Business thinking is killing society! Here is why

1. Everyone needs to be able to earn money to live.
2. The minority of people have plenty of money.
 
The minority wish to keep their money so either seek to avoid spending the money or seek to have the money return to them either faster than they spend or at roughly the same level.
 
The majority do not have plenty of money
 
The majority need money to live on a day to day basis and work to earn money to live, the money they earn to live they spend on things they require (food, accommodation, friends and family). Since it is the Minority with the money, they ensure that for every bit of money the majority "earn" the majority spend it with them or another minority.

Everyone in theory wishes for better (more than they have). Therefore everyone tends, to some extent to behave in a similar fashion, which is:

• For as little as possible effort, retain as large as possible reward.

This is largely only logical and not in fact always motivated by wanting more reward than is fair or warranted(and besides, the minority people don't like the concept of fair because it limits their ability to exploit their position which is often hard earned or fought for so in some ways who can blame them).

So what actually comes about is everyone becomes a "player" in this ridiculous game. This is all fine as long as we have a referee, which is where the government is supposed to sit. The Government owns the bank and should always be the biggest employer (have the most outgoings) and should have the least monetary incomings (all the incoming to the government should really be the efforts of the people for it). They should be the ones underwriting all our pay checks and ensuring that people can live. In this way this "non-player" keeps the system balanced (in theory).

The problem comes when the referee tries to be like everyone else. That is to say, the government looks to be "profitable" monetarily speaking (rather than placing its profits in progress of the people). Government shouldn't work like a business because all business can only continue profitably in the current climate if there is a renewable source of income in the economy.

The goal of business is as follows :

• Through an investment in goods, people or services to receive back more money than you pay out. To, therefore, make a profit.

The only way "everyone" can possible make a profit is if, ipso-facto, someone or something (or collection of such) are making a loss (unless money is infinite, which was the role of the government to make this effectively so). In the past, the government was the source and sometimes the sink for all money. This is still in theory true today, but then why is the government "borrowing" billions from the tax payers future and why is the government in "debt"? Partly I suspect its propaganda to get more from the people, but mostly they have bought into the game (stopped running the game). NO you CANT play the game AND run the game. If you play the game, it becomes a free for all and all money evaporates because everyone on the whole play field tries to profit (that can't happen so...).

Everyone has to lose (or some smaller set of people lose really badly. It won't be the minority who lose in the end). What they have done by "taking it from the future tax payer" is pretty much "virtualised" inflation ("oh no, we aren't spending beyond our means. He's (pointing into the crowd) going to pay you in 5 years time" what do you think will really happen?).

Solutions? I can't see one. We can't go back to the old system, it can't account for life. Moving into the "StarTrek" era would be nice, but that doesn't account for some people (e.g. the StarTrek era requires world cooperation).

What I would dearly love to see is an "owning up" but to own up would be to cause a collapse of the system. Systemic collapse is never good, even for a corrupt and evil system (leads usually to rioting, fighting or war). This system is bad, but it's not truly evil.

I guess though, the one thing that's clear in my mind, is the government needs to operate quietly (at a continuing loss) for the people. Perhaps splitting the government into two, one part that seeks to profit (the services part of the government) and one part which will continually run at a loss (the provision for jobs and income).

Amazon are Fanstasitc, Highly Recommend them

I was thinking about my last post and that I spend a good amount of time "complaining" on this blog. I realised that I don't enough praise whats good.

Amazon are GREAT the provide an excellent service, they are safe, efficient and really seem to listen to customer feedback. They don't overly spam me with advertisements and they have always delivered on the goods (and on the rare occasion I have had problems I've always been left satisifed with the resolution).

I highly recommend if you have shopping to do, check out Amazon's website.

I'm sure though for most people this is really apparent, but I just wanted to take the chance to praise something good.

Browser Features Override from Web Scripting

I want to make everyone aware of this dangerous ability provided within Microsoft Internet Explorer (and possibly other browsers) with a correctly coded browser script it is possible to "hijack" default browser shortcut keys (such as CTRL-N (New Window). CTRL-F (Find) and replace the standard behaviour with a scripted behaviour).

THIS IS A HUGE SECURITY LOOP HOLE.

