I remember the first time I saw "2001 a Space Odyssey", in it the computer named HAL would watch the astronauts and even read their lips, it seemed like science fiction at the time; but, it also seemed possible. Well, it is now just reality and nobody seems amazed by it or even scared of it.
NBC - TechNewsDaily - Eye movements could be next PC password
As the title of the article says, your computer can be programmed to identify you just by the way you move your eyes. The article states that "Computer scientists all over the world are studying biometrics for crime solving, for border security, and just as a high-tech way to sign into smartphones, tablets and other devices." The article goes on to say how this technology could be used to indicate if someone was emotionally unstable.
The next article is actually a video. YouTube - Autodesk 123D Catch for the iPhone. The video shows an application for for IPhone's that allows you to take someone's picture and convert it automatically into a 3D Model.
What we are looking at is a series of technologies that capture your individual biometrics. Iris scans, motion detection technology like Kinect, electronic fingerprints, voice recognition (Siri) and all sorts of applications that look at your living habits to predict what you will want or what might influence you.
The next article is from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and is titled - Biometrics in Argentina: Mass Surveillance as a State Policy. Argentina both requires a national identification card and now the biometrics of all citizens. The kicker is that they are also going to assign everyone a personal identification number for life which is linked to their biometrics. I gave a sermon today on these types of technologies and their implications, I wish I would have read these articles yesterday.
It is coming and sooner than people think, I have been saying it for years and will repeat it. In the not to distant future your biometrics will be required for you to use the internet, cell phones or anything connected to the internet. You will not need to carry identification because your face will be your id card. And even if you are allowed to use these things, the government will determine what you can and cannot do based on age and past history. If you don't go along, they will simply cut you off from the internet and the coming electronic money.
When I first told people that their phone would watch them and predict their actions, they thought I was paranoid and then when I showed them the Galaxy SIII, they were uncomfortable. I now know someone that owns one and thinks it is great. People accepted it immediately with no concern for the consequences.
I am going to try something. I am asking everyone who reads this post to leave a comment on what they think about these things, leave it anonymously (I don't require you to prove who you are).
We have all heard of Facebook, it has one billion users, that is one out of every seven people on earth. Facebook is just that, it monitors your face, your personal identity. Recently there was a lot of news articles saying that there were a lot of phony profiles on Facebook and what a horrible thing this was. Facebook is going to require that you verify who you are to use it in the future, they may do that now for all I know. This technology will be used to stop "online bullying" and prevent sexual predators from going after children. It will also be used to dumb down political debate, eliminate any real privacy and convince people to ignore you based on public opinion about you.
Let me explain that last one. One of the most popular uses of the internet is to get other people's opinions about restaurants, products and dates. There are sites where you can rate the man or woman that you dated. In response to this, there are now people offering their services to improve your online profile. Most social media has some sort of rating for other people on the social media site. I can imagine sites being created that allow the users determine who is allowed to use the site, what a force for using social pressure to get people to conform.
I have been using the World Wide Web (internet) since the first year. I have been on it since the beginning and have watched it evolve. When I first started using it, Internet Explorer did not exist. In fact, I beta tested Internet Explorer before it was released. I remember when personal computers first came out. I remember punch cards and learned how to make them in order to program computers back in the early 70s. I regret to say that I did not consider where all of it was heading, I thought the technology was just sort of cool. I don't find it cool anymore.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Cashless or Unpatriotic
I am going to post a link to a website by Alex Jones called InfoWars. I don't usually link to his site because I think he has a tendency to overreact and see a conspiracy in everything; but, sometimes he catches articles that I did not. Over the years I have found that I usually post on issues before he does; but, I believe this is usually due to the fact that I don't have to have my articles edited or reviewed by others.
The article is by Adan Salazar and is titled - Survey Finds Large Number of Australians Welcome Cashless Society, Retinal Scans for Banking
The article links to a report by the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) which surveyed people to see what the future of banking might look like. 67% of those surveyed said that they "would be comfortable using a machine that scans your eye to verify identification in place of a pin." and "79% would be comfortable using fingerprint technology in place of a pin." While what is not stated is how many would prefer these technologies be used, it does mean that most would quietly accept it.
The article also states that there is a five year program underway. What is even more interesting is the video that InfoWars provides at the bottom of the article and I highly recommend that you watch it. The video is from CNBC. Interesting statements, statement 1 is at 8 seconds, the anchor asks if a move to a cashless society around the world help America. She interviews Johnathen LaPau (might be spelled wrong) at 4:45 into the video the anchor states the regardless of the type of electronic cash it would basically require a biometric national identification system. She then says the system would require all banks around the world to agree on the identification system so that it would work. The guest states that ideally you would have a single standard worldwide.
