person had died before certain things became public, we're looking at intellectual property that could have been more valuable in the BILLIONS in US dollars.
Checking celebrity backstories, over and over again, find wealthy people in the background who funded them to get them off the ground.
And people miss this reality but for me became something had to study. And will give one of the good guys for perspective. And talked Ronald Wayne in a G+ post in my Politics Collection back August last year. Since G+ is going away have to copy to here:
So much matters how people talk things, and report. Like with the founding of Apple Computer now Apple Inc.
Have watched LOTS of documentaries on subject as find it fascinating. And Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were both in their early twenties, living with their parents, when had this hobby computer they figured could sell BIG. They had sold to some of their friends.
Was Ronald Wayne who gave them lots of business expertise, and then stepped away from the company early. He was already wealthy in his own right, and had lots of free time to help two eager young people, where one documentary noted they were kind of smelly. Early folks like Mr. Wayne also helped them clean up, including dress nicer. Is so amazing and you need to do the research to see how dramatic that was.
That two smelly young men, living with their parents, would go on to found one of the greatest companies on the planet? Had a lot to do with expertise they did not have, which was the knowledge of business provided to them, by people like Mr. Wayne who then simply walked away. To me he is a heroic figure. Our country owes much to him.
Countries around the globe that look at the US, pondering how this country does so well with innovation?
Need to study that story and ponder.
He actually gets grief from people talking as if he messed up in simply helping two smelly twenty-somethings get their computer company off the ground with his substantial business know-how. And exited rather than exploiting his helping founding Apple for all it was worth.
I think he is a telling hero. And he was and is highly successful. Why should he wish to be ruthlessly wealthy? What more was there for him to gain? Relentless pursuit of more money for no reason.
Today look at any number of celebrities with concern, who may not realize they may be more valuable dead than alive, with bursts of sales generated by an untimely death.
Also am wondering about situations where surmise people were turned to drugs deliberately, by others who knew what they were doing. Our species can be this way folks. There are people in our species who can be so cruel, and cold and calculating.
Conceivably is easy: get'em hooked on drugs early helps for control but later can help you cash out on'em.
Luckily in our times can just look at track records. Check the money people and how many have done great, as people they supposedly helped so much have gone down, over and over and over again, in highly predictable ways.
Maybe celebrity DOES just tend to lead people down dark paths relentlessly. Maybe the money people are not as terrible as I fear. But then suspect that there should be positive evidence in their favor.
Human beings are about a totality of a life. We tell ourselves in so many ways.
And a world has just accepted that so often highly talented people for some reason tend to die tragically leaving VASTLY more money to be made by certain people, who could remain hidden before. Television didn't talk about them much if at all.
Now the web lets you study them. And study what other things they have been doing too.
You will find it--enlightening.
With my own situation have been stunned to realize how much looks like I need money people. And ponder them sitting out their like spiders on a web, knowing that creative folks like me need them, under current systems.
That they can just sit patiently and wait.
James Harris
And starkly, alive a person can be a harm to a legacy. Which we can notice better in our times.
Am sure certain people figured it out long ago. Money people terrify me as spin what sounds conspiracy. And admit how can I be sure? But we can study so many cases.
Just consider what is happening to the value of certain intellectual property in our time as personal truths are making certain content plunge in value. Have looked at situations where if a person had died before certain things became public, we're looking at intellectual property that could have been more valuable in the BILLIONS in US dollars.
Checking celebrity backstories, over and over again, find wealthy people in the background who funded them to get them off the ground.
And people miss this reality but for me became something had to study. And will give one of the good guys for perspective. And talked Ronald Wayne in a G+ post in my Politics Collection back August last year. Since G+ is going away have to copy to here:
So much matters how people talk things, and report. Like with the founding of Apple Computer now Apple Inc.
Have watched LOTS of documentaries on subject as find it fascinating. And Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were both in their early twenties, living with their parents, when had this hobby computer they figured could sell BIG. They had sold to some of their friends.
Was Ronald Wayne who gave them lots of business expertise, and then stepped away from the company early. He was already wealthy in his own right, and had lots of free time to help two eager young people, where one documentary noted they were kind of smelly. Early folks like Mr. Wayne also helped them clean up, including dress nicer. Is so amazing and you need to do the research to see how dramatic that was.
That two smelly young men, living with their parents, would go on to found one of the greatest companies on the planet? Had a lot to do with expertise they did not have, which was the knowledge of business provided to them, by people like Mr. Wayne who then simply walked away. To me he is a heroic figure. Our country owes much to him.
Countries around the globe that look at the US, pondering how this country does so well with innovation?
Need to study that story and ponder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Wayne
He actually gets grief from people talking as if he messed up in simply helping two smelly twenty-somethings get their computer company off the ground with his substantial business know-how. And exited rather than exploiting his helping founding Apple for all it was worth.
I think he is a telling hero. And he was and is highly successful. Why should he wish to be ruthlessly wealthy? What more was there for him to gain? Relentless pursuit of more money for no reason.
Today look at any number of celebrities with concern, who may not realize they may be more valuable dead than alive, with bursts of sales generated by an untimely death.
Also am wondering about situations where surmise people were turned to drugs deliberately, by others who knew what they were doing. Our species can be this way folks. There are people in our species who can be so cruel, and cold and calculating.
Conceivably is easy: get'em hooked on drugs early helps for control but later can help you cash out on'em.
Luckily in our times can just look at track records. Check the money people and how many have done great, as people they supposedly helped so much have gone down, over and over and over again, in highly predictable ways.
Maybe celebrity DOES just tend to lead people down dark paths relentlessly. Maybe the money people are not as terrible as I fear. But then suspect that there should be positive evidence in their favor.
Human beings are about a totality of a life. We tell ourselves in so many ways.
