Why writing rules

Can get confused about writing I think, as have been confused and realized wanted to talk to others about areas of confusion about writing.

Like, wrote an open source program years ago, and eventually started this blog to help promote and support it. So am I a writer?

Wrote code for computers, and write blog posts as well as much other but consider myself to be a wannabe writer as do NOT make money from my writing.

But what if I wrote songs? Would I think of myself as a wannabe songwriter?

People say writer and I was indoctrinated to think fiction writer who actually has made money with a book that has sold well.

That is messed up folks.

Writing built human civilization and continues to build, like with code I wrote that lead me to create this blog. Is not about money and MOST writing is not fiction.

So why the emphasis on fiction? To tell people that being a writer is hard and that few can survive at it. So just leave writing to the special people society blesses with money for pleasing it.

Because writing is the most powerful tool available to human beings in general.

Thankfully, I wrote open source and my code to help Java developers write code--is still mine.

Coders have had writing they exchanged for a salary to people who can barely code who made BILLIONS from it. But we were told--being a writer is hard. Better to have a boss, be told what to do, when to do it, and where to do it, for all of your adult life until you can retire. Then put out to pasture then you can rest.

Were taught to behave. Were taught to be controllable.

Because writing is very powerful and writing is key to human civilization.

So I talk songwriters. Sure, is hard to make money as one for many, but do they exchange their songs for a salary? I think jingle writers do.

Two occupations are afflicted with giving writing in exchange for some money: press and software developers.

Some small group got billions on code handed to them for a salary. Got billions and wasted billions while acting like were geniuses.

Others pushed our species to brink of extinction controlling press writers with salaries.

Were young occupations where modern versions emerged in 20th century. Are very young compared to songwriting. Press writing and writing computer code were ruthlessly exploited because people did not know better.

Was lack of experience made seem reasonable to hand writing away. Songwriters do not.

Owning my own writing now makes sense to me. Will not accept foolishness that I should hand away to anyone.

Am like a songwriter now. Writing songs is as old as humanity while writing them down is only as old as human civilization.

Because writing built human civilization.

Things can get SO messed up

Good news is that the web enables people to communicate better and share important ideas all over the world. But the challenging news is: that can really mess you up, and is important to realize ahead of time.

So you can be prepared. Or try to be.

And also realize, much is being figured out, so is VERY hard often to get a feel for your situation. Life must continue, regardless. Where with myself found had to drop some ways of looking at things from the past, while gleefully grabbing hold of better perspective of the now.

Like yeah, am world's latest major discoverer. And happily shared math things of great importance across the web and watched as things changed. And members of the math establishment apparently learned they could, at least near as I can tell so far, ignore properly acknowledging. Where still am not sure how they're pulling that one off. Am finding it finally irritating again. For a bit was cool with it, after the past rages.

Yeah and again am glad is math. So can prove things with absolute certainty. Which yeah would check and re-check and check again. Wish to be logical, but do not trust myself. Supposedly could trust others. That is not what reality demonstrated.

One thing with their continued success against easy mathematical proof may be people thinking that hey, if what I have is so important? How could experts in the math field possibly ignore? Yeah, see the Catch-22? I did YEARS ago.

If people struggling to hold on to advantages from the past can do that to me, when is easy to prove am world's latest major discoverer, then imagine what they can do to others.

Wow, I actually have it better. At least I can prove beyond any doubt. Others might not have that perfect assurance.

Actually is interesting that math folks would APPARENTLY fight like they have. Have to hedge much. So much is about NOT doing what is expected if presented with something new and wonderful that is mathematical. Is not like I need to do much but watch and wonder. Fighting against mathematical truth? You cannot win. You can delay the inevitable, but human beings are going to go with what actually works. Is just a matter of time.

It still seems so strange. Web disruption in that way is not intuitive to me. That dedication AGAINST might evolve as well. Then am sure would push the web to evolve more in reaction. That seems cool at least envisioning a more dynamic process, of action and reaction, with web evolution.

Am looking at arenas where people apparently have decided they no longer care what it takes and they will personally stop web revolutions if they can.