The video spends most of it's time talking about how cash is bad and is used by terrorists and criminals. This is the first time I have heard someone actually say what I have been saying, they want to go to an all electronic worldwide electronic currency and in order to access it you will have to be bio-metrically identified. This is a CNBC anchor saying that this system will be the same as an international biometric identification system.
Anyone who has read this blog for a long time knows that I said this was the end game and guess what now it is being openly discussed and promoted so that we can fight terrorism and gangs. Now lets go back to the original ANZ article, it didn't ask people if they would be "comfortable" with a national ID card or if it did, it did not say how many would. What it said was that this biometric database would constructively be one. Same thing will play out in the United States as is demonstrated by the video.
I gave a sermon a little while back where I was talking about the Mark of the Beast in Revelations (and NO, I am not saying that biometrics is the mark of the beast). In the sermon I discussed how never before in history was it possible to require everyone in the world to have a mark in order to buy and sell. Revelations states that everyone will be required to take a mark in order to buy and sell and a biometric read of your face is not a mark. Personally, I think that you will have to have an invisible mark verifying that you are you and the mark will not be something that would make sense to forge. The point is that we are absolutely headed to electronic currency, biometric verification and an international identification scheme.
We are seeing the promotion of a lot of disturbing things right now. The UN is trying to get a couple of international taxes (one of them on cigarettes), the ability to regulate small arms and the seas through treaty and is also seeking control over the internet. At the same time we are seeing a number of countries requiring biometric identification of everyone (India being one of the best examples) and we are eliminating all of the infrastructure (printing presses, the postal service and over the air radio) that will allow you to function without relying on the internet. Does this bother anyone other than me?
Here is something else that one needs to consider, you cannot have an international currency system (electronic or otherwise) unless all nations currencies are set by an international legislative body. Now the question becomes one of what the basis for setting such currencies would be (I know, I wrote on this before) and my prediction is that it would be based on the total mineable mineral resources of a country, their labor force and their infrastructure. Estimating these expenses and agreeing on the weight given to each may be more difficult; but, we have the Euro to guide us and show us the way.
Things consider to get overly controlling as one considers the effects of this single currency. Firstly, without accepting it, a nation would not be able to trade with other nations. Secondly, in order to get China, Russia, Japan, the EU and the United States to accept this new currency, you would have to destroy theirs. Finally, a single electronic currency could be shut off for any individual and there is no other place to go in the world. It wouldn't matter when you went. Your money would not be accepted anywhere if you were shut off in your own country and the biometric identification would prevent you from re-entering the monetary system without having gotten approval from your home nation.
This is how it will work. The banks will require electronic verification of you in order to access your account. After that they will phase out physical cash as is happening in certain countries already. The currencies crash and we convert to exclusively electronic payments. I guess that is enough for now.
Here is a little story for you, sorry, I don't remember where I read it because I saw it in a couple of places. Some homeless guy in England (I believe) rented a hotel room and skipped out on the bill. He left behind his toothbrush and his dna was used to track him down by the police. I don't know what they guys room bill was; but, really, it must be pretty cheap to trace people biometrically in England. I would be careful spitting gum on the streets there.
The article is by Adan Salazar and is titled - Survey Finds Large Number of Australians Welcome Cashless Society, Retinal Scans for Banking
The article links to a report by the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) which surveyed people to see what the future of banking might look like. 67% of those surveyed said that they "would be comfortable using a machine that scans your eye to verify identification in place of a pin." and "79% would be comfortable using fingerprint technology in place of a pin." While what is not stated is how many would prefer these technologies be used, it does mean that most would quietly accept it.
The article also states that there is a five year program underway. What is even more interesting is the video that InfoWars provides at the bottom of the article and I highly recommend that you watch it. The video is from CNBC. Interesting statements, statement 1 is at 8 seconds, the anchor asks if a move to a cashless society around the world help America. She interviews Johnathen LaPau (might be spelled wrong) at 4:45 into the video the anchor states the regardless of the type of electronic cash it would basically require a biometric national identification system. She then says the system would require all banks around the world to agree on the identification system so that it would work. The guest states that ideally you would have a single standard worldwide.
