Hi: This is an interesting topic. I am a retired entrepreneur, professional software developer, professional economist, economic professor and professional engineer. I am planning to use cloud technology to democratize the AwakeningBudh or Innate Intelligence in living persons.
All emotions are conditioned driven by your view (Understanding) and motive (Volitional Formation) which are driven by Binding Thoughts. There is binding and detachment-born thought in a sense that once a thought and its action is completed, there is No Hanging Effect known by many Loving-Kindness Samaritan while the binding though will continuously haunt one's conscience (which is a part of the Innate Budh) until one's Innate Budh is awaken and do something about it. Binding Thought is a slavery pattern (fears, phobias, innumerable unmanageable desires of the grasper and the grasped, etc) while detachment-born thought enables one see Thing As It Is, outside the conditioned box of slavery bounded in the Name of Anything. Thought is conditioned. When I call your name you can answer right away. When I ask if you know so and so over 40 years ago, you may take some time to recall. If thought is conditioned, what is the Source of Thought? That is the Innate Budh (Intelligence) that we prove it is a Sine Qua Non of Living, since without some form of Intelligence, there is No Living. It is an Observable Truth or mathematical axiom. From that Observable Truth like Newton Third Law of Action and Reaction, one can discover a process according to natural laws (like gravity force) leading the "Right Living" toward Happiness and Evolution where "Dependent Nature" is a part of the natural laws governing all processes from gross manifestations to minute level of a thought. That Dependent Nature enables one see Thing As It Is where 1 + 1 > 2 (a win-win Strategic Moment), symbolized in 2 Knights on the same horse in the symbol of Knights Templar. Greed and Passion are transformed into "Sharing Happiness - Mitigating Sufferings" called ComPassion (or Common Vibration of Energy) of one's Inner Circle and circles of inner circles. Via democratizing the AwakeningBudh, one can see the Inner Dignity of Living and have the "Right Understanding and Right Thought" to be a part of the Crowd Wisdom that no tyranny and extreme dark force of violence, of "To me Through Me and Only Me" in the past can be repeated. Software open source is a movement toward that direction. Hope each one of us can be a soldier of Sharing Happiness - Mitigating Sufferings that go beyond the symbol of Tao's Yin-Yang of Evolution then Degeneration. Duong BaTien DBGROUPS and BudhNet On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 04:57 -0700, gops wrote: > @keren, > > i may not have economical expertise , but one thing is sure , as long > as this world is running from greed and passion of people ( imho, 2 > holiest emotion ) , the economy is not going to down > for sure. > > On May 24, 4:52 pm, gops <patelgo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > @hawkett last line was the perfect answer to @keren. > > > > instead of making a central system on cloud , designing a software > > that is very highly distributed using highest encryption standard is a > > way to go. > > > > on some level , people athttp://www.joindiaspora.com/are doing that > > thing at social networking level. ( personally i dont think doing this > > on top of other http or https protocol is good idea. even > > though creating/defining protocol is hard work , it should be done > > directly on top of tcp/ip level. ) > > > > that way, i own my own server at my own location with my own data > > fully encrypted and accessible only to me. then i delegate > > data through defined protocol to other person or system ( be it a > > company , a bank , a friend , a community etc.. ) with different level > > of data and security access. same way, other system, > > users and bank etc will delegate their data to my server to similar > > encryption channels. > > > > distributing data this way will remove "scalability need" altogether. > > and application complexity will reduce dramatically as they do not > > have to take care of 1000's of connection or users. but it will arise > > problem for myself to maintain my server , will force to learn a new > > software etc and learn the system, may be your own private virtual > > server is a new commodity of the future. > > > > my two cents. :D > > > > On May 24, 4:08 pm, hawkett <hawk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > A small issue if the economy goes down the drain on the scale you are > > > talking about is that an internet where everyone has the capability to > > > connect to a cloud system is going to be difficult to maintain. It's > > > not going to be easy for google to make money, for individuals to pay > > > their internet bills, for internet companies to continue to deliver > > > access - indeed you may find it difficult for yourself to make money > > > or pay for the developers you are proposing to hire. What value will > > > money have? How will google pay its employees to continue to deliver > > > app engine - ad revenues are going to plummet. I think if your system > > > is anticipating the total collapse of the economy, then you may find > > > it difficult to deliver your system to what remains. > > > > > When you say credit free currency, do you mean credit free society? > > > How do you plan to make it credit free - through legislation? What's > > > to stop me lending some currency I have in your system to someone - or > > > making a purchase on their behalf in exchange for a purchase by them > > > of something more valuable at a later date? That scenario is > > > essentially an interest bearing loan. The system and those that use > > > it exist in a symbiosis - you can't change one without addressing the > > > other - it's hard to see how you will create a credit free society > > > without addressing the psychology of the people within that economy - > > > people need to *want* to avoid credit, and when you haven't got much, > > > and others seem to have so much, credit is an insidiously attractive > > > proposition - it's easy to market and sell. You'll probably need to > > > address the gulf between rich and poor, and marketing of impossible, > > > unaffordable goals to remove credit from society - perhaps you feel > > > that economic collapse will do that. Does your plan deal effectively > > > with the reality of the flawed, selfish human being? I guess I'm > > > asking about your second point - is it based on a global societal > > > enlightenment occurring due to the economic collapse? > > > > > If you don't have much money to back this venture then a few points > > > stand out > > > > > 1. The cloud is *much* cheaper than any custom hardware installation > > > you can come up with. Security isn't just data security - you need to > > > manage backups, uptime, support, maintenance, facilities, redundancy, > > > disaster recovery - long list of stuff that will cost you buckets > > > before you even get started. > > > > > 2. You need to do some risk assessment. There are always risks, and > > > many of them - there is no perfectly secure system, and it is > > > important not to try and sell such a thing. It is just a matter of how > > > you rate each risk, and important that the stakeholders understand the > > > risk and agree to it - the last thing you want to have is a > > > conversation where someone says 'You told me it was secure!!!'