And a world has just accepted that so often highly talented people for some reason tend to die tragically leaving VASTLY more money to be made by certain people, who could remain hidden before. Television didn't talk about them much if at all.
Now the web lets you study them. And study what other things they have been doing too.
You will find it--enlightening.
With my own situation have been stunned to realize how much looks like I need money people. And ponder them sitting out their like spiders on a web, knowing that creative folks like me need them, under current systems.
That they can just sit patiently and wait.
James Harris
Saturday, January 27, 2018
Movie theater of the future?
There are those things which seems so OBVIOUS to me after pondering where wonder if something like what will describe isn't out there SOMEWHERE, and if so? Cool! Would like to know.
But imagine that on Sunday morning on a website for your local movie theater, you have the option to purchase a ticket for possible movie showings starting at midnight Thursday.
And you know your movie will show when your paying method, which could be credit or debit is charged, as theater knows which movies won. Biggest box office wins, of course.
Then the theater downloads the movies to show from the web. And you go to watch movie like usual.
And not everyone needs to buy that way. Most may simply show up at theater to watch something, like usual, as long as seats are still available.
To me is just such a simple idea, where theater maximizes total viewers, by having people pick what they want to see and put their money down so is sure. And THEN theater picks movies to show.
Even if THAT theater doesn't show movie you want, you might immediately go to website of another if more than one local or even to another town, or city, if you can travel.
Where what people wish to see in the area? For real, without so much guessing?
Is what the movie theater shows.
Seems simple to me! So what's wrong with this idea? Is it in place anywhere? And the questions start.
That's my process. Oh, so need to add metaprocess to labels below too.
James Harris
But imagine that on Sunday morning on a website for your local movie theater, you have the option to purchase a ticket for possible movie showings starting at midnight Thursday.
And you know your movie will show when your paying method, which could be credit or debit is charged, as theater knows which movies won. Biggest box office wins, of course.
Then the theater downloads the movies to show from the web. And you go to watch movie like usual.
And not everyone needs to buy that way. Most may simply show up at theater to watch something, like usual, as long as seats are still available.
To me is just such a simple idea, where theater maximizes total viewers, by having people pick what they want to see and put their money down so is sure. And THEN theater picks movies to show.
Even if THAT theater doesn't show movie you want, you might immediately go to website of another if more than one local or even to another town, or city, if you can travel.
Where what people wish to see in the area? For real, without so much guessing?
Is what the movie theater shows.
Seems simple to me! So what's wrong with this idea? Is it in place anywhere? And the questions start.
That's my process. Oh, so need to add metaprocess to labels below too.
James Harris
Friday, January 26, 2018
Back to positive focus on situation
Things have gone well for me in important ways. Like consider, often here am discussing things that have brought global attention in some way where often are my own ideas. Where that global attention has consequences where have not monetized well, which is pushing me to figure that out.
Needing to figure out how to make money from your demonstrated ability to pull global attention with your own ideas? I'll take that. Ok, um, is my situation.
One BIG arena where have already given a problem I have has to do with business representation which apparently folks like me need! Like in other arenas where people start pulling attention will hear excited talk of getting an agent or signing with a record label.
There are agents in this area where closest title lately is Influencer where do not feel like I fit that title. And made up my own: Meta innovator
So yeah my tendency to push for my own way with such things? Probably not the way you'd convince a traditional or even newer type agent to represent you. If really seriously tried, and have not recently. YEARS ago did email some management company. Never got a reply.
One area will readily admit would LOVE to innovate would be in that one. Oh yeah.
Of course not going to get much sympathy if full story is: well have so much global attention cannot get a regular job, but why want one when probably should be making TONS of money, but also need an agent, but I don't trust agents.
So that's why I don't seem to get much sympathy with my situation? Maybe. Better to put it out there so can address it properly.
James Harris
Needing to figure out how to make money from your demonstrated ability to pull global attention with your own ideas? I'll take that. Ok, um, is my situation.
One BIG arena where have already given a problem I have has to do with business representation which apparently folks like me need! Like in other arenas where people start pulling attention will hear excited talk of getting an agent or signing with a record label.
There are agents in this area where closest title lately is Influencer where do not feel like I fit that title. And made up my own: Meta innovator
So yeah my tendency to push for my own way with such things? Probably not the way you'd convince a traditional or even newer type agent to represent you. If really seriously tried, and have not recently. YEARS ago did email some management company. Never got a reply.
One area will readily admit would LOVE to innovate would be in that one. Oh yeah.
Of course not going to get much sympathy if full story is: well have so much global attention cannot get a regular job, but why want one when probably should be making TONS of money, but also need an agent, but I don't trust agents.
So that's why I don't seem to get much sympathy with my situation? Maybe. Better to put it out there so can address it properly.
James Harris
Thursday, January 25, 2018
Web attention reality challenges
Feel like have usually avoided talking negatives associated with our new ease of information distribution reality possible over the web and with good reason. Along with so much positive in being able to share globally, you can also discover how easily people can reach out in negative ways.
And why do they? Well lots of reasons but in my opinion often you discover some territoriality which is not justified where for instance a complete stranger may believe should have control over YOUR free speech.
A routine example have noticed is when people order celebrities to not talk politics on social media.
In the United States where freedom of speech is a cherished ideal that is especially remarkable. And sure you can be upset with someone's politics. But what delusion makes you think you have power over that other person?
The ease of social media can reveal people willing to use insults or threats of physical aggression in areas that surprise. And in my experience is just about the numbers.
Once you draw attention into the thousands? From what have witnessed, you WILL have people who will attack you in some way on the web. And that from what I've noticed is without regard to anything else. Is just about the numbers.
To some people apparently just receiving attention at certain levels makes you a target.
Was very important for me to learn as naturally in the past DID tend to consider more factors when facing negatives only to find--there were none. It was an adjustment needed to view attention itself as only trigger for some to lash out at you.