The video spends most of it's time talking about how cash is bad and is used by terrorists and criminals. This is the first time I have heard someone actually say what I have been saying, they want to go to an all electronic worldwide electronic currency and in order to access it you will have to be bio-metrically identified. This is a CNBC anchor saying that this system will be the same as an international biometric identification system.
Anyone who has read this blog for a long time knows that I said this was the end game and guess what now it is being openly discussed and promoted so that we can fight terrorism and gangs. Now lets go back to the original ANZ article, it didn't ask people if they would be "comfortable" with a national ID card or if it did, it did not say how many would. What it said was that this biometric database would constructively be one. Same thing will play out in the United States as is demonstrated by the video.
I gave a sermon a little while back where I was talking about the Mark of the Beast in Revelations (and NO, I am not saying that biometrics is the mark of the beast). In the sermon I discussed how never before in history was it possible to require everyone in the world to have a mark in order to buy and sell. Revelations states that everyone will be required to take a mark in order to buy and sell and a biometric read of your face is not a mark. Personally, I think that you will have to have an invisible mark verifying that you are you and the mark will not be something that would make sense to forge. The point is that we are absolutely headed to electronic currency, biometric verification and an international identification scheme.
We are seeing the promotion of a lot of disturbing things right now. The UN is trying to get a couple of international taxes (one of them on cigarettes), the ability to regulate small arms and the seas through treaty and is also seeking control over the internet. At the same time we are seeing a number of countries requiring biometric identification of everyone (India being one of the best examples) and we are eliminating all of the infrastructure (printing presses, the postal service and over the air radio) that will allow you to function without relying on the internet. Does this bother anyone other than me?
Here is something else that one needs to consider, you cannot have an international currency system (electronic or otherwise) unless all nations currencies are set by an international legislative body. Now the question becomes one of what the basis for setting such currencies would be (I know, I wrote on this before) and my prediction is that it would be based on the total mineable mineral resources of a country, their labor force and their infrastructure. Estimating these expenses and agreeing on the weight given to each may be more difficult; but, we have the Euro to guide us and show us the way.
Things consider to get overly controlling as one considers the effects of this single currency. Firstly, without accepting it, a nation would not be able to trade with other nations. Secondly, in order to get China, Russia, Japan, the EU and the United States to accept this new currency, you would have to destroy theirs. Finally, a single electronic currency could be shut off for any individual and there is no other place to go in the world. It wouldn't matter when you went. Your money would not be accepted anywhere if you were shut off in your own country and the biometric identification would prevent you from re-entering the monetary system without having gotten approval from your home nation.
This is how it will work. The banks will require electronic verification of you in order to access your account. After that they will phase out physical cash as is happening in certain countries already. The currencies crash and we convert to exclusively electronic payments. I guess that is enough for now.
Here is a little story for you, sorry, I don't remember where I read it because I saw it in a couple of places. Some homeless guy in England (I believe) rented a hotel room and skipped out on the bill. He left behind his toothbrush and his dna was used to track him down by the police. I don't know what they guys room bill was; but, really, it must be pretty cheap to trace people biometrically in England. I would be careful spitting gum on the streets there.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Small Spaces, Preaching and Elections
SMALL SPACES
I have been reading a lot about how municipalities are looking to have smaller apartments. In particular, New York is looking to make apartments that are about 250 square feet. I have also been noticing articles aimed at those who want to build tiny "homes". I watched a video today that was about an hour and a half about small living spaces around the world (though they didn't show Tokyo's small apartments).
I have a few thoughts on the matter. I had a 2,700 square foot, five bedroom house with a Jacuzzi in the back and lots of storage space including two custom built storage sheds (I didn't build them). I don't know what my lot size was; but, it was big. I now live in an apartment that is probably around 500 square feet so I understand downsizing. In fact, I think most people have more stuff than they need or is even healthy for them; but, it is an individual choice.
In fact, I am one of those people who could live quite well in a 300 square foot or so apartment, trailer, boat or house. People tend to fill their space with things they "might need someday"; but, never do. After the divorce I knew that I had way to much space and I couldn't pay for it anyways. The downsizing came from necessity; but, I really wanted to anyways, the kids are all grown. As I look forward to retirement, I ponder how much space I will truly need and where it should be located. To a large extent my lifestyle will determine how much space I will need and my preference has always been minimalist. During college I lived in a studio that was less than 300 square feet and it was just fine with me.