. It > > > can't be secure unless it is truly inaccessible to everything and > > > everyone, and you can't build a system around that :). Risk assessment > > > is generally subjective - what is the chance of someone obtaining a > > > password they shouldn't? What is the chance of the cloud vendor > > > exposing data? What is the chance that your code contains bugs? What > > > is the chance of the cloud vendor losing your data entirely > > > -http://gigaom.com/2009/10/10/when-cloud-fails-t-mobile-microsoft-lose... > > > The list goes on. If you build a system where there is perceived value > > > in subverting it, then it will probably be subverted. It is much > > > better to cope with it than try to prevent it (you can't prevent it). > > > What you need to prevent against is the possibility that any > > > particular problem or combination of problems results in total > > > failure. > > > > > Some key questions you need to ask - > > > > > 'What is the worst that can possibly happen?' > > > 'How likely is it?' > > > 'What can I do to reduce the worst that can possibly happen, and the > > > chance that it will happen - i.e. how do I mitigate my risk?' > > > 'Can I afford to implement mitigation strategy X, Y or Z?' > > > 'Am I prepared to accept the consequences of the risk being realised?' > > > Usually it is easier to answer yes to this question when the rewards > > > (not necessarily financial) are higher. > > > > > You need to deliver a system that allows you to answer yes to the last > > > question, for every risk you identify. Sometimes you cannot reach the > > > point where the answer is 'yes' - the risk is not worth the reward. > > > > > <slight political rant (IMO)> > > > A good example is the recent financial crisis. The banking sector took > > > risks, understanding that the worst possible outcome (for them) was > > > not actually as bad as is being portrayed - they felt that they would > > > still not fail because they commanded enough political power to rely > > > on federal funds. So what seemed incredibly risky behaviour by the > > > banks, was, in fact, not all that risky - because they had shored up > > > their political power to mitigate their risk. Consequently, the worst > > > that could possibly happen with all the risks the banks took was that > > > they would be fine. And largely, they are fine. Good risk management > > > they would say - it wasn't all that risky. Not for them. Incredibly > > > risky for the taxpayer, but that risk wasn't their concern - at least > > > not from their perspective. You can be sure that it was a possibility > > > they were aware of. The nation(s), however, totally lost a handle on > > > their risk management - the banks should never have been allowed to > > > reach a position where they could mitigate their risk with federal > > > funds - essentially the risk was transferred to the tax payer. If they > > > were unable to do that, then they wouldn't have taken the risks in the > > > first place, because they could not have answered 'yes' to the last > > > question. It is difficult to see how the nation(s) could have avoided > > > this problem though - the stakeholders (the citizens) have very > > > limited means by which to limit the subversion of power from within > > > their political process - most of these powerful people within > > > government are not elected. > > > </slight political rant (IMO)> > > > > > You might also consider an approach to security like Google's - they > > > offer a platform so compelling that many customers will use the system > > > despite google making no promises on security or reliability - 'use at > > > your own risk'. Is your product so compelling that you can mitigate > > > some of your risk by transferring it to your customers? Google also > > > benefits here from significant goodwill and reputation, but that takes > > > time and evidence - we have seen in their reaction to the Chinese > > > hacking scandal that they take the compromise of customer data very > > > seriously. > > > > > My gut feel is that the security you want, you can't afford - so use > > > the cloud, encrypt the personal data you need to, and mitigate the > > > remaining risk by transferring it to your users. Just make them aware > > > of the risk they are taking - you might find they'll accept that risk > > > and use your system anyway. Where google basically says 'Trust us, > > > we're Google', you need to say 'Trust me, it's on Google'. Most of the > > > customers that would go for the first statement will go for the > > > second. > > > > > You say it would not be responsible to trust google - but this is what > > > you are asking of your customers - to trust you with the security of > > > their information. Trust is a huge factor in risk assessment and > > > security. Many banks trust third party organisations with customer > > > information, or to write software that secures customer information. > > > You're going to have to trust someone. > > > > > I think history and common sense tells us that our economy will > > > probably go down the chute at some point - our system is pretty > > > tightly strung, and doesn't cope very well with fairly minor > > > disturbances. It's utterly dependent upon confidence, and totally > > > global. Natural systems manage risk through redundancy and diversity - > > > failure doesn't bring the whole thing down. I doubt our brilliant idea > > > of having one global economy is going to have nature going - 'Hey, why > > > didn't I think of that?' - more like - 'Tried that, didn't work - you > > > should have asked. In the meantime, here's a small icelandic volcano > > > to deal with - get the idea?'. We are selfish idiots ruled by selfish > > > idiots, urging each other to become more so. Probably not the best > > > architecture we could come up with. Our society could learn something > > > from the way we build distributed software. > > > > > On May 24, 7:06 am, Keren Or Shalom > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appeng...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
