#in the sense that it uses the expectations and constraints of its medium to maximum effect

[devilsskettle]

the part in mouthwashing where you forcefeed curly his own limbs is like. mindblowingly effective. between the fucked up tv sequence to the fucked up puzzle with all the gears in his body, the combination of explicit and imagined gore is so beyond horrifying in such a unique way i think it did something to my brain chemistry. in a good way

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

Cascading: The Construction of More Severe Forms of Control

“One of the central operational policies to emerge from the most recent change of vocabularies of penal motive is the practice of "cascading." Principally derived from the discourse of "rehabilitation," whether the treatment model or the opportunities model, cascading refers to the gradual reclassification of prisoners downwards through a series of security levels. Theoretically, prisoners with longer sentences begin serving them in a maximum-security institution. After a period of assessment and adjustment, if the prisoner shows "progress," she or he will be reclassified as medium-security and transferred to a medium-security institution.Once there,a similar process of evaluation may subsequently result in the prisoner's transferral to minimum security,finally to be released conditionally under some form of parole classification. Thus, cascading is designed to provide the incentive for prisoners to improve themselves arid to show that they represent a decreasing risk to prison authorities

To operationalize such a policy, there must be sufficient numbers of prisons classified at different security levels. Such was the official justification behind the intensive capital-building program launched in the late 1950s (Gosselin, 1982;MacLean, 1986).

This logic of classification emerged as a component of the rehabilitation model of corrections, particularly because of its emphasis upon community corrections. Yet what is the effect of such security-level expansion? Since the creation of lower-security institutions apparently arose from the desire to limit the extent to which we rely on prison as a punishment, one might expect to see a decrease in the prison population. Some observers have interpreted decarceration as a direct response to fiscal constraints (Scull, 1977), in which case one would expect to see an absolute or relative decline in prison populations. Others have suggested that the supposed alternatives have actually served as supplements to prisons, so that higher-security populations remain stable while lower-security populations increase. In other words, there is a "widening of the net" (Cohen, 1979, 1985; Hylton, 1981).

The Canadian Sentencing Commission (1987: 367) argued that net widening can be avoided if a new sanction is introduced "with the intention that it should be used in lieu of another sanction which is more severe" In other words, if alternatives rather than additions are devised, net widening will not occur. But is the process of net widening quite this straightforward? There are several senses in which net widening can occur. In his critique of Scull's (1977) decarceration thesis,Matthews (1979) observes that net widening in the postwar period has consisted of three interrelated processes: expansion, acceleration, and bifurcation.

Expansion refers to the growth of the prison population, the expanded construction of institutions in which they are housed, and the expansion in the number of persons staffing them. During the postwar period in Canada, the number of federal prisoners (persons serving sentences of two years or more) trebled from about 4,000 in 1945 to its current number of approximately 13,000. The number of federal prisons dramatically increased from 8 in 1945 to its current level of more than 60. Finally, the number of federal workers has expanded at an even greater rate from approximately 700 in 1945 to its current level of approximately 11,000 (CSC, 1990b: 5).

Acceleration refers to the process by which people who are classified into the lower-security levels of the system move ever more rapidly through the different classifications to the point at which they are discharged. The result is that a greater proportion of people can be cycled through the system, thereby allowing an expansion of the number of people with criminal records. Also, acceleration means that every level of classification will be filled to capacity.

Bifurcation refers to the tendency for every new classification of lesser severity to be accompanied by the development of one of greater severity. The logic is that there must always be a more restrictive set of conditions into which a prisoner can be thrust when she or he does not "respond well" in a less restrictive setting. Seen from this perspective, what appears to be a move toward less restrictive prison regimes and more humane settings is actually complimented by a move toward more restrictive regimes and less humane settings. In Canada in the 1960s, cascading originally meant expanding the one classification of maximum-security prison into the three categories of maximum, medium, and minimum. In the 1980s, a system of institutional classification with seven security levels was adopted (there are now six). On the less secure end, work camps and community correctional centers have been added. "Super" maximum-security, or Special Handling Units (SHUs), have appeared at the other end of the security scale. Besides the classification of the type of institution, the process of bifurcation has also resulted in a variety of parole classifications at the lenient end,while at the severe end various forms of administrative segregation have also appeared. A fourth process not identified by Matthews (1979), but clearly related to expansion, acceleration, and bifurcation, is what we call proliferation. Proliferation refers to the process by which new classifications of control and treatment require new sets of rules and codes, the violation of which are sanctioned. Thus, a population that has already demonstrated some difficulty in following codes of conduct is subjected to ever increasing spheres of control, each with its own specific set of rules and punishments.More and more status offenses are thus constructed, such that their violation is virtually guaranteed. In this way, proliferation is a process by which higher levels of official criminality, deviance, and rule-breaking are constructed in concert with expansion, acceleration, and bifurcation. Through the process of proliferation, a double delinquency is forged. For us, the recognition of the processes of bifurcation and proliferation is particularly relevant to any assessment of likely "trouble spots" in the Canadian federal correctional enterprise. While expansion and acceleration are also relevant, "cascading" refers precisely to bifurcation - an increasing number of kinds of classifications - with proliferation, an increasing number of status offenses, occurring in the process. At one moment of this process, prisoners are moved downward along a continuum of security classifications reflecting their perceived rehabilitation progress. This is the"rehabilitative moment." In the other moment of the process, however, prisoners are moved upward along the continuum as a form of punishment and control in response to their perceived lack of progress toward rehabilitation. In this moment, prisoners are liable to be classified according to expanded categories of deviant behavior, the violation of which is punished by reclassification toamore secure prison. This is the "punitive moment."

In theory, the threat of reclassification and transfer acts to control prisoners; in practice, however, once set in motion, the logic of bifurcation and proliferation leads to the expanded need for institutions of increasingly greater security along with the further segregation of certain prisoners. Once these greater security classifications are put inplace, they serve to construct and reproduce the very control problems theyare intended to correct. The proportion of the population housed in higher-security institutions is proof enough of this.”

- John Lowman and Brian MacLean, “Prisons and Protest in Canada.” Social Justice Vol. 18, No. 3. (45), Attica: 1971—1991 A Commemorative Issue (Fall 1991) pp. 143-146.

[kitchenkingblog]

Blender Reviews

Blender Buying GuideTop Blenders Online – Blender Reviews

Health has become the watchword of contemporary society but glowing complexions don’t usually come through diets of buttered haute cuisine. Most ‘wholesome’ tastes can be rescued with the aid of a blender, a dash of carob and a tablespoon of nut butter. If Mary Poppins were alive today, she’d have suggested a spoon full of cocoa and a high speed blender to make the medicine go down. Similarly, gastronomers and mixologists can achieve little without the ability to perform magic with snow ice and chilled gazpacho. Whether your primary source of nourishment comes from super foods, strawberry daiquiris or pommes puree, you will need to become acquainted with the technicalities of the best blender features for your needs.