I like smaller spaces because, the truth is, I don't like to spend a lot of time cleaning or maintaining stuff. I would rather read and write then clean and fix. In the last few weeks an actor (can't think of his name) decided to leave New York and return to Los Angeles because he said that in New York everyone could hear you and that in L.A. you could yell because it had space. I have to agree with him. There is the dichotomy, how much space is enough?
While I enjoy my small space, if I were raising a family I would want everyone to get their own room for privacy. I would also want a shared space that was big enough that we could all talk. I may retire and continue renting my apartment, I like the area; but, I may retire and go off grid. I have not decided yet.
The issue I have is with the hard sale on minimizing our lives. I choose small; but, I do not choose high density, there is a difference. High density is bad for people and animals and is certainly not necessary. Throughout the midwest there are thousands of towns where the people moved out as we killed off the family farm. No work; but, plenty of space.
While I have always treasured my solitude and quiet, that is not for everybody. What Mayor Bloomberg and others are trying to tell us is that we should learn to live on as little as possible. The logic is that the United States is going to become poorer and we will have to live on less. We will not work less, we will work more. We will have just as much as we need and no more. I have a problem with that, not for myself, as a rule I have a problem with saying people should live with as little as possible, seems sort of extremist.
PREACHING AND ELECTIONS
I have mentioned before that sometimes I preach at a church. Recently I came across some articles that said that if you are a church that has filed the proper documentation with the government that you cannot support a candidate. That is an easy one for me as I don't support any of them, not Obama, not Romney and not Ron Paul. I have absolutely no intention of promoting any of them at church; but, I don't think I should be prohibited from giving my opinion from pulpit. The law certainly would not stop me from saying what I think.
I am pretty sure that I am not in church right now and can say anything I want. While I do not intend to vote and no longer believe in the system, I would not vote for Romney on a bet. This election is not about people, it is about philosophies, it is about the moral character of the nation, how much we care about each other and how much we are worried about ourselves. While all the candidates are merely shills for private interests, in the end, it is also a statement about how we care about each other. We will live with the consequences of our choices.
Mr. Romney believes it is a question of survival of the fittest (so long as you can cheat the system), President Obama represents (in theory at least) a more communal approach where we set a minimum that all are guaranteed (and it is not much), Mr. Paul represents everyman for himself; but, with rules that are fair to everyone. That pretty much sums it up. None of them are calling for rewarding a person based on their efforts. I assure you that those with inherited wealth are not in favor of such a thing, think about it, why would they be?
This election is a choice; but, we are not given the choice of more or even better, we are being told that the pie is going to shrink and we get to choose how we cut it up. That is what this election is about. Strip away all the nonsense and that is the choice we are making.
I have been reading a lot about how municipalities are looking to have smaller apartments. In particular, New York is looking to make apartments that are about 250 square feet. I have also been noticing articles aimed at those who want to build tiny "homes". I watched a video today that was about an hour and a half about small living spaces around the world (though they didn't show Tokyo's small apartments).
I have a few thoughts on the matter. I had a 2,700 square foot, five bedroom house with a Jacuzzi in the back and lots of storage space including two custom built storage sheds (I didn't build them). I don't know what my lot size was; but, it was big. I now live in an apartment that is probably around 500 square feet so I understand downsizing. In fact, I think most people have more stuff than they need or is even healthy for them; but, it is an individual choice.
In fact, I am one of those people who could live quite well in a 300 square foot or so apartment, trailer, boat or house. People tend to fill their space with things they "might need someday"; but, never do. After the divorce I knew that I had way to much space and I couldn't pay for it anyways. The downsizing came from necessity; but, I really wanted to anyways, the kids are all grown. As I look forward to retirement, I ponder how much space I will truly need and where it should be located. To a large extent my lifestyle will determine how much space I will need and my preference has always been minimalist. During college I lived in a studio that was less than 300 square feet and it was just fine with me.
I like smaller spaces because, the truth is, I don't like to spend a lot of time cleaning or maintaining stuff. I would rather read and write then clean and fix. In the last few weeks an actor (can't think of his name) decided to leave New York and return to Los Angeles because he said that in New York everyone could hear you and that in L.A. you could yell because it had space. I have to agree with him. There is the dichotomy, how much space is enough?
While I enjoy my small space, if I were raising a family I would want everyone to get their own room for privacy. I would also want a shared space that was big enough that we could all talk. I may retire and continue renting my apartment, I like the area; but, I may retire and go off grid. I have not decided yet.