Imagine, you search on Google and alight upon a likely looking search result. You goto that page and then decide you want to move to a new browser window, you hit CTRL-N and, unknown to you, the script on the page intercepts your request and opens up a new window in its own script injecting its scripted functionality into the new window (perfectly possible). Now, unless your very familiar with the working of your browser your not aware your still in a page controlled by scripts from your previous page. It would be potentially dangerous to proceed to login to your email.

It admittedly would be hard to make an "exploit" which would not be noticable by someone familiar with browser technology but easy to trick the non-technical user.

This kind of irresponsibility I find really annoying. Having these kinds of features. An external source should not be allowed to override innate features of your browser (for example, although pages should have the ability to know when they are closed. They should not have final executive control of wether the close can be allowed, the page should mearly be notified of proceedings and proceed to obey the user.

However, theres money in taking control away from the end user and theres loss in fixing it.

Sick to death of Browser Whores (Wars)

Summary:

"I'm Sick & Tired of companies using my internet connection like they own my computer and all its softwares and like I am just an inconvinience getting in the way of them continuing as they wish!"


Let me detail a typical day of bad "free" or "supplied" software.

I launch Internet Explorer, which on the whole isn't a bad little browser but a bit target for viruses and malware. It works well for me and is pretty steady. Though, every now and then, I wonder if I want something better (especially when I try to zoom a JavaScript and get junk).

So, I fire up Opera and the whole whoring begins. First of all, without any permission from me or even notifying me it starts downloading something. Its probably an update, but F**K OFF ITS MY SYSTEM ASK >.<. So basicly, Opera could be the best damn browser ever but I would never use the f**king thing. Except blocked to hell and sandboxed in an emergency situation. This is just a single example, other examples are that it connects to unrelated web addresses when I goto a website on the intranet (in a "triggered" behaviour). I don't know or care what its doing. It might even be in my interest, all I care is theres another internet connection I have not asked for or agreed to (agreeing to allow the product to do what it likes in the licence agreement is NOT gaining permission, its avoiding litigation).

This is the problem these days, browser / internet companies feel its "acceptable" even "profitable" to bypass the customers consent portion of the proceedings and go ahead and do whatever THEY want (I can imagine them saying "oh right.. yes.. erm.. now you mention it erm.. yes.. we did it FOR you.. yes.. we know best. Just be a good consumer and continue to download our crap and support our advertising revenues theres a good customer.").

What they want is money and they don't really seem to care all that much how they get it within the bounds of "not spooking the cow" (eg. cash cow) which is the customer.

I'm sick and tired of this crap. Online bussiness built on "what can we get away with" instead of "what can we provide, and how should we charge for it". 

I do admit though its the actions of consumers that have them: 1) getting away with such alot and 2) needing to "get away with it" in the first place as some people treat the web like a gianormous free meal, 3) Undermine decent business by leaving a perfectly good cost effective solution because someone in a web back ally goes "pssst, I can get you that free mate".

I am not anti-free software. I do like my rights and things being my choice.

Mind you, some companies that have got it right on the above can be irritating in other ways. I really like Comodo, I used their Internet Security Solution free version whilst I was between positions and when I was back in work I wanted to buy their full product and support their activities. They couldn't process my debit card and ended up pretty much rejecting my order (not tried to work it out. Just rejected my order. This was on a card I used a day later to buy something 3 times the price with no problems at all from Amazon).

Oh yes! Whilst I'm here Amazon are fantastic. Amazon have continually impressed and proved to be very considerate. Pity they don't provide a browser.

Microsoft Closing up the operating system API

In the "growth" days of Microsoft, before it was the corporate giant it is today, Microsoft where very keen to get anyone and everyone using their software. One way in which they did this was by providing robust and well supported API's opening up the operating systems to developers and allowing easy extension of existing controls.

Over the last 5 years, Microsoft have been peice by peice clawing back the control of their operating system by slowly and subversively closing off UI accessiblity. This is not an idle claim, review the following examples:

• Desktop Window Manager (Closed / Private API for all but TRIVIAL operations)
• Windows Presentation Foundation (Closed / Private API unless you use / buy their .NET development products. See DirectUIHWND control which is replacing many controls in Windows 7).
• Digital Rights Management (See IP6, Windows Media Player etc)

Now, of course, Microsoft want to still keep customers but at the same time ensure that the customer requires a continuing spend with their organisation. What has changed is they no longer want to keep customers by "giving them a bargin / open development platform". Not happy with the simple continuing spend of O/S upgrades and new technology they want to lock third parties out of certain areas of the operating system (leading to a monopoly control within their own solution with minority access given to the wider development community).