The information distribution reality created by the web age is primarily positive am certain. I do talk it gleefully a LOT. But also sheer ability to potentially reach you can mean that people can attempt for a variety of reasons.
And negative attention is not a subject I talk much because for one thing I think it's silly behavior but also can be dangerous or very irritating. However, have noticed that if there is a lot negative about you out there, there are people who MAY trust it.
People are getting smarter about the web as we learn from experience as a globe.
But should also acknowledge, that hey, negatives about a person may be true! But also may be made up, or misleading, from someone expecting to get away with it.
Which is another reason that people engage in such behavior. Like maybe if enough of them can be hostile to public people, like to a celebrity, then they can silence them on a subject.
Society is getting smarter about that behavior, thankfully.
James Harris
And why do they? Well lots of reasons but in my opinion often you discover some territoriality which is not justified where for instance a complete stranger may believe should have control over YOUR free speech.
A routine example have noticed is when people order celebrities to not talk politics on social media.
In the United States where freedom of speech is a cherished ideal that is especially remarkable. And sure you can be upset with someone's politics. But what delusion makes you think you have power over that other person?
The ease of social media can reveal people willing to use insults or threats of physical aggression in areas that surprise. And in my experience is just about the numbers.
Once you draw attention into the thousands? From what have witnessed, you WILL have people who will attack you in some way on the web. And that from what I've noticed is without regard to anything else. Is just about the numbers.
To some people apparently just receiving attention at certain levels makes you a target.
Was very important for me to learn as naturally in the past DID tend to consider more factors when facing negatives only to find--there were none. It was an adjustment needed to view attention itself as only trigger for some to lash out at you.
The information distribution reality created by the web age is primarily positive am certain. I do talk it gleefully a LOT. But also sheer ability to potentially reach you can mean that people can attempt for a variety of reasons.
And negative attention is not a subject I talk much because for one thing I think it's silly behavior but also can be dangerous or very irritating. However, have noticed that if there is a lot negative about you out there, there are people who MAY trust it.
People are getting smarter about the web as we learn from experience as a globe.
But should also acknowledge, that hey, negatives about a person may be true! But also may be made up, or misleading, from someone expecting to get away with it.
Which is another reason that people engage in such behavior. Like maybe if enough of them can be hostile to public people, like to a celebrity, then they can silence them on a subject.
Society is getting smarter about that behavior, thankfully.
James Harris
Web reality and strange behavior
One odd reality on the web have experienced is when talk out a topic of interest discover there are people who do not wish you to talk that topic. Where can be very strange, but like in certain areas if you refuse? They stalk you. Harass you relentlessly. And put up false webpages to try and destroy you.
Which happened to me with math.
Thankfully am NOT a mathematician so could look at it with some fascination and often with a certain amount of humor. Which would make them more mad.
There were times though would get concerned. Like one person who put up a webpage which he diligently maintains insinuated once that I should kill myself. Another put up an early picture of mine in a way that insinuated I should be assassinated.
Yeah. Am serious.
How do they get there? Yeah they start with lesser insults, and as those don't work, they range up! Eventually your death is a high as they can go, and they go there.
These are folks who often will switch to threats of physical aggression if simple verbal intimidation does not work.
Has puzzled me for years how potent such criticism can be, like when I encounter people who seem to just accept that just because some unknown person says nasty things about me and math.
That SAME person in at least two cases has also wished for my death or another has threatened it. Still think you should trust? When their rage is over me daring to try and figure out my own math?
Is SO bizarre. But web reality am sure there are lots of subjects that incite such fury.
Knew a woman who considered a friend until I realized she believed a webpage from a guy, who was a stranger to her, who had suggested I die, for talking math. But she didn't know that, right? She just didn't care to bother to understand the full story. Or even ask me for it.
Not surprisingly? I stopped thinking nicely about her too. You do need to have some kind of good sense in this modern world, you know?
James Harris
Which happened to me with math.
Thankfully am NOT a mathematician so could look at it with some fascination and often with a certain amount of humor. Which would make them more mad.
There were times though would get concerned. Like one person who put up a webpage which he diligently maintains insinuated once that I should kill myself. Another put up an early picture of mine in a way that insinuated I should be assassinated.
Yeah. Am serious.
How do they get there? Yeah they start with lesser insults, and as those don't work, they range up! Eventually your death is a high as they can go, and they go there.
These are folks who often will switch to threats of physical aggression if simple verbal intimidation does not work.
Has puzzled me for years how potent such criticism can be, like when I encounter people who seem to just accept that just because some unknown person says nasty things about me and math.
That SAME person in at least two cases has also wished for my death or another has threatened it. Still think you should trust? When their rage is over me daring to try and figure out my own math?
Is SO bizarre. But web reality am sure there are lots of subjects that incite such fury.
Knew a woman who considered a friend until I realized she believed a webpage from a guy, who was a stranger to her, who had suggested I die, for talking math. But she didn't know that, right? She just didn't care to bother to understand the full story. Or even ask me for it.
Not surprisingly? I stopped thinking nicely about her too. You do need to have some kind of good sense in this modern world, you know?
James Harris
Monday, January 22, 2018
Where more clarity is required
There is possibly some area of confusion with my status when it comes to some math things. Where admit have not concerned myself too much with simply stating certain things, usually making very careful statements, with a lot of hedging.
So there is no controversy in terms of correctness with any math of mine from the mathematical establishment.
There, I admitted it.
There are some troll things out there, including some really harsh things! Mostly old though like from a decade or more. More recently I ventured on Reddit for a bit. Yeah was engaged by some hostiles but still was fun.
But like any public figure I have people who put things out which are either not true, not relevant, or are just silly people looking for attention.