The issue I have is with the hard sale on minimizing our lives. I choose small; but, I do not choose high density, there is a difference. High density is bad for people and animals and is certainly not necessary. Throughout the midwest there are thousands of towns where the people moved out as we killed off the family farm. No work; but, plenty of space.
While I have always treasured my solitude and quiet, that is not for everybody. What Mayor Bloomberg and others are trying to tell us is that we should learn to live on as little as possible. The logic is that the United States is going to become poorer and we will have to live on less. We will not work less, we will work more. We will have just as much as we need and no more. I have a problem with that, not for myself, as a rule I have a problem with saying people should live with as little as possible, seems sort of extremist.
PREACHING AND ELECTIONS
I have mentioned before that sometimes I preach at a church. Recently I came across some articles that said that if you are a church that has filed the proper documentation with the government that you cannot support a candidate. That is an easy one for me as I don't support any of them, not Obama, not Romney and not Ron Paul. I have absolutely no intention of promoting any of them at church; but, I don't think I should be prohibited from giving my opinion from pulpit. The law certainly would not stop me from saying what I think.
I am pretty sure that I am not in church right now and can say anything I want. While I do not intend to vote and no longer believe in the system, I would not vote for Romney on a bet. This election is not about people, it is about philosophies, it is about the moral character of the nation, how much we care about each other and how much we are worried about ourselves. While all the candidates are merely shills for private interests, in the end, it is also a statement about how we care about each other. We will live with the consequences of our choices.
Mr. Romney believes it is a question of survival of the fittest (so long as you can cheat the system), President Obama represents (in theory at least) a more communal approach where we set a minimum that all are guaranteed (and it is not much), Mr. Paul represents everyman for himself; but, with rules that are fair to everyone. That pretty much sums it up. None of them are calling for rewarding a person based on their efforts. I assure you that those with inherited wealth are not in favor of such a thing, think about it, why would they be?
This election is a choice; but, we are not given the choice of more or even better, we are being told that the pie is going to shrink and we get to choose how we cut it up. That is what this election is about. Strip away all the nonsense and that is the choice we are making.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Music and whatever I think to say
Look, I already did one post for the day and it is a pretty interesting subject. Now, I shall have a glass of wine, read random articles, listen to music and write down whatever drivel pops into my mind. I think that is fair.
At work I try and break up people's days with whatever I think they might find interesting. I also try and present information in an amusing manner. I don't know that that translates as well to my writing. Anyways, one of my co-workers and I were talking today over a cup of coffee.
On a side note, I just had a thought, the Devil can only see what is directly in front of him. The story of Job finds the Devil in heaven and God asks him what he has been doing. The Devil responds that he has been walking back and forth over the earth to find things to accuse us of (it says he accuses us day and night before God). God asks the Devil if he has considered Job. Now, clearly the Devil has as he says that Job would not love the Lord if he were not wealthy and had everything. In the end the Devil is proven wrong; but, the story also demonstrates that the Devil is not all knowing and has to see things for himself to know what is going on. Just a random thought and observation.
So, back to the work story. This person works for me and I think we get along pretty well. We are of a similar age and point in life. She said to me that she thought it was selfish of me not to find a nice lady to have a relationship with. She mentioned that I was a nice guy and deserved to be happy. She mentioned how there were many single ladies out there of my age (and no she was not hitting on me, she has been happily married for decades), her point was that she knew there were many women my age who might like to be with a decent fellow.
I truly appreciate her concern and those of all of my friends. I may not be "happy"; but, I am certainly not miserable. I told her that I could not be with a woman who was not Christian, intelligent and interested in the world around us. She stated that I was narrowing the choices and I mentioned that I wasn't looking. I have to admit, relationships are hard and I got burned pretty badly; but, I still believe in them. I am just as picky as I can be because I will not get burned again, nor hold back, if someone finds me, they will have to knock my socks off and I don't see that happening. I am selfish on that one thing in my life, it must be the only answer for both of us.
YouTube - [CARPENTERS] GOODBYE TO LOVE (lyrics)
I am going to try and link to songs that best represent what I am discussing as I write. An experiment, it is for the reader to decide how well I have done.
Back to religion, I had another thought. The Devil does not accuse us of being imperfect, that would be stupid. God built us and we know and he knows that we are imperfect, the Devil must therefore claim that we have no good in us, that everything we do is selfish. His mistake is in his being a narcissist, he must believe there is some good in him, it is a delusion, there is nothing but lies in him. There is none good; but, God; but, we can have some good in us. Not perfect; but, capable and willing to do good in some way. There is good in all of us, we just have to let it out. I know the song for this one.