I find that attitude intriguing. And yeah, but with what methods? Find am struggling at imagining.

The web apparently is aware. And how the web reacts to such things? Can be kind of hard to understand as well. So will try to give MY guesses as how web reacts. And I talk the web kind of as an entity when am not sure to what extent may be. But is more fun.

But yeah, so maybe those HUGE social media numbers were not telling us what we thought, though I believe that having millions of followers on social media IS significant. But our belief helped drive growth--of social media. Are we more important to the web? Or is growth more important?

My view is that growth and continued evolution of the web is more important.

And I suspect the web would agree.

So yeah, expect harsh reality. Look to have things that are great on the one hand bring massive challenges on the other. And get very wary when it comes to money things. My analysis is that the web hasn't even bothered solving the money problem, as what's the motivation?

While for ME, there is HUGE motivation, and have learned to share more. Like yesterday updated my post talking what is now a situation of having been evicted. That is painful. Why share? Helps me process and also yeah, you can check me on so much that I say which is important. That information is relevant in understanding my situation as well.

Am more convinced there is a war that has erupted which is futile. Yeah, I know, resistance is futile, is classic. But the web does not care as these people are unaware of how much the web already knows. Am looking at things that simply look naive to me, until I realize: money is their focus.

So we need to figure out the money problem. And by we, mean web folks who for a long time have just been happily discovering and exploring new possibility. While others may have been ruthlessly trying to hold on to the world that was.

Have talked money much so noting a shift here as in the past thought was simply my concern to figure out how to make money. Did not occur to me also needed to consider nasty humans fighting to keep web people impoverished, as why would that occur to me?

It is such silly behavior if true. Ok, so there is a slight adjustment to considering that possibility.

And expect things to be messed up on the web if you start getting some success measures. Like with me, with MASSIVE global reach, and puny other things. Also be suspicious more on monetary matters and less trusting. Considering the possibility of short-sighted human beings fighting a losing battle which messes up your finances in the now.

The web adventure? May be simply heating up. Is cool. Is just more knowledge really. Gotta love it.

Sure know I do.


James Harris

Possibility of web help and my experience

Web has helped me greatly, where like here can definitely use to talk my story, and share ideas! Where have noted been greatly puzzled there. Like can share ideas I think are beneficial, and witness good effects, and then there is not other things that I thought would happen.

Has been like that for around twenty years.

Early on was talking math primarily with my dream of dismissing racist notions MYSELF with mathematical discovery.

Where now fully believe had the result I needed--in 1996.

And as is typical of people who can make such discoveries in math, kept piling on.

Including making much bigger ones, like discovering that math can do algebra itself--and better than us! Where that was shown with an improvement on an approach from Carl Gauss, one of the greatest mathematicians of all.

Where didn't actually have to do most of the work there as the math did it for me. And can do it for anybody, who understands the basic techniques in the advance. And I discovered that September 2008.

Well shared on the web. Got plenty of attention apparently where learned through Google Analytics primarily at first. But where was the rest? Like where was the press?

Well looks like I discovered there are things we thought were one way, were really another.

At least web and doing other things, like deliberately did karaoke, allowed me to safely learn rules of attention including global ones. Web for the global ones, and karaoke for the experience of fans jumping up and down and screaming name. So I didn't exactly miss out. And yes, apparently at times people recognize me, and no do not want a celebrity experience there. Let's keep it cool like now, ok? Still there is value for others with a proper recognition, as my story is so much about--merit rules.

With the social disruption of the web helping to reveal how things REALLY worked, things are actually so cool now in many ways.

Like check out US box office, where thankfully the facts rule. Are seeing massive disruptions with major productions going down in flames and supposed rules of the past upended completely with the actual hits. Pay close attention I think to where you can check with facts, so know are seeing REAL success. When I see what seemed more typical of the past? I think, check for the money. And I TOLD you here my functional definition of entertainment was about helping the entertainment industry.

Where my functional ideas are just part of the social disruption.

