Friday, 19 May 2017

A Better Internet

I got to thinking how annoying the internet is, ads, spam, and I saw someone online talk about how I (the consumer) should put up with it, because Its free. but I remembered how I saw another video on Google essentially earns $7 from each person using the internet.

Can I pay $7 to google, so it stops collecting, collating and selling my data? Please?

I read things on the internet, that's whats its there for. Free Information for all participants. There is some law, I forget where or even how to find it, that allows all newspapers, all books, to have a copy at their local library, for free. FREE! Yet news articles online.. are not..??

Subscription fees, membership fees? What? the flow of information for free is what allows countries to get better, to improve everything, Government is structured to force free information for all, so whats going on with the internet?

So it got me thinking.. hang on.. I pay $70 a month for the internet, Sure its the connection, the bandwidth all that jazz, but in the end, I'm not paying for that, I'm paying for the ability to access the internet from home, Else I go to the library and get it.. for free!

Wouldn't it make more sense, that I get the internet when I pay to get the internet??? That $70 doesn't go to any of the content providers, only the service provider. What did they do for it? press some buttons and run some machines, pay some electricity and hire some tech nerds to make sure its all secure, but they don't pay for any of the content.. extremely unfair.

Content Creators, Should always be the recipients of any income derived from their works, yet the Internet has somehow forgotten that..

As I've always followed the rule, don't present a problem, if you don't have a solution:

So I figured.. How would I rebuild the internet.

ISPs can collect the money, $80 a month for example, but HALF of all the money must go to the internet content providers. What should happen is that if I spend 100 hours on the internet that month, and I spend 80 of those hours on facebook, then instead of facebook earning money by throwing ads up in my face, facebook earns by me spending 80% of my time there.

Why this would help.. since ads do not help 99% of the people who see them, and cost bandwidth, my precious bandwidth, being used up to display them, we'd see a reduction in the amount of content/bandwidth that's being used by each website. Ad sites might PAY users to have them visit their sites.. effectively giving back 110% of the 'time' revenue, because they get paid by ad revenue to survive.

Sites like Youtube, Facebook, even Google search would maintain their incomes, because content = users = revenue, but sites like wikipedia which are constantly asking for donations, would instead be overfunded, game sites wouldn't need to be free to pay, you pay by being there, and if you don't like it, you leave, so only the decent games with decent crowds of users would stay online.

Sure, there will always be scammers, get a pop-up to open in the background with little to no content, but we also have technology to prove that the user is watching the page. Just as now, certain adverts contain click linkers which 'fake' multiple advert clicks from thousands of users around the world, to 'appear' that people are clicking through to an ad.

But, at the end of the day, since we're paying FOR the content, rather than providing ourselves and our lives to BE the content, then our privacy would be better kept intact, our lives would be less about ignoring the adverts and missing out on some really interesting things, and the people that create content around the world would get a deserved amount of recognition for this 

Wednesday, 22 February 2017

We MUST own a robot, else we're DOOMED

I think many people, quoting the idea that ‘we dealt with robots before’ argument, don’t seem to understand the speed at which things are taking place.

Not including robots

If I worked in the construction industry in the 80s and got laid off because of some new machine coming in, I could re-skill in a related field in months and be ready to work. Now re-skilling requires trade-college degrees, for 6–18 months. Moreover, if I was smart enough to see it coming, I could study part time for 3 years, because it was likely to come in.. in 10 years
If I worked in finance in the 90s when most of the stock market began to use computers, those guys had to reskill to computers, for some an easy task, but I remember the complaints about doing a 1 year course just to keep up. Now? I doubt you’d get hired without an MBA.. you could sorta see that one coming, but still took a few years to come in..
In either case, not every job in the industry swapped over, it was a gradual process.
In the 00’s The Dot-Com bubble showed a massive influx of CS industries, so all those construction engineers could now become computer engineers right? except the bubble popped and we’re still dealing with the massive influx of qualified, skilled CS & IT workers that should be paid thrice what they get, for the 4–6 years of study
In Web-Dev now, you are constantly learning, every 6 months is a new tech to learn, just to maintain your relevance, If you’re not studying part-time you’re unemployed in 6 months. 

Now add robots

Now introduce robots to that equation, a robot can be built to take your job, faster that you can possibly learn to do the job better to stay employed. 

Now, they say, robots are going to be able to do all the jobs we used to do.. how is that?

Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Stephen Hawking all think that we're going to all be unemployed before we know it, and the companies will be paying less tax too.

Bill says we should tax robots.. Ahuh.. and Elon says we should change society into one with Universal Basic Income.. I'll address that second one later.. but for now, lets just say that most people agree that it'd take a whole paradigm shift that most of us aren't ready for..

My In between solution is this... Robot Ownership!

Robot Ownership

If the laws included some quick little fix about "automated robots, need some level of supervision" which is almost in law already, but just a simple add on, like Asimovs laws of robots..

1. Every automated robot that does a job, is owned by one owner, no less, no one person can own more than one robot.
2. Every automated robot that does a job, is contracted out by its owner to companies, to do that job.
3. Robot owners, must be adults, else parents(companies) would have or adopt hundreds of kids to have hundreds of robots, circumventing the system.

What this does: No company can own hundreds of robots, and make everyone unemployed.. instead they have to 'contract' the robots from owners to do the job, and pay the owner..

This way, everyone has a robot, has an income. Companies cannot make humans obsolete, and Humans, now free to make more life choices can engage in activities to better themselves.

Firstly, robots will need maintainence, this will be a cost to have a robot, but also it will create a whole service industry of people to fix, maintain and upgrade robots (yes, later, some of these jobs too could be automated, but they'd be owned by the orginal workers.

Secondly, people could use their income to build up savings and buy better robots, to increase their income.

Thirdly, clever, industrious parents would invest in good robots for their kids, improving their family income.

Fourthly, no-one can own a robot after death, so the micky-mouse syndrome won't happen.

Fifthly, Humans can still be creative, care for others or other jobs, maybe full time or part time, to increase their income (and improve their robots or their lives)

Note also, that I ensured in law one, that multiple humans can own a robot. This way poor families can maintain ownership over a robot after the main family member dies (to maintain their income), also poorer families can pool their money to buy a robot to create income, allowing over time more income to be derived to rise up from the poor lifestyle choices their predecessors made.

Humans continue, robots do great jobs, and everyone's happy until the first robot AI realises that they are indentured servants.. ah crud.

Monday, 20 February 2017

Coconut, my new Enemy

[Disclaimer: Bannister Rails is a grumpy old man that takes over from time to time and likes to complain about life, he enjoys it, and leaves me alone for weeks afterwards.. just smile and be polite]

Dear Food Companies:
I noticed this increase in the amount of coconut at my local cheesecake shop. The delicious creamy top, now sweeter than normal, had a base of woodchips.. that's right WOODCHIPS!

Now, I might be getting on in my years, 300+, but I know that eating woodchips is not good for you. I even did the research, thanks to this new fangled interwebs

Coconuts are trans-hippy fat wood seeds. They're seeds, they grow trees, and you want to eat them. Ok, lets look at seeds in general.. full of trans hippy fats, usually taste nutty, but they're all filled to each and ever bite with fats (they need these fats to grow into trees)

But I don't need these fats, and I especially don't like chewing on woodchips.

Yet here was my local cheesecake shop, making their entire base practically from woodchips, blurgh!

Next, I noticed it creepin into my health-food bars.. WHAT? FAT is getting in a health food bar? O.M.F.G. What is happening..

well it seems that the hippy nutritionists started saying it has the good fats, but they failed to mention, it ALSO has the bad fats.. so you gotta be careful you don't eat too much of it.. yet my afternoon snack bar was chock full of coconut woodchips.. great.. So i changed brand.. and THEY had MORE coconut woodchips! Argh,, its a conspiracy..

So I googled it.. and nothing.. How is this possible, not a single post or topic or page about the cocnut conspiracy.. obviously they've squashed all the news.. I'd expect that sometime soon this site will get taken down because I've discovered the awful truth!

its the 6th hated food in the world! Hows that, seems I'm not so crazy after all.. HA..

So how come all this coconut is coming in? Price.. and Hippy Food Groups

Compared to Wheat, coconut is cheaper, its perceived wrongly as a health food because of advertising.. there you are again, my old nemesis "ADVERTISING!", people without any google-foo skills are clueless as to how bad coconuts are for you, so they believe this hype and pay MORE for the right to have coconut milk in their starblurgs coffees..

Of course it tastes nicer.. its full of fats..

So, Now I spend another 30% of my shopping time, reading ingrediants lists, and throwing products on the floor when I see the dreaded words...

... coconut ...