What they are seeking to do, is to tie customers to their product and force customers to use them, and them alone (though this is possibly the goal of most all big business sadly).

Abode I'm sure are partly to blame for this change in behavior. Adobe proved with Flash how a third party could "tie up" a market sector and "force" businesses to pay for their particular solution. The have done this repeatedly, PDF format being another "lock in" technology. Microsoft have tried to "reclaim" this sector with their "Silverlight" like for like solution but its just changing which company your locked into.

Whilst I appriciate all business needs to earn revenue to survive, business which feels it must "shackle" their customers to their solution is at best anti-competitive. Microsoft used to operate based on "incentive", that is, buy in to our solution we offer the best most flexible / simple (best?) solution. They used to do this well.

However, their direction right now is all about tying up the customer. A customer forced to stick to a provider due to artificialy concocted "reasons" (with an engineered technical reason) is not getting the best for their investment (since they no longer have the "power" of choice being locked to a single solution for reasons other than, superior service or reduced costs).

SHAME ON YOU MICROSOFT.

If you really do care about your customers, you will do the following:

1. Provide FULL documented low level API access to WPF and DWM.
2. Find OTHER alternative ways to protect your revenue streams. Ones which are based on serving the customer.

Finally don't just do this for the functions you have earmarked as "low profit" or "last generation". Expose and document the whole API (even if its only a one liner on a blog). Sure, you might mark some functions as not being supported yet or as volatile as sensible.

I susspect noone is listening.

I bought into Microsoft as was, I dislike the direction. Google sometimes seem to be inching in similar directions but so far they seem to have tempered this practice and kept it to an acceptable minimum.

A damn good website!

Still in love with my best friend, still "like a brother" to her. I got absolutely "fed up" today because she told me how I was "acting strange" and "scaring her away" which seemed to be based on me being "clingy". I live a good distance from her and she is sharing a flat with her ex-boyfriend (and not as "ex" as I would wish) so of course I am going to get "clingy" *sigh*. So, I searched for some random "fed up" search terms and came to here:

Straight Talking advice on Romance

I have to say that right now I very much love this straight talking site. Its just tempered nicely between advice and "wake up fool".

I am not actually sure I have any ideas to change my situation but I do feel I might understand it alot better.

I just hope the "content replicators" don't "ruin" it by whoring it about with advertisements.

Too many McGyver's not enough Engineers

I like McGyver's they get things done, they do whatever needs to be done in whatever way it can be done given the resources available and sometimes the solutions are just damn genius! Sometimes.

Mostly though, they are short sighted work arounds leaving increasingly bigger messes for Mc Gyver's boss's to sort out.. unfortunately, they are also trying to be McGyver.

We do need McGyver's in this world. The problem is, most all people are being McGyver's.

We need more people to be patient and consiencious observers of life who test their ideas and come up with theories. People who look forward to whats comming next and design for the future and to be built upon, not just always working in the space of Now.

Now is important (for sure), Now is when things get done, now is when things happen! It seems people today equate "progress" with "happening now". That is to say: people don't want to plan things out today and build tommorow, they want to start work right away. This is possibly an admirable trate, but without planning and understanding whats being built and its need we soon end up in the "then" needing a lot more "now".

Society does not support people to work for a better future, but it does support those in the now.

We need a mix, we need to encourage the genius McGyver's into places where they can help the world but managed so they don't just put off a bigger disaster in the future. We need to somehow train the other MyGyver's (the ones building a poor solution in the now for an even worse problem in the future) to be something "other" but which fits with their ability.

Now, my observation. The reason there are so many McGyver's is that business and government rewards that type of behavior and rewards genius and fool hardy with some level of equality (as much as anything is equal in societies built from a history of slavery and opression).

Whats needed is a clear reward, placed in the future, for following a Engineering path. One that a person can see building day by day and one which they can observe the conciquences of returning to be a McGyver.

I'd like to see more "scolarships", more "government funding" in such a way that it makes sense to do things right (not just to do things "profitable" which is certainly not equating to right). Actually when it comes down to it, this is the core of the problem... "profit" in terms of money does not equal "profit" in terms of society and people. It infact means the opposite.

Lets make "profit" in money to "profit" society.