For example I do not have any current claims about Fermat's Last Theorem. I DID have past failures with it. And I also abandoned research on it. To me? So?
And I have math research where feel like establishment mathematicians should properly acknowledge it, though I rarely bug them about it. To me, it's out here. I know people are aware of it. Have sent some at times to them, but more and more was like, why be pushy?
So yeah thought would clarify some things. Thankfully though, haters trotting out nonsense against me are easily confronted with facts, which is kind of weird. Unlike others, whose haters can be relentless, mine are crush-able.
Kind of squishy actually.
Maybe because too few facts one way, even to support misunderstanding, and so much overwhelming evidence. I guess. Who knows. But I'll take it.
James Harris
So there is no controversy in terms of correctness with any math of mine from the mathematical establishment.
There, I admitted it.
There are some troll things out there, including some really harsh things! Mostly old though like from a decade or more. More recently I ventured on Reddit for a bit. Yeah was engaged by some hostiles but still was fun.
But like any public figure I have people who put things out which are either not true, not relevant, or are just silly people looking for attention.
For example I do not have any current claims about Fermat's Last Theorem. I DID have past failures with it. And I also abandoned research on it. To me? So?
And I have math research where feel like establishment mathematicians should properly acknowledge it, though I rarely bug them about it. To me, it's out here. I know people are aware of it. Have sent some at times to them, but more and more was like, why be pushy?
So yeah thought would clarify some things. Thankfully though, haters trotting out nonsense against me are easily confronted with facts, which is kind of weird. Unlike others, whose haters can be relentless, mine are crush-able.
Kind of squishy actually.
Maybe because too few facts one way, even to support misunderstanding, and so much overwhelming evidence. I guess. Who knows. But I'll take it.
James Harris
Embracing our web reality
Have been challenged somewhat at times here and there on things, but primarily in the past, though recently a few things. And can see an interesting divide between those focused on best ways to gain attention from mainstream things like press and television, versus those who have moved to web reality and what I like to call web authority.
So for instance, can get on television if you convince a few people, maybe some producers, and we take for granted that can involve substantial skill as is highly competitive. But also you can see people who clearly just somehow get there YOU feel, or um, I feel. Like are you kidding me?
Whereas on the web, just about anyone can get on here, and put up some thoughts, but the relentless competition then VASTLY exceeds television, and the potential reach does as well.
The web is the world's one overall truly merit zone for attention. You battle for attention 24 hours a day here.
There is no commercial break. No timeouts. And little tolerance for filler. And for God's sake you never quit broadcasting, in one way shape or form, ever if you wish to hold your place.
Like my blogs are here for you, 24/7 thanks to Blogger of course. But still they are here for YOU and me. As I like to read my own posts often as well.
My global attention reality is not static. It must be maintained constantly.
If you are into web authority, then that is respected. If you are still stuck in the 20th century then you may say certain telling things like your BELIEF that web search is easily gamed. Or your BELIEF that people on the web would do well on television if they really mattered. Or shouldn't they at least have massive followings on social media to be web famous or whatever that kind of supposed fame is instead of REAL fame?
People who mess with me tend to be those stuck in the 20th century folks. And is a waste to argue with them. And hey, I rarely bother arguing with people these days anyway.
Those older things are easier. Television, is easier. Even movies are easier.
Which am certain is challenging to people in those industries! Which is great. They're competing for your attention against people like me. And lots of people not at all like me, and every type in between that is here on the web and you can say, fighting to keep interest.
You hold attention out here? Hard problem. Constant effort. Relentless competition.
Is more free is the main thing though. Here you can control your own destiny far more than elsewhere am sure.
Besides, the web is absorbing television and movies anyway. Ultimately? It will all be on the web. Much of it already is. Probably soon when go to a movie theater, they'll just connect the big screen to a movie, downloaded from the web as why not? Movie theaters are going to change too, am sure.
Web is the global attention zone of the 21st century.
Moving forward am shifting worrying about those people stuck with 20th century belief as yeah, gotta make money. And have to turn at least a bit to celebrity. But to me celebrity is just work. Is just the occupational side of attention. Well that's what I need.
James Harris
So for instance, can get on television if you convince a few people, maybe some producers, and we take for granted that can involve substantial skill as is highly competitive. But also you can see people who clearly just somehow get there YOU feel, or um, I feel. Like are you kidding me?
Whereas on the web, just about anyone can get on here, and put up some thoughts, but the relentless competition then VASTLY exceeds television, and the potential reach does as well.
The web is the world's one overall truly merit zone for attention. You battle for attention 24 hours a day here.
There is no commercial break. No timeouts. And little tolerance for filler. And for God's sake you never quit broadcasting, in one way shape or form, ever if you wish to hold your place.
Like my blogs are here for you, 24/7 thanks to Blogger of course. But still they are here for YOU and me. As I like to read my own posts often as well.
My global attention reality is not static. It must be maintained constantly.
If you are into web authority, then that is respected. If you are still stuck in the 20th century then you may say certain telling things like your BELIEF that web search is easily gamed. Or your BELIEF that people on the web would do well on television if they really mattered. Or shouldn't they at least have massive followings on social media to be web famous or whatever that kind of supposed fame is instead of REAL fame?
People who mess with me tend to be those stuck in the 20th century folks. And is a waste to argue with them. And hey, I rarely bother arguing with people these days anyway.
Those older things are easier. Television, is easier. Even movies are easier.
Which am certain is challenging to people in those industries! Which is great. They're competing for your attention against people like me. And lots of people not at all like me, and every type in between that is here on the web and you can say, fighting to keep interest.
You hold attention out here? Hard problem. Constant effort. Relentless competition.
Is more free is the main thing though. Here you can control your own destiny far more than elsewhere am sure.