Contents

Blender Buying Guide 1

-1) Name your position 1

-2) Creative cuisine or mashed potatoes? 2

-3) Dinner for two or twenty? 2

Top Blenders Online – Blender Reviews 2

Ninja Kitchen System 1100 – Mysticism Meets Versatility- You’ll Be Glad You Got Your Own! 2

Ninja Master Prep Professional Blender Review – Combines Power And Efficiency For Maximum Results 4

Ninja BL610 Professional 72 Oz Countertop Blender  – An Aide In The Kitchen – Affordable Help At Your Fingertips 6

     Ninja BL660 Professional Countertop Blender– Reliable, Durable, And Efficient 7

     NutriBullet N12-1001 Pro Plus 10 pc-At Its Best – You Just Have To Get One! 8

-1) Name your position

If pureed spinach is your idea of a taste adventure, you don’t need potent horsepower and muscular motors. Those focused on improving their cocktail intake demand high speed blenders with ice crushing action. Blenders that can puree, grind and crush food into velvety submission without generating too much heat are a behind-the-bar necessity: They make quick work of icy drinks without melting them into a diluted mess. Foodies require pulse settings which redistribute pesto ingredients beneath the blades for smoother results.

Most blenders come with bells and whistles that take focus away from features that are of genuine benefit: A vast array of speed settings is less important than wattage and torque. An all purpose product has an output horsepower of three or more. A wattage of 1500 will fulfill the cuisine fantasies of the most demanding chef, whilst your simple smoothie aficionado will be satisfied with a more affordable model with two speed settings.

-2) Creative cuisine or mashed potatoes?

Amateur cooks looking for a convenient way to stir, emulsify and froth often prefer wand blenders with low torque. Stick blenders take power from their users, so they needn’t have the wattage to circulate ingredients through the blades. Motor power of 500 watts is sufficient . Thrifty cooks can save pennies by choosing 100 watt stick blenders. Cordless options are lighter, and protective blades keep our fingers relatively safe from harm.

Those who know the difference between crudités and mignardise need blenders that give them intuitive power over speed to produce diverse, exotic blends. Supreme versatility comes from speeds that are not automatically programmed. Instead, they can be adjusted creatively to achieve varying textures and tastes. Pedantic chefs need blenders that can perform multiple functions without stopping to change between manual and automatic action. Seamless setting changes prevent melting that can ruin the texture of ice cream.

-3) Dinner for two or twenty?

Even nonchalant cooks become pernickety when they need to blend their soup in three phases, which makes container capacity a core concern for most. A four cup container will only tolerate half its capacity to make room for spatter. Family blenders need between 40 and 60 ounces with tight seals and an escape hatch for steam. Plastic jars are less durable and hygienic than glass. New high tech BPA free containers are fabricated to prevent wear and shattering. Consumers with common sense expect their containers to have easy-pore spouts but this is not a feature to take for granted. The best blender review sites will point you to blenders that pore without dripping. A large container does not automatically translate as having a large capacity. Commercial users need two liter blenders that can be filled to the brim.

The best blender review sites present the intricacies of accessories, safety features and long term performance that will transform you into a kitchen legend in no time.

Ninja Kitchen System 1100 – Mysticism Meets Versatility- You’ll Be Glad You Got Your Own!

I love kitchen gadgets and I own quite a few. What strikes me with all of them is that they each bring something new and helpful to the table. Now what that means is that a device-whatever it is, will help simplify my life in the kitchen and make cooking for my family that much easier. The Ninja Kitchen System 1100 is so versatile and helpful that I am amazed each time I use it. I love the fact that something so compact can do so much and still look stylish while doing it. This kitchen system is small enough that it can comfortably fit on your counter or go on the road with you, all without skipping a beat.

List Price: $199.99 Special Deals You save: (31%) Availability: In Stock’

Features

• Blend recipe ingredients and juice your favorite fruits and vegetables

• Chop vegetables and fruits for all types of recipes

• Mix the components for your cocktails

• Create scrumptious drinks for family and friends

• Make creamy soups and everyone’s favorite- ice cream

• This kitchen system even comes with the attachments to make dough’s and batters so you can even tinkle with your pizza and cake recipes if you want to

• The base is no slip so you don’t have to worry about the device slipping or moving while you are using it

• The parts are dishwasher safe so easy clean-up is all but guaranteed

• A powerful 1100 watt motor means that no matter the task you set this system to you can be assured that it has the power to do the job and do it well ���

Who is it best for?

The Ninja Kitchen System is for any and all proficiency of cooks. From the beginners to the more advanced chefs-everyone can find a recipe or recipes that they can use the system to help them execute. What this can also mean is that you and your family get to spend more time together as well. The time that would have been spent doing some of the tasks that the system can do for you can now be spent with your family. Of course the system can also be used as a teaching aid in small to medium cooking classes. New moms may find this system especially helpful as it allows you to create fresh, from scratch baby food for your little one as well as fresh juices for them. For those on dietary constraints, don’t feel left out. This system allows you to create and prepare recipes that taste great and help keep you healthy.

As with all things there are the aspects that we will like and those that we won’t. The best thing about this system is the fact that it does so many things and can free up so much of your time. The one thing I would say I wish were different is the fact that I can’t customize its appearance to suit whatever décor I have in my kitchen.

Final Verdict

I would tell anyone to buy this system for one simple reason. It does the job so well you’ll wonder why you didn’t get one before. It’s well-built so you won’t have any out of the blue problems to deal with and it’s powerful. You need to get one of your own. The time and energy that this system will save you, will more than make up for its cost at the onset and once you have it in your kitchen you’ll be glad you took my advice.

Ninja Master Prep Professional Blender Review – Combines Power And Efficiency For Maximum Results

If you spend a lot of time in the kitchen, you know how much of it you spend chopping, dicing, and blending. Even if you don’t spend a lot of time in the kitchen you may have the occasional guest over or feel like trying a new recipe, or even creating a nice refreshing margarita, or perhaps a health smoothie. The Ninja sports a unique blade system so that you spend a lot less time trying to get foods chopped and blended, and more time enjoying the fruits of your labor.

The Ninja Master Prep Professional Blender has an updated sleek look which will fit in with any type of kitchen decor, or stow away easily into a cupboard to free up counter space. Ninja products are easy to disassemble, clean, and stow. Pieces (besides the motor of course) are dishwasher safe which saves even more time in the kitchen.

Guide Review – Ninja Master Prep Professional Blender

Rating:220 Reviews

Availability:Usually ships in 24 hours

Free Shipping:Eligible

List Price:$99.99

Sale Price:$63.68

Feature:Ninja new & improved blender Includes 2 Extra prep bowls

Feature:Crush ice into snow in seconds

Feature:Blend frozen fruits into creamy smoothies

Feature:Chop fresh ingredients evenly - no more mush

Feature:New more powerful & 2X faster

Main Feature List

• Large main canister for beverages and blending

• Two smaller canisters for chopping

• Canisters double as storage

• Able to chop ice

• Pulse action prevents pureeing

• Updated design

• Unique motor design allows easy switching between chopping tasks

Who is it for?

This great blender is ideal for either the cooking novice or expert looking for an easy solution to arduous chopping tasks. Onions, peppers, carrots, avocado, nuts, and ice can all be easily chopped with this machine. Instructions are relatively simple and the system ensures that the blades won’t start moving until the motor is fitted properly into the blender. Those concerned with efficiency, durability, and safety will like how well this gets the job done.