The primary? YOU, me and people like us, if you watch movies, who are talking, through the web. Where yeah much of that is through social media.

No longer can certain people MAKE a movie a success just by promotion, primarily through television and relying on enough early box office to build momentum for a movie that may be trash.

In our times, people talk movies out of the gate, where that can be considered by others globally, so more merit can rule, and audiences regain their power.

And MAYBE we can finally map out the people behind the scenes who had a contempt for us before, as they manipulated, and created an illusion--of success. What price to pay for those who bowed before them?

Trappings of success--celebrity, wealth, and what they called fame, but what is fame? Really?

My story now moves to that phase where we ponder how? How could you work to suppress some of the greatest intellectual discoveries in human history? And for goodness sake, why even would you try? What kind of person or people could do such a thing?

Am SO curious on that one, not surprisingly. And yup, you are part of getting the answer, which is why am sharing here. After all, we were all treated badly, together. In a system that I think was about making sure that most people could never get to the heights of success--without going through gatekeepers.

And we've learned some of them were sexual predators.

How often were predators merely picking those who we were to think were successful? And with what price for them? Is scary to ponder, eh? But yeah if full force such a system would hate merit rules. Is not necessarily the case was in place. Am admittedly speculating as search for answers to my own story.

Yet I DO wonder. Discovery is one of the greatest merit arenas our species has. Major discoveries have fueled human progress for so long. What humans could finally find the keys to such blocking on this scale and for so long? They intrigue me with their efficacy.

These are people who apparently wanted to be certain your merit? Does not matter. So they could be the ultimate gatekeepers, hidden in the shadows? Maybe. Maybe not.

Our world will figure out, am sure as is just too curious. How was it done? How is it being continued?

Inquiring minds do need to understand, by whom, and why.


James Harris

How do we know web success?

Have been pondering quite a few things and found myself relentlessly checking a LOT surveying systems of the world. And yet it did not occur to me to really ask how is it that I think something on the web is successful.

And the sad answer is: have yet again been using prior metrics which really learned in the 20th century, where metric just means measure. When I should have known better.

Have emphasized ease of the web with information distribution. Discovered from my own story that something useful travels well. And found myself struggling to find an explanation for MY money difficulties, until yet again realized should look broader.

Yet again reason could not find a conspiracy around myself would seem to be a broader suppression, which is so weird am more speculative here.

But consider, like a music artist could conceivably with the direct connect of the web, make money, from fans buying songs directly, and I think to myself there are those who do, right? I remember an example in a documentary I saw a while back.

And yeah am vague on subject. Who IS making money on the web? Besides certain HUGE corporations I refuse to name.

Then getting to questions of success. So much focus is on social media. And I really don't know, though have an explanation based on entertainment value for how people who are entertaining would get big social media counts. However only now can we really look to how those correlate with ANY other measure, as have the gift of time.

Can just consider how big social media numbers match with anything else for a person.

So am more speculative here. Have assumed much was seeing success on the web where am not so sure now, but am not sure was not. Like aren't there bloggers who make money? I think there are influencers in lots of areas who end up with agents, who are some of the folks I call money people, and dawns on me, am not sure really how they actually justify monetary amounts.

The full potential of the web? Could put a lot of money people maybe out of work? I guess. Really hadn't thought of them much until recently. Did they figure something out though? Quickly? When challenged? If so, what?

What if though, and here am speculating to the wild limit, the money people are working to make sure you have to go through them? But how would they do it? Ok, will say this direction may be a wacky stretch. But will post as is my blog. And posting helps me get web help, as the ideas flow.

How do we know web success? From whom do we get this information? The public information is there with social media at least, which usually is follower numbers and such. Already talked that though.

And yeah, am focused away from web commerce where of course people are buying things through the web like through a few big companies will not give free advertising by naming. Though I know they do not need it.


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.

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

When global feels like work

Have accepted have maintained a global presence in various ways like with this blog, where also have realized that it does take work to maintain. Which am sure sounds silly to have to say as of course it does! Which is why started telling myself such things to gain proper focus. Where was helped by feeling it as effort finally, when realized could watch myself when felt global slipping away, as apparently moved rapidly and efficiently to retain it, but that effort finally this year got hard enough had to recognize was taking place.