YouTube - Ray Stevens - Everything Is Beautiful
I want to talk about people who are observant. Someone figured out something about the Pimpernel today, at least they think they did (they don't know the blog address so I can talk). They made a mistake; but, it is understandable. They had wondered how much information I had about where I work, they discovered that the person who had the most information about our workplace was one of my best friends that very few knew was a friend. They assumed that I got my information on everything from this person (first mistake, I have been around a long time) and then they assumed my friend told me everything (another mistake). Their next assumption is the most amusing, they assumed that I sought this person out to befriend them so that I would have insight. Things did not go quite that way. LOL. Being good at observation does not mean that you will understand what you observed, not when there are magicians and actors and mistakes in this world.
YouTube - Show must go on Three Dog Night lyrics
YouTube - Berlin - Masquerade
I am not posting links to all the songs I am listening to, just the ones that I choose after I write. I have not figured out what I want to write about yet.
Enjoy.
At work I try and break up people's days with whatever I think they might find interesting. I also try and present information in an amusing manner. I don't know that that translates as well to my writing. Anyways, one of my co-workers and I were talking today over a cup of coffee.
On a side note, I just had a thought, the Devil can only see what is directly in front of him. The story of Job finds the Devil in heaven and God asks him what he has been doing. The Devil responds that he has been walking back and forth over the earth to find things to accuse us of (it says he accuses us day and night before God). God asks the Devil if he has considered Job. Now, clearly the Devil has as he says that Job would not love the Lord if he were not wealthy and had everything. In the end the Devil is proven wrong; but, the story also demonstrates that the Devil is not all knowing and has to see things for himself to know what is going on. Just a random thought and observation.
So, back to the work story. This person works for me and I think we get along pretty well. We are of a similar age and point in life. She said to me that she thought it was selfish of me not to find a nice lady to have a relationship with. She mentioned that I was a nice guy and deserved to be happy. She mentioned how there were many single ladies out there of my age (and no she was not hitting on me, she has been happily married for decades), her point was that she knew there were many women my age who might like to be with a decent fellow.
I truly appreciate her concern and those of all of my friends. I may not be "happy"; but, I am certainly not miserable. I told her that I could not be with a woman who was not Christian, intelligent and interested in the world around us. She stated that I was narrowing the choices and I mentioned that I wasn't looking. I have to admit, relationships are hard and I got burned pretty badly; but, I still believe in them. I am just as picky as I can be because I will not get burned again, nor hold back, if someone finds me, they will have to knock my socks off and I don't see that happening. I am selfish on that one thing in my life, it must be the only answer for both of us.
YouTube - [CARPENTERS] GOODBYE TO LOVE (lyrics)
I am going to try and link to songs that best represent what I am discussing as I write. An experiment, it is for the reader to decide how well I have done.
Back to religion, I had another thought. The Devil does not accuse us of being imperfect, that would be stupid. God built us and we know and he knows that we are imperfect, the Devil must therefore claim that we have no good in us, that everything we do is selfish. His mistake is in his being a narcissist, he must believe there is some good in him, it is a delusion, there is nothing but lies in him. There is none good; but, God; but, we can have some good in us. Not perfect; but, capable and willing to do good in some way. There is good in all of us, we just have to let it out. I know the song for this one.
YouTube - Ray Stevens - Everything Is Beautiful
I want to talk about people who are observant. Someone figured out something about the Pimpernel today, at least they think they did (they don't know the blog address so I can talk). They made a mistake; but, it is understandable. They had wondered how much information I had about where I work, they discovered that the person who had the most information about our workplace was one of my best friends that very few knew was a friend. They assumed that I got my information on everything from this person (first mistake, I have been around a long time) and then they assumed my friend told me everything (another mistake). Their next assumption is the most amusing, they assumed that I sought this person out to befriend them so that I would have insight. Things did not go quite that way. LOL. Being good at observation does not mean that you will understand what you observed, not when there are magicians and actors and mistakes in this world.
YouTube - Show must go on Three Dog Night lyrics
YouTube - Berlin - Masquerade
I am not posting links to all the songs I am listening to, just the ones that I choose after I write. I have not figured out what I want to write about yet.
Enjoy.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Going Walletless Apple Style
I thought this was funny. Yesterday I posted on how England was going to go towards your telephone being your official identification, then, today I read this article about how Apple has a patent that would allow you to travel (book flights, go through baggage checkes...) and pay for everything with your phone. Enjoy.