Pros and Cons

The Blender is more accurately termed a chopper. It can create drinks like margaritas, and chop up ice for smoothies, but is not what many would think of when considering a traditional blender. The Ninja is a lot more effective at chopping ingredients than a normal blender is, due to the different blade system. When the directions are followed to pulse, the food is chopped to the desired consistency. If you want the chunks smaller, you pulse a bit more. Very simple to use and even more so to clean. You may need to cut larger foods into segments that can fit into the unit, which is the same as a regular blender, and you may want to occasionally move the contents around to ensure that you get uniform pieces.

Why you should buy it?

The easy chopping action of this system makes things so effortless. There is no need to waste food that turns into a puree when you want it chopped instead. The dual blades, one towards the top and the other towards the bottom, ensure that the chopping is evenly distributed. Easy to store, durable, safe, and a huge time saver. For the most part any food that you would normally chop by hand can be chopped by this product. Cut into sections that will fit into the canister and the rest is done in a matter of seconds.

Ninja Master Prep Professional Blender – Final Verdict

Overall, if you are looking for something to help you chop in the kitchen or you want to try creating your health smoothies or margaritas this is definitely worth a try. The blade system is so much more efficient than other traditional blending systems. The Ninja Master Prep Professional Blending system allows you to prepare ingredients for meals in a fraction of the time it may have before. One meal that involves chopping celery, peppers, onions, and carrots may normally take quite a long time, but with this system you can just set up multiple containers then pulse the contents with the motor for a few seconds till you’re happy with the results and move onto the next container. Minimal work for results that look like you spent a long time with the prep work. With the easy cleanup, this is a great kitchen solution.

Ninja BL610 Professional 72 Oz Countertop Blender  – An Aide In The Kitchen – Affordable Help At Your Fingertips

Once you work in the kitchen you are going to need the help of devices that can simplify your job- whatever it may be at that point in time. The Ninja BL610 Professional 72 Oz Countertop Blender t Immersion Hand Blender is such a device. This hand blender does it all- froths, whisks, whips, mixes, chops grinds and blends with so little change of motion that it just may shock you. As the name suggests, this immersion hand blender gives you the option of simply combining all of your recipe components together or doing something more.

Features

When you check the market for kitchen appliances you will see that there are tons of devices on the market that claim to be simple to use and that can be used in so many different ways and yet for some reason or the other they just don’t. You as the consumer need to at least have an idea of what you want, need and can afford before you go shopping and make a choice.

• Six attachments- 4 blades that perform a myriad of functions as well as a whisk and big chopping attachment.

• A powerful base- with 550 watts of power you can be sure that this hand blender will be able to perform whatever tasks you want it to.

• Style- with the option for you the buyer to customize the finish of this hand blender to whatever colour scheme is in your kitchen, you can be sure that you will be able to have versatility in your kitchen as well as style.

• Longevity- this device comes with a 15 month warranty (which is more than most devices of this type comes with

Who Is It For?

The Ninja BL610 Professional 72 Oz Countertop Blender r can be used by people of varying proficiency levels in the kitchen. For the kitchen klutz that is finally learning to cook and wants a simple to use tool that will help them along on their journey to the intermediate guru, those that know the basics and want to venture into more advanced recipes that will enhance their repertoire’, to the gourmet powerhouses who know just what they need in a kitchen device and will settle for nothing less. This hand blender treats with all categories and all skill levels of cooks.

Pros And Cons

As with everything else in life and by extension the kitchen, there will be pros and cons. The biggest pro of this blender is the fact that it’s so versatile. It can be used to make soups, meringues, cakes and so much more. Some might even say it’s too good to be true. The cons- I can honestly say that there don’t appear to be any. For a device of its kind it fulfills all of its design specifications.

You should buy this product if you are looking for a kitchen tool that is easy to use, or if you are looking for a kitchen tool that can fill multiple functions and not cost you anything additional. It’s a must have in today’s kitchen when you want to be able to create and execute recipes in your kitchen with a minimum of fuss.

Final Verdict

If you are anything like me then you want help in your kitchen that is no frills and no fuss and is also not expensive. If you share my point of view then this is the blender for you. Don’t just take my word for it. Do some research of your own and then you decide what will work then best for you and your kitchen.

     Ninja BL660 Professional Countertop Blender– Reliable, Durable, And Efficient

Whether your want to make salsa, margaritas, or healthy smoothies, this blender can get the job done. The uses for this nifty kitchen gadget are only limited by your imagination. Cut onions without the mess and tears in a matter of seconds. Combine spinach, gouda and avocado with ease for the ultimate blend for your next grilled cheese sandwich. This blender is tough enough to shred ice for a snow cone for the kids, or chop nuts to combine with salads. The  Ninja BL660 Professional Countertop Blender offers the functionality of many higher-priced models of blenders at a fraction of the cost.

Ninja has been putting out kitchen equipment for quite a few years now and designs their products with ease of use, safety, and effectiveness in mind. Anyone who is tired of spending hours chopping will be grateful for this piece of equipment.

Main Features

• Large capacity pitcher which holds 72 ounces

• Powerful 1000 watt motor

• PULSE options

• Dishwasher safe components

• Easily removable blades

• Unique 6-blade technology

• Able to crush ice

• Three speed controls

• Special storage for the cord

Who is it best for?

This great blender is perfect for anyone who wants to save time with different types of kitchen preparation, or wants to avoid spending hours in the kitchen. Onions, nuts, ice, and nearly any food can be chopped by the Ninja quickly and efficiently. The pulse option gives you the control to decide the amount of chopping necessary for whichever dish you are preparing. The Ninja NJ600 Pro Blender is easy to use, so beginners in the kitchen as well as those who have been cooking for years will be able to use this effortlessly.

Pros And Cons

The blender is able to chop a number of ingredients with ease and due to the large capacity can handle enough for the whole family or to store for use later. It does not whip ingredients, but does cut through ice and chunks for a smoothie to be sipped through a straw. If you want a thicker smoothie, just add more ice until it is the consistency you desire. Blades are extremely sharp in order to cut through tough ingredients such as ice or nuts, so there are safety features in place to try and protect the user.

This blender is consistent and durable. It handles ice which many blenders are not truly equipped to handle and therefore cannot make snow cones, margaritas or adequate smoothies, while the Ninja can. It has thoughtful safety features, which ensure that accidents won’t happen. The large capacity is perfect for making smoothies the whole family will enjoy, or for putting in the fridge for later. Great for party drinks as well. Also easy to make large batches of salsa or to create your own special salsa recipe.

Final Verdict

Overall the NJ600 Pro Blender is priced reasonably, but offers the performance of a product in a higher price range. This is primarily for chopping and blending, so you won’t end up paying for functions that you are never going to use. The manufacturer warranty is one year and the product will pay for itself very quickly in the amount of time it saves in the kitchen. Onions are an annoyance to chop at best, but by just halving the onions, or cutting into quarters and throwing them into the Ninja you can use the PULSE option to have them chopped in no time without all the tears and stinging eyes. Cleanup is a cinch which makes this a great choice for anyone’s kitchen. The fact that it can be easily disassembled for storage and cleaning make this a solid investment that will see plenty of use in the kitchen and save valuable time.