Besides, the web is absorbing television and movies anyway. Ultimately? It will all be on the web. Much of it already is. Probably soon when go to a movie theater, they'll just connect the big screen to a movie, downloaded from the web as why not? Movie theaters are going to change too, am sure.
Web is the global attention zone of the 21st century.
Moving forward am shifting worrying about those people stuck with 20th century belief as yeah, gotta make money. And have to turn at least a bit to celebrity. But to me celebrity is just work. Is just the occupational side of attention. Well that's what I need.
James Harris
Sunday, January 21, 2018
Learning attention rules
There has been one area where have been surprised, and am thankful focused on best ideas first. The concept in mind for decades has been that with the attention brought by the ideas would figure out how to manage any other.
So yeah really escaped from anything that would shift that early and only in last couple of years have been coming back to work through thoroughly. And the surprise is can actually get quite a bit of cast off attention as like to describe from the ideas without much happening. Which in a way is great and like it, but then again, turns out is hard to make money.
Which has me turning back to study celebrity.
It is unfortunate I think. The belief that ideas in and of themselves could do all the work was so attractive to me. Yet as am learning the rules of attention, the reality is, people want a person to do certain things. And would just as soon work a regular job, but yeah, get recognized. Is not wacky or wild but more just like this kind of...why explain.
Short of it is, can no more get a regular job than anyone else who is potentially I like to say, known in over 100 countries. Businesses kind of look oddly at that sort of thing.
Making myself write this post, as the effort in convincing continues. Celebrity is SO easy, but also involves work I do not like to do. It actually is a job. And can be so tedious.
This post was supposed to be talking it up! Back to talking it down. Well at least making an effort.
Ok world, if celebrity is what must do to make money, then look out. But with me? Things are going to get really weird. Should be fun. Really. Will look to try and hover below the top 100 global celebrities if I can.
Wonder if at least I'm allowed to manage that one.
Yuck. So now I have to be a celebrity. Well, will try to be as small one as I can manage.
Process has already begun. May as well accept it. Thought things would go one way, now will go another.
James Harris
So yeah really escaped from anything that would shift that early and only in last couple of years have been coming back to work through thoroughly. And the surprise is can actually get quite a bit of cast off attention as like to describe from the ideas without much happening. Which in a way is great and like it, but then again, turns out is hard to make money.
Which has me turning back to study celebrity.
It is unfortunate I think. The belief that ideas in and of themselves could do all the work was so attractive to me. Yet as am learning the rules of attention, the reality is, people want a person to do certain things. And would just as soon work a regular job, but yeah, get recognized. Is not wacky or wild but more just like this kind of...why explain.
Short of it is, can no more get a regular job than anyone else who is potentially I like to say, known in over 100 countries. Businesses kind of look oddly at that sort of thing.
Making myself write this post, as the effort in convincing continues. Celebrity is SO easy, but also involves work I do not like to do. It actually is a job. And can be so tedious.
This post was supposed to be talking it up! Back to talking it down. Well at least making an effort.
Ok world, if celebrity is what must do to make money, then look out. But with me? Things are going to get really weird. Should be fun. Really. Will look to try and hover below the top 100 global celebrities if I can.
Wonder if at least I'm allowed to manage that one.
Yuck. So now I have to be a celebrity. Well, will try to be as small one as I can manage.
Process has already begun. May as well accept it. Thought things would go one way, now will go another.
James Harris
Saturday, January 20, 2018
College and ruling abstraction
One thing have seen and puzzled over is when will notice some very public person telling people they do not need college. And I wonder, if that person were in a complex litigation would that person prefer lawyers without college degrees? Or with?
My guess with that example is with, though reality is, in US to practice as a lawyer, person would need a variety of qualifications. While a law degree is not necessarily one of them, like if can pass state bar without, wonder how many of those so loud and proud that YOU do not need a college degree would accept a lawyer without one?
Yet clearly in business is not necessarily the case that you need a college degree.
Yeah but business is providing a product or service for customers willing to pay.
One of the great and remarkable business successes was a guy who sold pet rocks.
While I say, college teaches meta learning, which is learning how to learn. And yeah, if you have a good handle on selling things to people does not surprise me if you can become successful at business, without learning how to learn.
So what's the difference then, fundamentally, between needing college for something like a law degree but being able to be a master of industry without one?
I say the key is handling: abstraction. And the level of abstraction in modern law vastly exceeds what you might face, selling pet rocks, or most business one might do! But then again, depends on the business.
Like in the fashion industry, you will am sure find people with college degrees or there I think they call them fashion degrees who dominate as top designers.
But convincing people to buy clothes you make, year after year, is presumably harder than say, convincing them to buy insurance, or your software product.
So yeah. DO think it possible to be a successful business owner of a software company without a college degree, but also should acknowledge you can learn how to learn without college. However college is where there is a well-developed process.
Yet MOST Americans do just fine without one. For more on that one, read my post:
What I think is the point of college
But depending on what you wish to do in life?
You need to dive into the details to decide: college? Or no.
And yeah, in my opinion, college helps you rule, or get a measure is another way to put it, on abstraction where how much you need to handle?
Is so much about what you want to do.
James Harris
Want do download? Then click here from my Google Drive.
My guess with that example is with, though reality is, in US to practice as a lawyer, person would need a variety of qualifications. While a law degree is not necessarily one of them, like if can pass state bar without, wonder how many of those so loud and proud that YOU do not need a college degree would accept a lawyer without one?
Yet clearly in business is not necessarily the case that you need a college degree.
Yeah but business is providing a product or service for customers willing to pay.
One of the great and remarkable business successes was a guy who sold pet rocks.
While I say, college teaches meta learning, which is learning how to learn. And yeah, if you have a good handle on selling things to people does not surprise me if you can become successful at business, without learning how to learn.