Which is great! Is kind of weird watching yourself that way though, and makes me wonder about how the mind works. Like shouldn't I just know? Why have to convince myself, by watching myself?

So yeah, began to better assess things like on this blog not working to pursue things had already achieved, but to move forward with better goal setting as better assessed what was necessary and possible. Especially how better to move in other areas where really just didn't wish to handle. Like to me is funny that my upbringing created a hostility towards a lot of money things, and a comfort in the lack, until the lack becomes too uncomfortable.

Also DO have a responsibility to others and as have struggled with figuring out how to make money have been forced to rely much on community for support. Where yes, needed it and am grateful for it, but should be working to limit to only necessary, which has helped me overcome some weird attitudes toward money as well. Is not being humble to be too dependent. Is not being smart.

Where guess maybe kind of covered things in a way that might need serious editing, but gist of it is, realized was working to maintain global attention. And also recognized wasn't doing some things I need to do, while telling myself I was trying to figure it out. Which I was, so that part was actually smart.

Is so much fun though. So wouldn't have had it any other way. Have managed to be along for the ride with much things web, while the web has evolved, without getting dragged into things do not like and especially do not like to do. And here and elsewhere have been comforted with at least trying to find my own way.

Maintaining a global presence in a world of attention will never actually be easy. And in recognizing the value of my own efforts can at least objectively assess how that can work better for myself and others, as accept that the work itself can be rewarding.

Ok sounds good. So guess will post. Why not. Still working through things. Is odd though, for almost two decades just kind of felt like hanging out, out here. You know, just doing a little something that might lead to something bigger. Now am like, hey.


James Harris

My fan opinion on support

To me the web is just so unbelievably awesome it's hard to express how wonderful it is, which has meant a lot more great content where I love being a fan. And every freaking time some entertainment executive insinuates that most people are naturally thieves it irritates me, so I have sat down and pondered things like money, and recently wrote about limited social trust on one of my other blogs. Money lets us have limited social trust and is a great system, but we want our money to actually support our favorite artists and not mean or ruthless people exploiting them.

And the web lets you know how that's done with plenty of documentaries where I've just been flabbergasted often watching how brilliant artists, where I've mostly seen ones about musicians, could have major hits, which I'd loved, not make much money, and even owe record companies!

As the web destroys that old system, some of these people turned to the law to try and hold on to ways of keeping the money flowing where thankfully that has been for the most part rebuffed. But I want to also put out there that yeah, if I love a musician's work, and notice that person is associated with an entertainment company which has a demonstrated history of screwing over artists there is a real hesitancy to buy anything.

Not a problem lately as I have no money, so have been relying on web radio, where I have talked about how I love radio, and have my own bought music collection. So yeah, talking about wanting to support my favorite artists but can't do it with money now, but will later as I notice songs I like and will buy when I have money again.

But thankfully I have a decent collection of bought songs, you nasty music executives who push the notion that fans are mostly thieves. Which is SO much a relief, when you have all these restrictions, and feel weird listening to the freaking web radio as if you're wrong, and can just go to the calm, controlled arena of your own bought songs--screw you if you're a nasty, mean executive, if you hate fans we fans don't like you!

Being a fan is great, where the web is making it better. And I think these issues will be worked out soon enough, where the right people will make the money and the mean people will at least have to shut-up versus irritating fans like myself. Even better if artists of all kinds work with people who yes, can get them paid, but also can do it without insulting their fanbase.

And that's my rant for the day. Felt good. Think I'll actually post this thing too.


James Harris

Considering a naive coding area

One problem I don't think gets addressed enough is how badly some people are educated, especially when it comes to code. And if it is public on the web then yeah, it can reflect on you, so I thought I would help out with a common area which has turned into a pet peeve of mine, and that is when I see implementations of bad prime counting approaches publicly online.