NutriBullet N12-1001 Pro Plus 10 pc,At Its Best – You Just Have To Get One!

In the course of life, there will be times when existing products on the market, just don’t get the job done and in cases like that some enterprising person makes the leap towards becoming an innovator. TheNutriBullet N12-1001 Pro Plus 10 pc Hi-Speed Blender/Mixer System is a study in innovation and this device helps you realize the innovator within you. The device is a compact 7.4 pounds- which means that it can be stored just about anywhere and with a powerful 600 watt motor you can rest assured that this device will meet and exceed you expectations as far as its ability to get the job done is concerned.

Main Features

• A 600 watt motor base

• A flat blade and emulsification blade

• Two short cups and one tall cup

• Two re-sealable lids for easy storage and mobility on the go

• A manual, pocket nutrition guide and recipes

• The ability to enhance and create new recipes for you and your family’s enjoyment

Who Is It Best For?

This blender is for everyone. It can be used by children (with adult supervision of course) to make smoothies and other frozen treats and even help in the preparation of baked goods as well as it can be used by teenagers for quick go to snacks that are low on the calorie side of things and fill the ache of hunger. Adults can use this device to make scrumptious meals that take up a fraction of the time of similar products and the young at heart can make easy healthy meals as well.

Pros And Cons

Most things in life have their own set of pros and cons. This blender is no different. One of the best things about this blender is its versatility. It can be used in any number of ways, is small enough that it takes up very little space and it boasts a very powerful motor. The only con that I can see this device as having is the fact that the cups aren’t very huge. If you are looking to make a large batch of a particular recipe then you are going to have to do it in stages, which take up more time than you may be willing to spare for the task at that time. Other than that I have a blast when I am using it and you will too.

Why should I buy it

You should buy this device if you are looking for a blender/mixer system that is easy to understand and use, is small enough to be easily portable and has one of the most powerful motors in a device of its kind. Personally, I bought this device because I hate headaches and love to have easy ways of getting a particular job done. This device has simplified my life. I can make marinades for a variety of meat selections at the drop of a hat. I can make the components for both hot and cold soups with ease. I can even make healthy and fast foods for my baby. There aren’t many devices that allow you to do so many things but this device does and that alone deserves your attention.

Final Verdict

There is no reason why you shouldn’t get this amazing blender. From the price (which is objectively set) to its size even to how much it weighs-it all comes together to ensure that you get a device that can do everything you need it to do and more. You just have to get one!

[twistedframe]

Animation Vs Live-Action: Which Is Right For Your Project?

When it comes to deciding between animation or live-action video, there are a lot of factors that should be considered. For example: What do I want the viewer's experience with my project? Will this particular format suit our company’s branding?"

You might think there are wrong or right answers when it comes to video creation, but the truth is that both have their merits. It all depends on what you want your content and audience members learn from this project- whether it's something personal like how a person deals with stress in her life as well as informative such aspects of climate change they're struggling not only environmentally; mentally/physically she’s having trouble too because everything around seems so unstable? You decide which direction will make most sense for YOU!

We have compiled a list of the pros and cons for both video formats, so you can make an informed decision.

Costs of Producing Video Content

First things first – let’s talk about money. Whether you want to make a short, low-budget video or go all out with an in depth production plan for your business idea and need more than 15 minutes of footage; it's important that whatever format you choose is as cost effective as possible without sacrificing quality of workmanship (or getting overcharged).

If we're talking strictly length: Short videos can be done within budget constraints while longer projects require additional investment which could result from launching high ticket affiliate products like software development packages on commissionable contracts but beware -these are not necessarily cheaper options if there isn't enough time before launch!

The idea of animation being the cheapest option is a misconception. It might seem like you can just grab some video equipment and quickly make your movie, but actually creating intricate graphics that are cased in 3D requires state-of-the art technology which could cost more than expected!

The costs of creating an animation can be higher than those for a live-action video, depending on the complexity of your project. And we haven’t even touched upon pre-production planning stages such as scripting and storyboarding which are often required before putting together any kind of scene in animated films.

The financial drawbacks of live-action are many. For one, you need to think about insurance and wardrobe for your cast members which can be expensive without using office space as set or ropes in colleagues from other departments willing enough to do some acting on demand.

Animated Video Content Pros

Animation is a versatile and creative way to tell your company’s story. With different styles, formats, or animation styles available for you to choose from there are endless possibilities in video marketing that can be explored with this medium.

Video marketing can be a complicated process, but it doesn't have to feel overwhelming. Hiring an agency with experience in video content will give your company the flexibility and expertise needed for success. 

Animation is a great way to condense information into bite-sized chunks. By using animation, it's easy for the viewer (and sometimes listener!) to digest complex and abstract concepts in an entertaining format that will hold their attention from beginning until end.

When you're presenting data in a video, it's important to think about what kind of animation will best make your point. Animation can help with knowledge retention by 15% -- so if there are lots of complex graphs and charts involved then an animated format may be for the job.

Animated videos are a great way to tell stories. They can be made quickly and easily with the click of a button, so you don't have any negative impacts on your time constraints like other media might do. Plus they're really easy for last-minute changes! You'll never regret investing in this type of animation because there's always something new coming out that will inspire creativity or get people engaged again - just check YouTube trends today.

These very quick updates will also benefit you in the long run. Animated video content can last for years, so it's best to start with an updated version of your product rather than producing a new one every time there is something worth updating.

Animated Video Content Cons

This is why you should always include that human touch in your content marketing strategy. Animation can be great for promoting physical products or services, but it might not work so well if what’s being promoted has no tangible aspects of itself whatsoever - like an app on a phone.

As you know, different audiences have very specific needs and expectations. In order to be sure that your video will resonate with the people who are most important - namely those viewers at home – it's essential that their particularized interests/goals also come through in content marketing strategies such as voiceovers for videos created specifically by advertisers themselves (such as commercials).

Creating an animated video can be a time-consuming process, depending on its complexity. If you're in need of one quickly and have no other options available to use as production equipment, it might not work out well for your content because there are lots of things every filmmaker must think about before they even start filming.

Animated videos are a great way to get your message across quickly and without running afoul of copyright laws. A good idea is not always enough when you're developing content for an entire channel, though; pre-production planning helps make sure every aspect goes exactly as planned so the process can be more successful overall!

Pre-production plans tend towards detail in order that creators know precisely what they want their animated video or series about before too much time has passed spent creating it--especially because there isn't room left over on site.

Live-Action Video Content Pros

The power of live-action video content is an undeniable reality. Real people advertising a tangible product has been proven to be highly persuasive when marketing products or services, especially with how shareable videos are nowadays! You want your target audience as much involved in it so they can't help but react and take action on what's being presented - which means you need someone who looks like them delivering this message for maximum impact.

The following is an example of a live-action video.

A: With the flexibility to play with viewers’ emotions through authentic, instructive content and help them envision your company culture, what better way does one sell their product or pitch business? This gives you more credibility in not only selling but promoting as well because it promotes who YOU are!

One of the biggest advantages to live-action video content is that it doesn’t take as long. Whereas with animation, every detail must be built from scratch before production even begins; in contrast you have all physical props and people needed for a quick shoot on site which dramatically reduces time spent prepping ahead of schedule or finishing up post processing later (if done at all).

