Tag Archives: closed systems

Today might take a moment. You see I was getting ready to write something else when my brain started to shout in my head. The phrase was ‘shifting sands’. I am uncertain what started that, but when the brain shouts, I tend to listen. I had to look it up as it was kinda familiar but the exact meaning wasn’t clear. The dictionary gave me “used in reference to something that is constantly changing, especially unpredictably” that did not completely helped me, yet a thought was getting hold there. You see, I offered part of my IP to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. And even as Amazon and Google decided to ignore the option, I saw the IP for what it was, a stage to something larger and the three elements that it did cover was a lot bigger then the sum of the individual parts, as such I thought I was sitting pretty, even  though I am not great at waiting. So as I was contemplating the individual parts, I suddenly realised that there are additional stages that interact. As such we get “used in reference to elements or parts that are constantly changing towards the engine that supports them, predictable or not” and if I am correct (still uncertain) then the IP picks up a few billion in value. Now, at this point I do not completely care about its total value, but the 20 year sales commission will take a leap forward. So let me try to explain it without compromising the IP. You have a game for example Skyrim, this came has locations and this game has clothing. You can see both as cosmetic parts, but when they become elements of the game they change application. For example cold Skyrim relies on warm clothing, we have (almost) never been been exposed to these elements, but what when that changes? What happens when the bad weather picks up? How useful will a bow be? All elements Skyrim ignored, but what if that is not the case? So what happens when you are dressed for Skyrim and you end up in a place like Valenwood? Now, you can see that when you are in a game like Elder Scrolls or Fallout. But what happens when we go into a game like Diablo? Or even more contextual, I saw today that someone is making Impossible Mission 3, a game franchise that flourished on the CBM64, so some people are picking up the ideas I had and they are evolving them. So what happens when we take the simple game below and make the terminals more interactive and more important, what happens when we do not have limited time, but limited access because elements are still unfound? 

Have you thought of that? I reckon Google did not and neither did Amazon, and no one cares what Microsoft thinks, but Apple remains an option. Now take THAT idea and add the game ‘V’. There on the CBM64, we merely ran from place to place and we were content, but what happens when we add the mini game of Impossible Mission to that game (or the other way round)? 

I had some thoughts in that direction in the past, but I never contemplated a larger stage but when the system is accepted by Saudi Arabia the larger stages become debatable and they become elements of discussion. They are not games, but the same setting applies. The shifting sands elements allow me to grow system one with system two and we get a much larger system 3. Systems like Facebook sort of gave it to you, but they basically added to the junk you had and called it novelty or ‘expanded opportunity’, but we could see that it was merely more for THEM. Yet when these systems are (partially) in YOUR control and you get to decide whether you want system two to enlarge system one? We get a form of system individuality, like a system SHOULD have been all along and that is at the back of my mind (without giving the IP away), as such we could optionally see that the application of shifting sands to a user system will make it truly user friendly, now consider that we add security like WE want it to be, whatever it is. Now we have a new setting, well optionally a new setting but these systems are up to US, like they should have been all along. I just never contemplated it because I was thinking like an American as the expression goes and now I see that more is possible, but the application is a new one, and it is not free of challenges. You see, how can we evolve a closed system? It has to be closed as there is too much cybercrime and cyber theft. There is not a way to make it zero, but we can make it so that only the top tier hackers might get away with it. So whomever the 80 people are that the NAB hires (see previous article), they are all about stopping hackers, whilst the access levels were the ones that required scrutiny. Should you doubt that then consider the news that we got merely an hour ago ‘Major crypto trader Wintermute hit by $160 million hack: CEO’, there we are being told “Decentralised finance platforms and software, which aim to provide crypto-based financial services without traditional gatekeepers such as banks, have been targeted by numerous heists in recent years. The sector is little-regulated and victims of crime rarely have recourse” yes, because hackers really take notice of rules and laws and a bank vault that is open is one they can access, and there is a reason that banks use traditional gatekeepers (pointless or not), the larger stage is that open systems are done for (like Microsoft) a new setting is required and that is what I figured out. I am certain that others have too, but the greed of Fintech is stopping them and as such they lose small amounts like $160,000,000 such is life. And as such the world turns, so congrats you hackers on getting enough to pay next year rent, but at some point Fintech will grow up (or they go out of business). It is merely a matter of time which of the two becomes the winner.