The reason I search on the subject is I figured out over a decade ago a really simple approach to counting prime numbers that tweaked techniques previous known, resulting in a simple iterative summation, which is so simple I can give it in a single line:

With ints or longs--where p_j is the jth prime:

P(x,n) = x - 1 - sum for j=1 to n of {P(x/p_j,j-1) - (j-1)}

It counts primes when n equals the count of primes up to sqrt(x), so if n is greater than the count of primes up to and including sqrt(x) then n is reset to that count.

For example P(100,4) = 25. You can just code up from the instructions given and verify easily enough. Notice you'd need 4 primes--2, 3, 5 and 7.

And I've posted that before. Actually I post about it a LOT, but am mentioning it now to highlight just how bad it can really be out there. And how often people learn crappy things in coding.

It is the fastest, short prime counting algorithm available on the planet.

The only other things as short are not as fast. The algorithms that are faster are not as short.

I like to call finds of mine that are better than anything else in the world, my toys. I use them to critique what other people do.

Notice it involves extremely basic math, so claiming you're not good at math is not a valid excuse. If you know how to divide and how to throw away remainders then you can comprehend it. Using ints or longs is so the computer will do that throwing the remainder away for you.

And it can be optimized which bored me decades ago as I realized it then just approached the currently known fast prime counting algorithms. I get bored with known. I prefer the unknown.

So if you dare post ANYTHING about counting primes, and I find it, and it is naive, especially the most horrendous which is to just divide a long list of numbers by every prime, then unfortunately I will think less of you, and wherever you got your education.

And I think that worth mentioning to help people who may not realize that yeah, such things might get noticed. I know I notice them. And it is such a preventable thing. Don't post naive coding practices. Just don't.

Oh yeah, if you want to know how fast your code should be if you dare to post prime counting code, I put up a post with a benchmark. That is with somewhat optimized code.

Sorry, just a little bit irritated. And yes, I dutifully worked to get my algorithm widely known, like with what I'm doing here. Keep talking about it, but these things can take a while. But some people labor under the misconception that they actually are learning good things, when they aren't even learning quasi-decent in an advanced world where a lot more is known than you are necessarily being taught.

So yeah, a LOT of the point of this post is to highlight the algorithm. It IS the best in the world as described but I'm having problems getting it properly acknowledged and that's sad. It's a lot more fun to code than anything else for counting prime numbers, especially at the basic level, while being faster than anything else available for its size.

I'm using this example as it's very demonstrative I think.

Is it really an issue if you have some pathetic prime counting code I come across? I don't know. Probably not. But I am being honest, I do see it at times, and just wonder what people are thinking. Or better yet, wish they were being taught better, since better is available.

James Harris

Update on sum of squares discovery

Like to play with math to keep my mind active and a little bit ago I posted about a discovery I made with summing squares. There I gave the full result, but I think a special case looks simply prettier which is just a sum of two squares:

x² + y² = mⁿ

will always have nonzero integer solutions for x and y, as long as m - 1 is a square and n is greater than 0.

For example: 495² + 4888² = 17⁶

That result looks like something from antiquity, but it's something I just recently noticed which follows from my own basic math research where I could have had the result back in 2008.

That is the underlying math discovery was in 2008, but I finally decided to name the thing, and with that event figured I should play with it some more and finally noticed this sum of squares result. I have lots of math laying around. Every once in a while I look back over something old.

Underlying technique allows you to do calculations with half the bits. The calculations to get there always involve half as many bits, and maybe that could be useful to someone? I don't know. May as well mention it.

The math is easy too.

Found out I could get answers for:

(x² + ay²)(u² + bv²) = p² + cq²

Where I was web searching trying to see what mathematicians knew in this area--I am NOT a mathematician I should emphasize--and came across a search result which brought up a page where someone was asking that question and I answer it easily.

Here's an example:

(x² + 2y²)(u² + 3v²) = p² + 11q²

Where my methods generate a potential infinity of solutions.

One of the solutions is: x = -1, y = 2, u = -2, v = 2, p = -10, q = 2

Gave my approach at the site too as an answer to the poster's question and it looks like it was promptly deleted! Here's a link to the site with the question.