If your project needs very little in terms of casting and apparatus, a video camera on your mobile phone can do the trick. This may not seem like much at first glance but it has huge benefits that would be hard to come by otherwise; including being able to create high-quality products without spending too much time or money.

Live-Action Video Content Cons 

A live-action video is also a challenging project because it takes more time and effort in post production. If you want to film an additional scene, or change dialogue from one part of the footage for another then this would require all new shots which could be difficult at best given how quickly things move when filming outdoors without sound equipment present.

Why do you want to go through the trouble of renting out more film days? It's not like this is going to be an easy process. Plus, all that costs money! Animations are simpler and quicker--plus they can be done in a matter of minutes with our software as opposed to live-action videos which take much longer because it takes being able edit video content by hand (which isn't something everyone has time for).

With so many people involved in the production of your video content it can be overwhelming. You'll need to hire crew, cast and equipment for each aspect that carries a cost; not just when you're filming but also afterwards if needed.

Successful sourcing of the right talent can be one of the most stressful parts about filmmaking. It's important to understand what you want your video to achieve, because if it isn't clear then there won’t ever really be any progress made and we end up stuck wondering where things are going wrong without knowing why this happened in advance.

Final Thoughts

We can help you understand your brief and devise an effective video to reach your target audience. We have years of experience in condensing complex, abstract subject matter or personifying products with personality for more engaging content that will engage viewers on all levels - whether it's professional-sounding verbal communication from one individual about their company/product line; dramatic reenactments following narratives we designed especially tailored towards different audiences like children’s programming (with educational lessons) where they show how things work through trial & error until achieving success at last.

We are a leading animation studio in Toronto. Our services include 2D and 3D animation, storyboarding, character design, visual effects and more!

[xtruss]

Why Even the Fastest Human Can’t Outrun Your House Cat

A new model explains the forces and body design features that limit maximum sprinting speed.

In a race against cheetahs and pronghorns, the fastest animals in the world, even an Olympian wouldn’t stand a chance. Photograph: David Madison/Getty Images

This weekend, the fastest sprinters on the planet came together at the Tokyo Olympics to compete for the gold in the 100-meter dash. Lamont Marcell Jacobs crossed the finish line in 9.80 seconds to bring Italy its first gold in the event. In the women’s race, Jamaica won the gold, silver, and bronze—a clean sweep led by Elaine Thompson-Herah, who smashed through a 33-year-old Olympic women's record with a time of 10.61 seconds.

But neither of them could touch the legacy of Jamaica’s eight-time Olympic gold medalist Usain Bolt, who retired in 2017 but still boasts the title of fastest human alive. Bolt ran the 100 meters in 9.58 seconds. Maxing out at about 27 miles per hour, that’s just under the top speed of a house cat. (Yes, a house cat.) In a race against cheetahs and pronghorns, the fastest animals in the world, Bolt wouldn’t stand a chance.

You might think how fast an animal can go depends on the size of its muscles: more strength, more speed. While that’s true to a certain extent, an elephant will never outrun a gazelle. So what really determines maximum speed?

Recently, a group of scientists led by biomechanist Michael Günther, then affiliated with the University of Stuttgart, set out to determine the laws of nature that govern maximum running speeds in the animal kingdom. In a new study published last week in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, they present a complex model factoring in size, leg length, muscle density, and more to discover which body design elements are the most important for optimizing speed.

This research provides insight into the biological evolution of legged animals and their corresponding gaits, and it could be used by ecologists to understand how speed constraints on animal movement inform population, habitat selection, and community dynamics in different species. For roboticists and biomedical engineers, learning about nature’s optimal body structures for speed could further improve the designs of bipedal walking machines and prosthetics.

“It’s about understanding the reasons for evolution, and why and how it shapes the body,” Günther says of the project’s goal. “If you ask this question mechanistically, then you can really add to the understanding of how body design is shaped by evolutionary requirements—for example, being fast.”

Previous work in this area, led by Myriam Hirt of the German Center for Integrative Biodiversity Research, found that the key to speed had to do with an animal’s metabolism, the process by which the body converts nutrients into fuel, a finite amount of which is stored in the muscle fibers for use when sprinting. Hirt’s team found that larger animals run out of this fuel more quickly than smaller animals do, because it takes them more time to accelerate their heavier bodies. This is known as muscle fatigue. It explains why, theoretically, a human could have outrun a Tyrannosaurus rex.

But Günther and his colleagues were skeptical. “I thought we might be able to give another explanation,” he says, one that used only the principles of classical physics to explain speed constraints. So they built a biomechanical model consisting of over 40 different parameters relating to body design, the geometry of running, and the balance of competing forces acting on the body.

“The basic idea is that two things limit maximum speed,” says Robert Rockenfeller, a mathematician at the University of Koblenz-Landau who coauthored the study. The first is air resistance, or drag, the opposing force acting on each leg as it tries to push the body forward. Since the effects of drag don’t increase with mass, it’s the dominating factor capping speed in smaller animals. “If you were infinitely heavy, you would run infinitely fast, according to air drag,” Rockenfeller says.

The second property at play, which does increase with greater mass, is called inertia, the resistance of an object to accelerate from a state of rest. When running, Rockenfeller says, there is a time limit for an animal to accelerate its own mass: It’s the duration between midstance, when the foot is flat on the ground, to liftoff, when the foot leaves the ground. This is especially limiting for larger animals—with more mass to push forward, it's harder to overcome inertia. So smaller bodies have the advantage here.

According to the team’s results, the sweet spot for overcoming air drag and inertia lies at around 110 pounds. Not coincidentally, that’s the average weight of both cheetahs and pronghorns.

Günther’s team was also able to predict theoretical speed maximums for different body designs at 100 kilograms, or about 220 pounds. A house cat this size could run up to 46 miles per hour; a giant spider, if its legs could somehow sustain its weight, would top out at 35 miles per hour. Unsurprisingly, the average human body design comes in last place here: At 100 kilograms, we can only reach about 24 miles per hour.

But body size isn’t the only feature that comes into play when maximizing speed. In the model, leg length also mattered. Animals with longer legs are able to push their bodies farther forward before their foot must leave the ground, prolonging the time they have to accelerate between midstance and liftoff.

As for why four-legged animals can run faster than humans, Günther says this isn’t because we only have two legs, but because our torsos are positioned upright and feel the full force of gravity. Bipedal creatures have evolved with much more rigid spinal structures to prioritize balance and stability over speed. Animals whose trunks are parallel to the ground, however, evolved with more flexible spines that are optimized for prolonged foot contact with the earth.

But what about muscle fatigue? “It doesn’t play any role,” Günther says. One part of their analysis concluded that any animal can accelerate to at least 90 percent of its maximum speed before running out of fuel. (Hirt did not respond to an emailed interview request about this result.)

Carl Cloyed, an ecologist at Alabama’s Dauphin Island Sea Lab who studies animal locomotion, thinks that from an evolutionary viewpoint, a biomechanical explanation makes more sense than the muscle running out of fuel. “I would expect organisms to have adapted to overcome that,” he says, but he concedes that it’s going to require more experimental research to back up the new model.