So what's the difference then, fundamentally, between needing college for something like a law degree but being able to be a master of industry without one?
I say the key is handling: abstraction. And the level of abstraction in modern law vastly exceeds what you might face, selling pet rocks, or most business one might do! But then again, depends on the business.
Like in the fashion industry, you will am sure find people with college degrees or there I think they call them fashion degrees who dominate as top designers.
But convincing people to buy clothes you make, year after year, is presumably harder than say, convincing them to buy insurance, or your software product.
So yeah. DO think it possible to be a successful business owner of a software company without a college degree, but also should acknowledge you can learn how to learn without college. However college is where there is a well-developed process.
Yet MOST Americans do just fine without one. For more on that one, read my post:
What I think is the point of college
But depending on what you wish to do in life?
You need to dive into the details to decide: college? Or no.
And yeah, in my opinion, college helps you rule, or get a measure is another way to put it, on abstraction where how much you need to handle?
Is so much about what you want to do.
James Harris
Want do download? Then click here from my Google Drive.
Thursday, January 18, 2018
Finding foundations and goals
Was YEARS ago when first challenged by web analytics began to find myself pondering what might I do, with a global interest revealed. And became especially challenging when focusing on the data found that while my home country the United States was source of most interest for a country, roughly 2/3rds of the interest was from outside.
So the majority of my global interest base was outside my home country and for years focused there and deliberately ignored the US, as worked to figure out foundations of my web reality.
Then was forced to shift back, as found my global impacted by behavior of US politicians, which shifted at least one of my blogs to US political focus, primarily.
And guess had an impact, which should not surprise, if that was a cause. Got curious, and according to Google Analytics for all of 2017 for this blog 3/4ths were from US, and for my math blog, close to half. This blog and the math one are biggest in terms of audience. Glad talking things made me check.
So now bulk of my visitors are from my own country for here, while is still rest of the world in slight majority elsewhere.
Like, checking other social media, as blogs ARE social media as well, can most easily with Pinterest where just checked and, of my average monthly it says just a bit over 42% are US. With almost 58% coming from elsewhere. Does help to have that data readily available.
But also had to figure out money, and how best to leverage making money with the possibility of global responsibility where I struggled. My BELIEF is have major ideas, where those gather attention, and can lead to unfortunate pressure on me, so have political positions established. But long thought best process would be to limit.
Then found myself recognizing that our planetary reality might push me more than I wished, and deliberately entered into the global discussion on climate change. And soon found myself more involved in global affairs and politics than might have wished.
Now have adopted a simple phrase to help me:
One planet. Many peoples. One human species.
Now am done with foundations considered through much of 2017, and looking for new goals for 2018, where have focused on global responsibility, limited still, and monetary necessity. As much figure out how my attention reality can be monetized within my value system, safely.
And have focused much on American entertainment industry both from curiosity, as well as practicality, as it works through things where have a personal interest as well.
That meta space reality is so much self-referential and deliberately abstract, as my global reality takes center stage in my own planning and goal setting, where will emphasize--limited as much as practical.
James Harris
So the majority of my global interest base was outside my home country and for years focused there and deliberately ignored the US, as worked to figure out foundations of my web reality.
Then was forced to shift back, as found my global impacted by behavior of US politicians, which shifted at least one of my blogs to US political focus, primarily.
And guess had an impact, which should not surprise, if that was a cause. Got curious, and according to Google Analytics for all of 2017 for this blog 3/4ths were from US, and for my math blog, close to half. This blog and the math one are biggest in terms of audience. Glad talking things made me check.
So now bulk of my visitors are from my own country for here, while is still rest of the world in slight majority elsewhere.
Like, checking other social media, as blogs ARE social media as well, can most easily with Pinterest where just checked and, of my average monthly it says just a bit over 42% are US. With almost 58% coming from elsewhere. Does help to have that data readily available.
But also had to figure out money, and how best to leverage making money with the possibility of global responsibility where I struggled. My BELIEF is have major ideas, where those gather attention, and can lead to unfortunate pressure on me, so have political positions established. But long thought best process would be to limit.
Then found myself recognizing that our planetary reality might push me more than I wished, and deliberately entered into the global discussion on climate change. And soon found myself more involved in global affairs and politics than might have wished.
Now have adopted a simple phrase to help me:
One planet. Many peoples. One human species.
Now am done with foundations considered through much of 2017, and looking for new goals for 2018, where have focused on global responsibility, limited still, and monetary necessity. As much figure out how my attention reality can be monetized within my value system, safely.
And have focused much on American entertainment industry both from curiosity, as well as practicality, as it works through things where have a personal interest as well.
That meta space reality is so much self-referential and deliberately abstract, as my global reality takes center stage in my own planning and goal setting, where will emphasize--limited as much as practical.
James Harris
Sunday, January 14, 2018
Musing on copyright, work and appreciation
Often look for simple explanation from extremes, like in looking to understand copyright in the modern age, pondered the Mona Lisa. One of the most famous paintings in the world has one of the most shared images in the world--without diminishing its value.
And how often does Leonardo da Vinci get his attribution? Making sure to do so here, as his famous painting is definitely a great legacy to our world. And will use as a stepping stone into a simple explanation, with musings, on copyright in age of the web.
Valued effort should be rewarded. Great effort should be rewarded greatly, but isn't necessarily.
His painting destined to be considered the world's greatest in our times, or close if some wish to argue, was not so valued in Leonardo's life. In fact he carried the Mona Lisa around for years, fiddling with it. Which to me is a reason to not feel like I shouldn't have the right to endlessly change things I create, as to me he was the master who showed a way.
Of course if someone came to you with a picture of the Mona Lisa claiming credit, who would believe such a person? So proper attribution back to source is key. And in the web is easier. Creator can have a webpage with that information, or others can. Like Leonardo da Vinci can rest easy. No one will gain credit for his work. Some put up work trying to GIVE him credit instead, which can cause endless debate there.