CNN - Apple's secret plan to join iPhones with airport security
When I was talking about these things years ago, people disregarded it. They believed me, it was just that they thought we were talking about them coming in a decade. Nope, they are coming now. This is also why the poor in America are being given cell phones.
Look at the world around, take all the things that do not make common sense and see if you can find an answer that makes sense, connect the dots. Everytime you hear of a new cell phone, look at what the "improvement" is over past phones and look at what the failure was. Does anyone really believe that Apple could not have made a better mapping system for their new phone, that is Google's market. Monopolies are when companies give other companies specific areas for themselves. Google gets maps and Apple introduces the new technologies. Microsoft standardizes and spreads the technologies to the masses. Facebook is your primary social media over 1 Billion users.
If anyone would like to make a bet on the stock market, here is something to consider. If Apple is going to allow you to go walletless then all your Rewards cards will need to have an Apple Rewards App (Vons, Albertsons...). If the next IPhone does not have that app then Microsoft or Google will.
CNN - Apple's secret plan to join iPhones with airport security
When I was talking about these things years ago, people disregarded it. They believed me, it was just that they thought we were talking about them coming in a decade. Nope, they are coming now. This is also why the poor in America are being given cell phones.
Look at the world around, take all the things that do not make common sense and see if you can find an answer that makes sense, connect the dots. Everytime you hear of a new cell phone, look at what the "improvement" is over past phones and look at what the failure was. Does anyone really believe that Apple could not have made a better mapping system for their new phone, that is Google's market. Monopolies are when companies give other companies specific areas for themselves. Google gets maps and Apple introduces the new technologies. Microsoft standardizes and spreads the technologies to the masses. Facebook is your primary social media over 1 Billion users.
If anyone would like to make a bet on the stock market, here is something to consider. If Apple is going to allow you to go walletless then all your Rewards cards will need to have an Apple Rewards App (Vons, Albertsons...). If the next IPhone does not have that app then Microsoft or Google will.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
You want to use your phone as your identification
So a few months ago I read this article about some woman in New York who wanted to use her phones picture of her license to prove that she was old enough to drink. Basically, she was thought a picture of her drivers license on her phone should allow her to buy drinks at some bar. At the time I thought it was suspicious because it made the international news. I may or may not have written on it at the time. In either case I saw this article today and it all sort of made sense.
The Independent - National 'virtual ID card' scheme set for launch (Is there anything that could possibly go wrong?
Now for the first time since I have begun this blog I am going to use rough language, "Read the fxxking link, read the article. It is about what is coming into your life, what you will be required to do and how you will be tracked." I hope I put sufficient emphasis on the issue.
Here is what is going on. England is about to authorize social media sites to authenticate who you are for governmental and banking transactions. Here is a line from the article, "Indeed, it is hoped the Identity Assurance Programme, which is being led by the Cabinet Office, will mean the end to any prospect of a physical national ID card being introduced in the UK." Do you understand the little word game that they are playing? They are saying that there will not be a "PHYSICAL" national id, no, there will not, it will be a virtual national identification system. Adding the word physical does not change it from being an international id.
I have written on how you are going to use your biometrics as your international verification of your international IP (internet presence). It really isn't that complicated, if something is illegal for the government to do, they create private companies to do the same thing and you agree to go along with it because it is convenient. Do you really believe that the government cannot check all of your purchases on your "Rewards Card", heck, they have the right to tap your cell phone without a warrant.
IN the future you will not need a wallet, nor cash, nor identification, it will all be virtual and carried on your phone. After that, it will be enough just to have your face. Things are moving very swiftly, quicker than I anticipated. My hope is that none of my readers ask me when it has all gone down, why I didn't say anything because I did. I do not speak of FEMA camps or nonsense, I speak the truth and provide links. It only helps you if your read the links, not my words, I try and use "reputable" sources. I only analyze what they say, commentary with no monetary, emotional or other reimbursement.
I read the comments on the "debates", they were a joke. All they wanted to discuss was who won, not what their plan was to make things better. I personally do not care who is a better speaker, Romney or Obama, they are both liars. If the choice is between a socialist and a fascist, why vote? Who cares who wins, we lose. I do not care about personalities, I care about policies.
You cannot have a "nation" without being able to identify who is part of it. Think the Arizona law on immigration, totally wrong because it ignored the idea of probable cause. The people in Arizona want proof that hispanics are from their state. They are attempting to trade their freedom (probable cause) to prove identity (national identification). Why trade? Why can't we have both a freedom and a restriction on government?