Günther and Rockenfeller agree that experiments are needed to verify their conclusions, and they feel they have presented a comprehensive model for other researchers to test in the future. But all of the scientists note that doing so will be a challenge. Cloyed says it would require catching animals and observing them in a laboratory, or using high-quality videos of them sprinting, to analyze the biomechanics of their movements. The most accurate way to study running behavior in animals would be to implant mechanical sensors inside their muscles and track them as they move in their natural environment—but this raises obvious logistical challenges and ethical concerns, Günther says.

Cloyed also looks forward to seeing how this analysis will be expanded, particularly to other locomotive modes like flying and swimming. “If this explanation holds up, it should also be true in other environmental mediums,” he says.

So will anyone ever beat Usain Bolt’s record? Probably, but we won’t get much faster than that. The biomechanics of sprinting show that we are already approaching the limit of what is possible for human bodies. And when someone new becomes the fastest person on the planet, they’ll have to resign themselves to holding that title only among humans. In the animal kingdom, we’re nothing special.

[cynthiatherrera]

Fed Chair Powell’s Mario Moment…

In a dramatic move on Sunday evening the FOMC took a series of policy actions intended to forestall the economic slowing that is anticipated as a result of the coronavirus spread in the U.S., and the governmental and private sector policies seeking to address it. Just to recap a few points from Federal Reserve Chair Powell’s press conference: the FOMC cut its Fed Funds policy rate by an historic 100 basis points, to a 0.0% to 0.25% range, as well as cut its bank borrowing cost from the discount window by 150 basis points, to 0.25%, with term funds to be offered. Additionally, the Fed is committing to $500 billion of Treasury purchases and $200 billion of mortgage-backed securities purchases, in a program it styles less as quantitative easing and more as operations to improve market functioning.

To that end, the central bank also set new parameters on its foreign exchange swap lines, and will conduct repo open market operations at 0.0%, while also taking supervisory action to support the flow of credit. Finally, rather than place a pre-determined time limit on its accommodative policies the Fed stated that: “The Committee expects to maintain this target range until it is confident that the economy has weathered recent events and is on track to achieve its maximum employment and price stability goals.”

The Fed Chair emphasized that the central banks’ market operations are now, appropriately in our view, purchasing assets all along the yield curve, and while the coronavirus’ effects on the economy are uncertain, the Fed’s toolbox is still full of equipment. Indeed, the Committee has scope to expand purchases or continue to purchase at a brisk pace to provide further policy accommodation, to the degree it is perceived as effective. “We think we have plenty of policy space,” Chair Powell suggested in the press conference, also citing the continued “room for more forward guidance and more asset purchases.” In a very real sense, this is the more understated Chair Powell’s “Mario Draghi Moment” where like the former President of the European Central Bank, he’s effectively committed to “do whatever it takes” to aid the economy through this stressful period.

icon-pointer.svgFollow Rick Rieder on Twitter.

Alleviating stresses in the short-term markets

Then, on Tuesday morning, the Fed announced its decision to reinstate funding facilities for commercial paper, which we had expected it would likely have to do. That’s because the financial plumbing system has been quite challenged. As a case in point, volatility in the overnight funding markets was on display on March 16, when the intraday trading range for Treasury general collateral was a remarkable 300 basis points (-0.25% to 2.75%). The overarching theme in the funding space is a simple lack of balance sheet capacity- primary dealers are being stretched, and while general collateral has been trading in a more orderly manner yesterday and today, we’re still trading at a wide spread to IOER.

In an illustration of the fast-moving pace of policy adjustment, by Tuesday evening the Fed had also established a Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF) with the 24 institutions that serve as primary dealers. In some respects this facility mimics the Fed’s discount window in the broad range of collateral these dealers can post for funds (including commercial paper, investment-grade debt, municipal bonds and equities, in addition to Treasuries), which should aid with balance sheet inventory constraints by allowing overnight and term funding for up to 90 days. Most recently, the Fed has set up the Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (MMLF), which provides1.25% non-recourse, no haircut, loans to banks in nearly unlimited size to buy commercial paper. Vitally, it also makes these loans exempt from risk-based capital and leverage ratio requirements, eliminating balance sheet penalties for using the program. This initiative should go a long way towards re-liquifying the commercial paper markets, in our view.

Overall, the Fed repo operations, reinstated commercial paper funding facilities, the establishment of the PDCF, as well as the MMLF, and the attempt by major U.S. banks to destigmatize the use of the Fed’s discount window should all help calm short-term markets, but in the end, more secondary market purchasing may be what’s required to complete the job. Ultimately, banks are looking to the Fed for flexibility on risk-weighted assets and liquidity coverage ratios in order to make their balance sheets available.

A monetary policy stake in the ground

We think that with its recent actions, the Fed has put a stake in the ground as the lead central bank in the world, while simultaneously it has shown itself to be a partner with the rest of the world. If required, the Fed can go bigger, or longer, in the execution of its programs, but it’s also critical to emphasize the policy areas that Chair Powell suggested the Committee wasn’t interested in going to. Specifically, Chair Powell indicated that negative policy rates were not appropriate for the U.S. economy, whereas asset purchases and forward guidance were held up as more appropriate policy tools. In our view, this is very important, since following in the path of Europe or Japan, in terms of negative rate policy, would be counterproductive in our view.

Finally, the Fed Chair acknowledged the tremendous uncertainty facing the country as a whole during this health crisis, and so it probably made some sense to decide to cancel the regularly scheduled FOMC meeting and press conference on March 18. In a sense, it keeps the Committee from having to attempt to commit to “dot plot” estimates on growth, unemployment and inflation in the face of so many open questions on the economic impact of the virus containment strategy. This Statement of Economic Projections will return at the June meeting and by then we should have a good deal more visibility on how the economy is faring through this period. Moreover, the fiscal policy that is moving its way through the legislative process should have been passed and implemented by then, which will help in being able to get a better handle on the medium-term economic trajectory.

Rick Rieder, Managing Director, is BlackRock’s Chief Investment Officer of Global Fixed Income and is Head of the Global Allocation Investment Team.

Investing involves risks, including possible loss of principal. Fixed income risks include interest-rate and credit risk. Typically, when interest rates rise, there is a corresponding decline in bond values. Credit risk refers to the possibility that the bond issuer will not be able to make principal and interest payments.  International investing involves risks, including risks related to foreign currency, limited liquidity, less government regulation and the possibility of substantial volatility due to adverse political, economic or other developments. These risks may be heightened for investments in emerging markets. This material is not intended to be relied upon as a forecast, research or investment advice, and is not a recommendation, offer or solicitation to buy or sell any securities or to adopt any investment strategy. The opinions expressed are as of March 19, 2020 and may change as subsequent conditions vary. The information and opinions contained in this post are derived from proprietary and non-proprietary sources deemed by BlackRock to be reliable, are not necessarily all-inclusive and are not guaranteed as to accuracy. As such, no warranty of accuracy or reliability is given and no responsibility arising in any other way for errors and omissions (including responsibility to any person by reason of negligence) is accepted by BlackRock, its officers, employees or agents. This post may contain “forward-looking” information that is not purely historical in nature. Such information may include, among other things, projections and forecasts. There is no guarantee that any forecasts made will come to pass. Reliance upon information in this post is at the sole discretion of the reader. Prepared by BlackRock Investments, LLC, member Finra ©2020 BlackRock, Inc. All rights reserved. BLACKROCK is a registered trademark of BlackRock, Inc., or its subsidiaries in the United States or elsewhere. All other marks are the property of their respective owners. USRMH0320U-1125279-4/4 from BlackRock Blog https://www.blackrockblog.com/2020/03/19/blackrock-views-on-the-recent-fed-policy-moves/