We should want to reward effort. Yet even if someone slaps the Mona Lisa, say on a t-shirt, is it a problem? Image is in the public domain. Yet I don't know if that is enough to actually sell much, just having the Mona Lisa on a t-shirt. (Will ponder that angle further though.)
To me, short of it is: effort of the original should be recognized. Person who did the work should profit, or if cannot, or does not want--others should not as if they did the work.
But who would pay a premium to a person who did not do anything other than copy, if they knew?
Knowledge is key I think. And also copying is EASY in our times. In the past was not. So kind of think copying will have less and less value in the minds of most as we mature into the web age.
People in my experience DO tend to appreciate best efforts and feel like reward should go where is due.
James Harris
And how often does Leonardo da Vinci get his attribution? Making sure to do so here, as his famous painting is definitely a great legacy to our world. And will use as a stepping stone into a simple explanation, with musings, on copyright in age of the web.
Valued effort should be rewarded. Great effort should be rewarded greatly, but isn't necessarily.
His painting destined to be considered the world's greatest in our times, or close if some wish to argue, was not so valued in Leonardo's life. In fact he carried the Mona Lisa around for years, fiddling with it. Which to me is a reason to not feel like I shouldn't have the right to endlessly change things I create, as to me he was the master who showed a way.
Of course if someone came to you with a picture of the Mona Lisa claiming credit, who would believe such a person? So proper attribution back to source is key. And in the web is easier. Creator can have a webpage with that information, or others can. Like Leonardo da Vinci can rest easy. No one will gain credit for his work. Some put up work trying to GIVE him credit instead, which can cause endless debate there.
We should want to reward effort. Yet even if someone slaps the Mona Lisa, say on a t-shirt, is it a problem? Image is in the public domain. Yet I don't know if that is enough to actually sell much, just having the Mona Lisa on a t-shirt. (Will ponder that angle further though.)
To me, short of it is: effort of the original should be recognized. Person who did the work should profit, or if cannot, or does not want--others should not as if they did the work.
But who would pay a premium to a person who did not do anything other than copy, if they knew?
Knowledge is key I think. And also copying is EASY in our times. In the past was not. So kind of think copying will have less and less value in the minds of most as we mature into the web age.
People in my experience DO tend to appreciate best efforts and feel like reward should go where is due.
James Harris
Thursday, January 11, 2018
Does this type of synthetic fuel exist?
FINALLY our species is showing some sense and focusing better and more on the vast amounts of energy our planet gets every minute from our Sun. Turns out is far greater than we could ever need, but for so much energy production like for electricity or to move us around, we have focused primarily on that stored by plants and animals which has over long periods turned into oil or coal. That silliness has destabilized our world.
In the past they did not know better. We do.
However, focus on actually using that solar energy rather than watching it just bounce off our planet like silly fools has focused on batteries for storage of excess.
But liquid fuels actually are a very good way to store energy long-term. Are there synthetic fuels producible for energy storage for months? So people, for example in places where is relevant, could store up during summer say, and have available in winter?
Then some of that solar energy captured could be converted to such a fuel.
Such a synthetic fuel would have to NOT release carbon dioxide or any greenhouse warming gas of course, nor anything else hazardous to our environment. Would need to be stable over months at least, and yet should be easily reconverted back into energy.
Was never good at chemistry. Readily admit. Got my degree in physics while really not good with the chemistry things. However, can wonder about the fundamentals of such a fuel with very general things without understanding the quantum chemistry things involved, if exists.
Regardless may as well leave SOME notes, without pretending really know subject area. Immediately thinking of course would look for elements of similar valence to carbon as key. And yup, there is silicon of course. Yet those other things are not reactive like carbon. Research needed. Could be fun to brush up on the chemistry of carbon.
Does NOT take much to get quick answers in age of the web. And guess am refreshing? Would like to think is true. From an article on Scientific American talking if silicon life could exist:
Well that was a quick and easy explanation. Interesting.
And also, a CLOSED system could limit environmental hazards. But of course the HUGE problem is that photosynthesis did most of the work for our use of carbon-based fuels, along with time and pressure. Figuring out something that could do the same with electricity, to create a synthetic fuel, could be a very difficult problem indeed. Worthy of our greatest minds? If doable, of course.
If work has been already done to figure out a synthetic fuel as meta-mused here, then yeah would like to know.
Have been editing this one more, despite brainstorming label. Here that is more about the idea than how the post was generated. In past meant limited editing.
In the past they did not know better. We do.
However, focus on actually using that solar energy rather than watching it just bounce off our planet like silly fools has focused on batteries for storage of excess.
But liquid fuels actually are a very good way to store energy long-term. Are there synthetic fuels producible for energy storage for months? So people, for example in places where is relevant, could store up during summer say, and have available in winter?
Then some of that solar energy captured could be converted to such a fuel.
Such a synthetic fuel would have to NOT release carbon dioxide or any greenhouse warming gas of course, nor anything else hazardous to our environment. Would need to be stable over months at least, and yet should be easily reconverted back into energy.
Was never good at chemistry. Readily admit. Got my degree in physics while really not good with the chemistry things. However, can wonder about the fundamentals of such a fuel with very general things without understanding the quantum chemistry things involved, if exists.
Regardless may as well leave SOME notes, without pretending really know subject area. Immediately thinking of course would look for elements of similar valence to carbon as key. And yup, there is silicon of course. Yet those other things are not reactive like carbon. Research needed. Could be fun to brush up on the chemistry of carbon.