That actually bugged me a bit but then made me feel better, as I have other number theory results like my own prime counter which I discovered over a decade ago. It's clear I'm doing my part, so the failure is elsewhere.

Regardless, something with which to do things. Does it really matter if some mathematicians somewhere acknowledge it?


James Harris

Separating private from potentially public

With privacy so big in the news as a coder I've been in the past worried about the lack of a clear demarcation line, like on a personal computer as that's what's most familiar to me, between information that is potentially public and that which is locked from the web. For instance in the past I've coded applications that have full disk access, and I'm like, why?

So I'm not as sure about what's going on currently, though I'm talking about it as something that I need to figure out for current ideas, and talking things out is what I do, so sorry if things are better now, but no, very glad if things are better now. And this post is going to be simple concepts, like think about how most people go into their own homes.

You know, you unlock the door, walk into it, close the door and have what's called an expectation of privacy.

Contrast with a computer application you downloaded, opened the door one could say, and that thing is now like a best friend who can walk into your house, go into the fridge and drink some of your milk, but why?

Why not have a public area, like a front yard, where the apps can go? Or maybe even a living room, but get really suspicious if they start rummaging through your bedroom, metaphorically.

The clearest demarcation would be private versus potentially public, where people could have data that their system would refuse to share to the web. So to share that data they'd have to move it out of the Private Area to the Potentially Public Area. Then their system is like their home. It has boundaries, and for people to see into their home, they have to break through those boundaries but it's not just open.

How restrictive would that be? For lots of apps, not at all. Like if you have music, and apps that handle music, would they care if your music is in the Potentially Public Area? Nope. Would you have music in the Private Area? Sure, if for instance you were a musician, or someone who likes to sing for their own amusement and would be horrified if that were shared, but those apps don't need that information either.

The home analogy is a good one I think, as on your personal computer it is like a part of your home. For a company, you can simply shift the analogy, like you can have a lobby and these aren't complicated ideas and I'm sure I'm not the only person who has had them, but am talking some thing out.

Actually posted on this subject April of this year. Here's the link for the curious:

Why not a Java sandbox?

There I was grousing a bit on the security side, as I think that you can do app security in a completely different way if an app knows it only can access certain data, like only your music files in your Potentially Public Area, adding in that idea. Then app security is trivial for the developer.

It's such a natural kind of thing that I wonder why computer operating systems were built the way they were, but suspect that long, long ago in a time far, far away when operating systems were being built there were other issues that were major concerns.

Enough for now, as I can edit later. Ok, will edit later, that's just about guaranteed.


James Harris

Why not problem solve health insurance?

Growing up I was fascinated by the fictional character Spock on Star Trek. His obsession with logic fascinated me, and lead me to the library where I was disappointed by the reality of how logic is taught. Nonetheless I have remained interested in the subject and with problem solving as well, so I find it weird when I come across relatively simple analysis in big areas, where logic dictates.

Like health insurance is a major issue and in the US it has been problematic to properly provide it for our citizenry for quite some time. So I sat down some years back and analyzed the problem space and came to some simple conclusions.

And I concluded that if you boil down all the debate in the US around health insurance it is just about who pays.

The way insurance is supposed to work is you insure against risk by pooling funds in advance of it.

If a person is sick then they have already incurred risk.

It's like, if you already wrecked your car then you can't exactly insure it, correct?

But what if a wealthy uncle pays for your car to be fixed anyway? Well that's not insurance, it's charity.

So it's impossible from the business side to "insure" people when you are actually giving them charity if they are already sick. But from society's perspective it's important to give them that benefit, and insurance companies are the best at delivering payment on claims as it's their business.

But they don't have to be the ones actually paying.

For instance a wealthy person can hire an insurance company to administer claims made against him, even though he is actually paying out, because he lacks the experience to process the claim.

For instance, his chauffeur might run his vehicle into the back end of someone's car. Should he hire lawyers himself and fight the case in court?