[helthmedonline]

Scope of the Reinsurance Market

This article titled "Scope of the Reinsurance Market" provides an in-depth analysis of future outlook of the reinsurance industry globally and in the three regions including Europe, North America and Asia-Pacific. It covers specific insight on the market behavior, constraints, recent trends and developments in reinsurance industry. Reinsurance is considered as backbone of every economy. It enables large-scale investment projects. It plays complementary role in banking sector that finance assets. Where banks and capital market raises hands, insurance bears risks. Reinsurance generates capital for insurance. Between banks and capital markets, there is great scope to generate capital that supports economy. Reinsurance is the only option, that's why future is bright with reinsurance. In fact, reinsurance industry protects wealth and assets. Demand for reinsurance is growing exponentially as insurer needs capital relief for funding their growths. On the other hand, protects major risks exposures of their clients. The non-life reinsurance market size of Asia region is described below. It is expected to be double by next decade. Today, Asia is facing unique risks. Economic development, dynamic landscape changing and rapid growth in population giving rise to risk. Terrorist attacks, food and water security, diseases and climate change are major issues in Asia region. ACR Capital holding provides regional reinsurance solutions after conducting comprehensive research across Asian risks. With clients in more than 50 Asian countries, unique business model and international experience, ACR aims to provide reinsurance solutions for large-scale risks in this region. It is committed to further enhance area of expertise through risk analysis and data development. To provide effective reinsurance coverage and better pricing, ACR only focused in Asia region. It agrees to improve efficiency and capacity of Asian reinsurance market. Reinsurance industry faced unpredictable challenges in last year in sense of natural disasters. Tsunami in Japan and radioactivity in New Zealand was exceptions because earthquake was not expected in these regions, but unfortunately, reinsurers were more concerned about wind events in these regions. Hence awareness comes in this region for reinsurance of billions dollar property. In Gulf region, countries like Qatar has leading role in economic growth. Qatar has billions and trillions of dollars worth construction projects in all around. All these need insurance or reinsurance. Local capacity can't bear these risks so it's big opportunity for global reinsurers. People getting wealthiest, they need insurance of their assets. There will be a record reinsurance penetration growth in Gulf region. World is divided into three main regions in broad sense. Some facts are described here about the companies and their reinsurance assets in all three regions: Reinsurance industry in North America: Reinsurance market in North America is dominated by US. It has reached up to US $ 1000 billion dollars. It accounts for 40% of non-life insurance in the world. By next decade, the market is expected to reach US $ 1500 billion dollars. RGA, incorporated is a global life and health insurance company with more than $ 29.1 billion assets. It has operations in more than 25 countries. Services include group reinsurance, long-term reinsurance, life reinsurance, health reinsurance, retakaful and financial solutions. It also offers risk management, client training, underwriting solutions and product developments. Swiss Reinsurance America Corporation is another big player in global market. It has more than $ 14 billion of total assets. It deals in property and life reinsurance. Deals directly and working through brokers, its network comprises of middle size corporations, insurance companies and public sector clients. The company helps insurer to determine, identify and manage overall risk. It also conducts scientific investigations related to industry. Arch Reinsurance Company based in U.S provides wide range of reinsurance services to the US market. It major concern is fire and casualty insurance. Besides this, Arch reinsurance also includes boat, air planes, home, auto and business insurance. It has assets of $ 11.42 billion, capital of $ 5 million and surplus of $ 76.10 billion. Reinsurance industry in Asia-Pacific: The total assets of reinsurance market in Asia-Pacific region are valued at US $ 50 billion accounting nearly 27% of the global reinsurance market, and are expected to double in size to reach US $ 100 billion by 2020. China and Japan are major dominants in this region accounted for more than 40% of total premium. Chinese reinsurance companies showed rapid expansion over the past decades. China life insurance once becomes world's second largest company in market capitalization. Its total assets accounts for $ 237.73 billion. Reinsurance industry in Europe: The biggest reinsurance industry in the world is in Europe. It holds more than 33% of the reinsurance market value. Germany is dominant country in this region contributes maximum to the total net premium. United Kingdom is chasing Germany with Lloyd's maximum contribution to the country. Lloyd's of London: is a British reinsurance corporate body. It serves marketplace where underwriters, corporations, financial brokers come together to a pool. It has more than £ 21.97 billion of gross premium. Munich Re: It is one of the top leading risks carrier. Based in Germany, Munich Re provides reinsurance and primary insurance. It accounts for € 23.6 billion market asset. Swiss Re: With market value of $ 16.44 billion, it is a leading wholesale reinsurance provider. Deals directly and works through brokers. Many insurance companies, medium size organizations and public sector clients are under its fleet. Reinsurance is a flexible tool that offers access to the quality risks.

[adrianjenkins952wblr]

Blockchain And The Resistance Of Incumbents

Blockchain And The Resistance Of Incumbents

The level of innovation over the past century has been unprecedented. As each new discovery or invention gives birth to hundreds of spin-off products or services, the competitive landscape becomes more crowded and cut-throat. What represents opportunity for the entrepreneur is a threat for the incumbent and both need to adapt to remain in the game.

Competition is built into the fabric of society, but then again so is a sense of community. It is through the notion of trust that they are reconciled. According to Dunbar, 150 is the maximum number of stable relationships any single individual can maintain before rules and norms need to be enforced to broker the trust required. Building a global business clearly mandates the use of these rules.

Finding ways to trust, particularly at a distance, is tricky. This is perhaps why the world is so excited about blockchains. Distributed consensus through clever cryptography and economic incentives, orchestrated by an impartial protocol is a tantalising prospect. As much as it is promising, it is conceivably frightening too. Trust in the code is easier said than done. After all, computers are as fallible as the humans that program them. The DAO showed us just how vulnerable immutable code can be, and the various blockchain forks illustrate the fragility of consensus. So how can we build a future where power is distributed, trust assumed, that nurtures individual aspirations and also serves society at large?

A fascinating infographic was making its way around LinkedIn not too long ago. Essentially, it was a summary of the blockchain world as it currently exists. The punch line (perhaps not surprisingly) is that, of the many decentralised solutions being developed, almost all appear to be either funded or owned by the big financial players from the non-blockchain world. Presumably some detective work was required to make these assertions and I have not personally verified the accuracy of the claims, but I can believe it to be true. It makes sense for the occupants in power to protect their dominion. Ethics and ideological differences aside, it would be short-sighted to think that anything else would occur. But it does present a conflict which is yet to be resolved.

Many ardent blockchain fans adopt the anarchist view that banks, multinationals and governments need to relinquish their controls. Purportedly the financial crisis and the distrust of bankers prompted Satoshi Nakamoto (the infamous creator(s) of the Bitcoin network) to launch the Genesis block with The Times headline embedded in the first transaction: ‘Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks’.