Does NOT take much to get quick answers in age of the web. And guess am refreshing? Would like to think is true. From an article on Scientific American talking if silicon life could exist:
But when carbon oxidizes--or unites with oxygen say, during burning--it becomes the gas carbon dioxide; silicon oxidizes to the solid silicon dioxide, called silica. The fact that silicon oxidizes to a solid is one basic reason as to why it cannot support life. Silica, or sand is a solid because silicon likes oxygen all too well, and the silicon dioxide forms a lattice in which one silicon atom is surrounded by four oxygen atoms
Well that was a quick and easy explanation. Interesting.
And also, a CLOSED system could limit environmental hazards. But of course the HUGE problem is that photosynthesis did most of the work for our use of carbon-based fuels, along with time and pressure. Figuring out something that could do the same with electricity, to create a synthetic fuel, could be a very difficult problem indeed. Worthy of our greatest minds? If doable, of course.
If work has been already done to figure out a synthetic fuel as meta-mused here, then yeah would like to know.
Have been editing this one more, despite brainstorming label. Here that is more about the idea than how the post was generated. In past meant limited editing.
Wednesday, January 10, 2018
When truth reveals
Web allows so much to be behind the scenes. And will admit prefer it that way. But can cause problems with things like making a living. Where will admit have been forced to be more forthcoming by my financial distress.
Is amazing though how much truth has revealed thanks to information distributing widely.
Spend so much time consuming that information and find that answers are jumping out. Many of those answers though are SO disturbing.
The 20th century in which I grew up was so much about lies. While the 21st century is so much about unmasking, and revealing truth.
So many people who I thought were one thing, and now I know, were another.
Grew up with old views about money that were wrong. Figured out when came up with idea is a social IOU backed by society that it can be very inefficient. We're just learning how badly that can go in a world where some of the most incompetent people--are the richest.
They've relied on information we did not have, and now web is letting it flow.
So for instance we can see where underpaying people, which I say was learned after slavery ended in the US as a business practice, means that money simply flows to the people underpaying. And they became the top 1% by wealth which will go away as people learn.
They stole their way into that wealth on efforts of people they did not appreciate or properly value.
So for instance we can see where underpaying people, which I say was learned after slavery ended in the US as a business practice, means that money simply flows to the people underpaying. And they became the top 1% by wealth which will go away as people learn.
They stole their way into that wealth on efforts of people they did not appreciate or properly value.
Also television hid much by not giving much room to explain. Today you can read in-depth on things, on the web, and watch people fall who in the past could have simply depended on television to protect their images and careers.
We have a world dominated by incompetents, including one who is now president of the United States. Foolish people who lead our world on the path to disastrous climate change. Too dumb to do better, or act smarter. And it is taking time to clear them out. (Sounds so harsh, but is reality I believe with more evidence daily. Is sad as well.)
Is amazing though how much truth has revealed thanks to information distributing widely.
Spend so much time consuming that information and find that answers are jumping out. Many of those answers though are SO disturbing.
The 20th century in which I grew up was so much about lies. While the 21st century is so much about unmasking, and revealing truth.
So many people who I thought were one thing, and now I know, were another.
James Harris
Tuesday, January 02, 2018
What discoverer rules?
When was a kid remember when was at first excited by biographies of major discoverers. Pored over them, usually reading ones written for kids. Until as a teenager remember was feeling more contrary, and reading something or being taught something about some person from long ago, was suddenly skeptical. How did these people claiming these things know really?
Maybe then was a certain curiosity, as yes, wanted to be one myself! Which told myself was an impossible dream. Which I like to dangle out there for those who claim you should just go for your dreams. But what if your dream is to be the next Albert Einstein? Or the next Sir Isaac Newton? Or Gauss? Or Euclid? Or Archimedes?
As I list out a lot of names fit with science and mathematics. What about your dreams then?
And what are the actual rules in that area? What even makes a discoverer and at what level, so how do you even evaluate such dreams?
Regardless, became more suspect of claims of people who would talk as if they knew them. As grew older of course started reading biographies written for adults, and my skepticism became more clear.
But what if DID become one? Would they notice me? Such an odd thing to consider as a test like no other in human history, if possible. But of course, so much to me an impossible dream for so long.
The 21st century cares not for human pretension. I took it for granted some major figure WOULD emerge. Someone always does. Something scholars should know.
The pretension around truth fascinates me. What is truth? How do we know it?
Who are these people who believe they know, the discoverers?
How might a 21st century discoverer be different?
Good questions. Those who know their history realize, there will be an answer. Humanity has a remarkable habit of finding new levels, constantly. Someone must be called.
Maybe such scholars lack faith, in human.
Is there such a thing as destiny? Or do we make it.
James Harris
Maybe then was a certain curiosity, as yes, wanted to be one myself! Which told myself was an impossible dream. Which I like to dangle out there for those who claim you should just go for your dreams. But what if your dream is to be the next Albert Einstein? Or the next Sir Isaac Newton? Or Gauss? Or Euclid? Or Archimedes?
As I list out a lot of names fit with science and mathematics. What about your dreams then?
And what are the actual rules in that area? What even makes a discoverer and at what level, so how do you even evaluate such dreams?
Regardless, became more suspect of claims of people who would talk as if they knew them. As grew older of course started reading biographies written for adults, and my skepticism became more clear.
But what if DID become one? Would they notice me? Such an odd thing to consider as a test like no other in human history, if possible. But of course, so much to me an impossible dream for so long.
The 21st century cares not for human pretension. I took it for granted some major figure WOULD emerge. Someone always does. Something scholars should know.
The pretension around truth fascinates me. What is truth? How do we know it?
Who are these people who believe they know, the discoverers?
How might a 21st century discoverer be different?
Good questions. Those who know their history realize, there will be an answer. Humanity has a remarkable habit of finding new levels, constantly. Someone must be called.
Maybe such scholars lack faith, in human.
Is there such a thing as destiny? Or do we make it.
James Harris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)