Both Obama and Romney are asking you the same question, which type of tyranny do you wish. It is like asking if you stopped beating your wife, both answers are wrong. The true answer is that you never did and you never will. Have a great weekend and try not listening to the spin of the news.
The Independent - National 'virtual ID card' scheme set for launch (Is there anything that could possibly go wrong?
Now for the first time since I have begun this blog I am going to use rough language, "Read the fxxking link, read the article. It is about what is coming into your life, what you will be required to do and how you will be tracked." I hope I put sufficient emphasis on the issue.
Here is what is going on. England is about to authorize social media sites to authenticate who you are for governmental and banking transactions. Here is a line from the article, "Indeed, it is hoped the Identity Assurance Programme, which is being led by the Cabinet Office, will mean the end to any prospect of a physical national ID card being introduced in the UK." Do you understand the little word game that they are playing? They are saying that there will not be a "PHYSICAL" national id, no, there will not, it will be a virtual national identification system. Adding the word physical does not change it from being an international id.
I have written on how you are going to use your biometrics as your international verification of your international IP (internet presence). It really isn't that complicated, if something is illegal for the government to do, they create private companies to do the same thing and you agree to go along with it because it is convenient. Do you really believe that the government cannot check all of your purchases on your "Rewards Card", heck, they have the right to tap your cell phone without a warrant.
IN the future you will not need a wallet, nor cash, nor identification, it will all be virtual and carried on your phone. After that, it will be enough just to have your face. Things are moving very swiftly, quicker than I anticipated. My hope is that none of my readers ask me when it has all gone down, why I didn't say anything because I did. I do not speak of FEMA camps or nonsense, I speak the truth and provide links. It only helps you if your read the links, not my words, I try and use "reputable" sources. I only analyze what they say, commentary with no monetary, emotional or other reimbursement.
I read the comments on the "debates", they were a joke. All they wanted to discuss was who won, not what their plan was to make things better. I personally do not care who is a better speaker, Romney or Obama, they are both liars. If the choice is between a socialist and a fascist, why vote? Who cares who wins, we lose. I do not care about personalities, I care about policies.
You cannot have a "nation" without being able to identify who is part of it. Think the Arizona law on immigration, totally wrong because it ignored the idea of probable cause. The people in Arizona want proof that hispanics are from their state. They are attempting to trade their freedom (probable cause) to prove identity (national identification). Why trade? Why can't we have both a freedom and a restriction on government?
Both Obama and Romney are asking you the same question, which type of tyranny do you wish. It is like asking if you stopped beating your wife, both answers are wrong. The true answer is that you never did and you never will. Have a great weekend and try not listening to the spin of the news.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Perhaps I had a thought
My ex-wife and others have been taking up all my thoughts. I apologize for not having posted more. I went to many alternative news sites to find something; but, interesting to write about and found nothing. The "debate" was not worthy of discussion, at least it wasn't to the mainstream media, they were more worried about who "won" than anything that the candidates had to say. The "debates" are as meaningless as anything. Here are my question for all candidates:
1. Will you get us out of the wars and when? I want dates that are within a year of your being elected.
2. Will you reverse the Patriot Act, the NDAA and ALL executive orders that have not been approved by congress?
3. Will you agree that we all benefit equally from the nation we have created, will you agree to being taxed equally, all income regardless of source at a percentage with no deductions? Can we all contribute as we receive?
4. Torture is wrong and we will never engage in it. Let us ensure that our military is the highest of our morals and not the worst of us.
5. We will support people making their own decisions rather than dictating morality.
Lets start with those rather than who seemed more Presidential, lets focus on what they will do rather than hope, faith or other forms of stupidity that are not backed up by the truth.
1. Will you get us out of the wars and when? I want dates that are within a year of your being elected.
2. Will you reverse the Patriot Act, the NDAA and ALL executive orders that have not been approved by congress?
3. Will you agree that we all benefit equally from the nation we have created, will you agree to being taxed equally, all income regardless of source at a percentage with no deductions? Can we all contribute as we receive?
4. Torture is wrong and we will never engage in it. Let us ensure that our military is the highest of our morals and not the worst of us.
5. We will support people making their own decisions rather than dictating morality.
Lets start with those rather than who seemed more Presidential, lets focus on what they will do rather than hope, faith or other forms of stupidity that are not backed up by the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)