What if instead his insurance company handles it, and determines that the accident was engineered because they've seen such things many times before? And they also determine that the supposedly injured party is in the database as someone who has been in many such accidents and is merely a con artist?

How would the wealthy person know on his own without the insurance company's help? He might get lucky and figure it out. And hire attorneys who could figure it out, and properly fight the case or he could end up taken as he does not have that kind of information and why would he? For instance, he couldn't have a database of insurance claims to search on to find the name of the person who had engineered such accidents in the past!

How does all of the above relate to health insurance?

Well, what if? What if the US Government or some other government entity paid for people who aren't really insurable, but the health insurance companies administer? Just like with the wealthy person example above you get the benefits of their expertise but someone else actually pays.

Years ago I put it all together in a tweet of exactly 140 characters:

My healthcare plan: Preventive Care--everybody, Core Care--insurables, Expected Care--not easily insured, Elder Care--quality of life at end
— James Harris (@jstevh) July 27, 2009

Part of the way I use Twitter is to store ideas. And now it's easy to put them back up later by embedding the tweets, which I think is an efficient way to propagate the information.

If that tweet doesn't make sense you can read it all explained on one of my blogs:

lostincomment.blogspot.com/2009/09/my-healthcare-plan.html

I've explained in various ways since then, but I like showing how long I've had this approach out there.

I feel confident that eventually something like it will be the way health insurance will work in the US, but getting there will take some time.

Why? Because unlike the fictional Spock, who loved logic, politicians tend to love other things. As things play out in the US along a predictable path, it will take some time before people get frustrated enough with how things are done to do them better.


James Harris

Why do we still use passwords?

I like puzzling over really dumb things that lots of people have to do, because it amuses me. And one of the stupidest things we all still have to do is use passwords, but why?

Early on, back when there were debates over whether or not "personal computers" were even worth having, as the web began to emerge, it was simpler to use passwords for access to sites. And the username and password way of operating took over.

But it's a dumb way to do things long-term.

People forget the darn things. Or re-use them endlessly. Or get infuriated when they have to come up with new ones on a schedule. And, oh yeah, computers are fiendishly good at cracking them.

But what to do? What else to do?

Why not use keys?

People don't use a username and password to start their cars, right?

Would you use a username and password to get into your house?

I wouldn't. I like keys just fine.

So how do you use keys instead of passwords?

The simplest is a dongle type device that plugs into a USB port with a unique and cycling identifier that runs through a key service. The key service tells people that you are you.

So, for instance, say Mozilla or Google were to provide a key service--or some other organization if you don't trust either of them--then they'd be the ones to tell a website who you are.

They just need to be sure you--are you.

So they would just need a way for you to tell them, which is what that device that plugs into your USB port would do.

And you can keep it, where?

How about on your key-chain?

(That's where a lot of people like to keep their keys. I think it's a decent place. Very familiar.)

How do you cycle it?

How about using the time of device connection?

That's a simple idea I gave away years ago after I failed to get a US patent on the concept which infuriated me, and earned my contempt of the USPTO from then on.

I think the USPTO is stupid. (Maybe I'm using words like "stupid" too much these days but the password thing is way past stupid into endlessly annoying.)

So, like, there's an algorithm that shifts a code on your "key" whenever you connect it to the key service.

The way it works is your key keeps up with how long you're connected because it has a timer and the service keeps up with that connection time too.

So your key calculates its new code after you disconnect and the service does as well. They both know how long you were connected, so each has the critical information. That time of connection is a number which can be pushed through shared formulas to generate a code. So you can endlessly generate codes, replacing a static password, or one that changes every 30 days.

With this idea, you send--by using your key--a new code with each connection.

Here notice that both your device and the key service have a useful bit of information which as far as I know is mostly just thrown away all the time on the web.

They BOTH independently have the time of connection.

It's called SHARED INFORMATION and my idea leverages such information. Simple.

If someone copies your key, and tries to be you, they start generating new codes, and then when you try to be you, the service starts howling as your codes are wrong. You can't both be you at the same time. So, you know you've been hacked. They know you've been hacked.

That simple technique is unbreachable, as long as you eventually use your key again.

If they just take your key then it's just like other situations if people just take your key. If you never use your key again, and they copy it, then it's also like if they just took your key. So technically the technique ensures only one key user is allowed with it impossible for duplicates to co-exist without detection.

I can prove that through logic because I'm really smart.

Our current system is really STUPID.

Do you think I used the word "stupid" enough in this post? I don't. I'd like to use it a bit more but I'm trying to be polite.

Our world is so much worse off because there are people who think they are highly intelligent who insist on ignoring ideas that can make our lives easier while requiring we do STUPID things like use usernames and passwords.

Ok, I feel better now, got one more in there.

So why is my idea a key while username and password is not?

Because your physical keys are unique to you. Yes, others MAY copy them, but it's not like you will not find out. Or probably will find out if you're smart about it, and oh yeah, I digress...they need your physical key to copy it!

Physical keys are awesome things which people should appreciate more, so we can move those key principles to the web.

When you think it, then it is possible it can be done.

If you can't think it, then how can it be made real?

With my idea someone wishing to steal your key needs your physical key to copy it--as the codes it generates shift all the time--and even with it, they may find it hard to hack the freaking thing and copy it. But even if they do, if you get it back, and use it, their copy is now worthless.

So it's actually better than a normal key.

If they just copy a current code from your key as it flies across the web, then they got NOTHING.

Oh yeah, and why give ideas away for free?

Because I don't like the USPTO and I STILL don't like them despite recent legislation.

What we lose is innovation as big corporations have the power to push their ideas through, while others can just keep using usernames and passwords indefinitely because in my opinion big corporations rarely push the best innovation.

(But they do have big legal departments so tread carefully in saying nasty things about them!)

Our world is changed by blocked innovations where people lose more than they often realize because they have no clue how much better things could be.

And that is just sad.


James Harris

Getting serious about Sirius XM

Link above goes to: BusinessWeek

Quote from the source:

Sirius XM: What Price Bankruptcy?
Under Chapter 11, the satellite radio outfit could possibly revamp costly contracts. But it could also lose its top star and lots of listeners

By Olga Kharif

A bankruptcy filing by Sirius XM would have widespread implications not just for holders of the satellite radio company's debt and shares, but also for millions of listeners and for the celebrities like Howard Stern whose fat paychecks have made it harder for the company to pay its other bills....

It bugs me that I predicted an end to this company, when it was two, some while ago because it seems to me so preventable. (Oh yeah, I know they do have some ads.)

Maybe if they had followed a business plan more to my liking it would not have worked, but I like to think that what I said makes sense, so it makes me happy to believe that there is still time.

They need commercials.

Bad commercials are bad. But good commercials are good. People need a break from all that intensity and it gives them revenue.

I think we need satellite radio so I hope the best whatever answers they find.

Consider Satellite Radio

Big news today was about a proposed merger between the two main Satellite Radio providers who claim they need it to survive, and I just started thinking about their situation and wondered, why don't they have channels with advertising?

Simple idea, and it goes to a business model that works--cable television.

There are pay channels and there are channels that offer advertising.

Simple.

But these people think they are smart and believe that the benefit they offer customers is NO advertising, so they'd rather die than consider that the benefit they offer customers is the ability to get what they want anywhere.

If they offer channels that have ads they can have people listening who have basic subscriptions, who are using them because they can get a digital signal anywhere in the country (thinking about the US).

So yeah, why can't they just listen to the radio then?

Because hey, I've traveled across this country several times and you have to keep switching stations. Duh.

Millions of dollars at stake. The survival of companies and lots of people's jobs on the line and thinking in the box--following a business model that is currently working for the cable industry--doesn't occur to people you'd think would want to win.

But problem solving can be about obvious, when obvious is invisible to people who have not been trained how to think.

And in the real world, entire countries can die for stupid reasons because people were too "smart" to figure out simple solutions, so a couple of dinky companies?

Barely worth talking about, and believe me, at the rate they are going, they both will die---with the answer to their problems staring them in the face.


James Harris