The frenzy that followed brought insane valuations and several thousand new coins into the market with all the crypto-rebels chanting the death of monopolies and centralised authorities.

It would be naïve to think that anyone would take that lying down – especially the grey-haired suits who had built the empires we see still today.

Roll forward a decade and the likes of BBVA, Barclays, Goldman Sacks, JP Morgan Chase, Credit Suisse and many, many others are trialling blockchain and investing in cryptocurrencies. And if the infographic is to be believed, they are also largely in control of the projects whose aims are to disrupt the status quo that they have designed. Trust in blockchain indeed.

However, without throwing the baby out with the bath water, it is worth considering that blockchain and its relatives may actually be of value in building trust, removing business frictions and help level the playing field. Consider the 2 billion unbanked, the unidentified refugees, the charity funds that get misappropriated and the counterfeit pharmaceuticals which damage the health of humans and companies. Somewhere in the centre – between the oligarchy and the dreamy blockchain democracy, is a happy medium.

Humans have been cycling between centralised and decentralised structures for centuries. Just 20 years ago, the internet promised every aspiring shop-keeper to open a website and take back the market from the big stores that dominated the retail arena. It was a great idea – and Jeff Bezos took full advantage of the new technology. Today, Amazon is no longer an online bookstore but an e-tailing behemoth with, what some might consider, way too much influence and power.

FAGA (Facebook, Amazon, Google and Apple) companies are now branching out into healthcare. While many sing the praises of a less expensive, more efficient pharmaceutical delivery service or the ability to share every heartbeat with their family doctor via a watch, others worry about the monopoly, the privacy risk and perhaps the damage done to aspiring entrepreneurs or SMEs. There is little doubt that FAGA-enabled healthcare will be smooth, cheaper and probably save lives. The question is at what cost? Centralising data has its advantages, but it creates an attractive honeypot for hackers and a leverage tool for the oligopolies to command the market as they wish. Do the advantages outweigh the perils? How much do we trust the giants? Recent data breach scandals (and the fact that the business model of some of these giants relies on monetising personal information) only strengthen the need for change.

In steps blockchain and its magical ‘code-is-law’ consensus driven protocol to save the day.

Decentralised, democratised healthcare sounds wonderful: patient-owned and controlled records, granular permissions managed by private keys and a fully transparent audit trail of who did what. Finally, we have a way to get the conflicting stakeholders to work together for the benefit of all. It sounds so attractive in fact, that in 2018 a BIS research report quoted the healthcare blockchain market to be worth $176.8 million and predicted growth to reach a value of $5.61 billion by the end of 2025. The overall digital healthcare market has been predicted to top $379 billion by 2024 and includes Telehealth, the use of AI and other technologies. It is not a big shock, therefore, that FAGA et al. are interested or that droves of aspiring hopefuls present their wares at conferences hoping to get industry leaders to bite.

Who will win? Can blockchain bind organisations together to uproot the almighty incumbents?

It depends on the models of collaboration being offered.

The path to nirvana is inevitably tortuous and long. Technological barriers ignored, the world is yet to settle on whether socialism, capitalism, democracy or benign dictatorships work best for both the individual and the group. So, it is unfair to expect wholesale adoption of a sharing economy because the blockchain code is open-source and distributed.

Some contend that the middle ground lies in the permissioned, semi-trusted private blockchain alternatives such as Hyperledger or Ripple. Others evangelise the censorship-resistant merits of Bitcoin and Ethereum.

While each has its own advantages when we consider scalability, speed, security and privacy, healthcare has its own particular constraints when making these choices.

Fundamentally, though, none of these are mature enough to completely convince all organisations to collaborate without reservation. So how can we progress?

The notion that it all comes out in the crypto-economic wash has not been borne out so far by the health tokens in play.  So far, the successes can be measured in single digits and even they are in embryonic stages of development. Perhaps it is simply too early to tell, but the value of tokens being able to create trust is simply not evident.

Extrapolating the value proposition from Bitcoin (borderless, uncensored, peer-to-peer coin ownership transfer) to building widespread business trust is naively optimistic; the number of variables is far too great. And because any form of collaboration usually includes the possibility that business identities and market shares may be jeopardised, Joint Ventures are generally not done on a whim.

Instead, JVs are built on trust which develops over time and with evidence. Parties generally only enter into these agreements after careful due diligence and the presence of the following success factors:

Each party must have something of value to contribute

There needs to be interdependence and complementarity

Trust in one another and a willingness to share are essential

Both parties require formalised relationships to avoid future disputes

Effective communication systems must be in place.

Healthcare blockchain ventures may therefore need to bear this in mind when constructing their solutions. Akin to building a playground and then hoping rival gangs will use the slides and swings together, platform entrepreneurs might prudently consider gaining buy-in from stakeholders beforehand, and then building relationships on-chain one variable at a time.

Co-ownership of a blockchain platform that is used, generates value and encourages data sharing is surely better than full ownership of a solution that nobody trusts.

There are many challenges ahead. The perfect business models for blockchain are far from being agreed. One thing if for certain, though – if you want to compete with the incumbents, collaboration is essential. It is, ultimately, what blockchains are all about.

Source link http://bit.ly/2SbPJ7N

[mccartneynathxzw83]

Blockchain And The Resistance Of Incumbents

Blockchain And The Resistance Of Incumbents

The level of innovation over the past century has been unprecedented. As each new discovery or invention gives birth to hundreds of spin-off products or services, the competitive landscape becomes more crowded and cut-throat. What represents opportunity for the entrepreneur is a threat for the incumbent and both need to adapt to remain in the game.

Competition is built into the fabric of society, but then again so is a sense of community. It is through the notion of trust that they are reconciled. According to Dunbar, 150 is the maximum number of stable relationships any single individual can maintain before rules and norms need to be enforced to broker the trust required. Building a global business clearly mandates the use of these rules.

Finding ways to trust, particularly at a distance, is tricky. This is perhaps why the world is so excited about blockchains. Distributed consensus through clever cryptography and economic incentives, orchestrated by an impartial protocol is a tantalising prospect. As much as it is promising, it is conceivably frightening too. Trust in the code is easier said than done. After all, computers are as fallible as the humans that program them. The DAO showed us just how vulnerable immutable code can be, and the various blockchain forks illustrate the fragility of consensus. So how can we build a future where power is distributed, trust assumed, that nurtures individual aspirations and also serves society at large?

A fascinating infographic was making its way around LinkedIn not too long ago. Essentially, it was a summary of the blockchain world as it currently exists. The punch line (perhaps not surprisingly) is that, of the many decentralised solutions being developed, almost all appear to be either funded or owned by the big financial players from the non-blockchain world. Presumably some detective work was required to make these assertions and I have not personally verified the accuracy of the claims, but I can believe it to be true. It makes sense for the occupants in power to protect their dominion. Ethics and ideological differences aside, it would be short-sighted to think that anything else would occur. But it does present a conflict which is yet to be resolved.

Many ardent blockchain fans adopt the anarchist view that banks, multinationals and governments need to relinquish their controls. Purportedly the financial crisis and the distrust of bankers prompted Satoshi Nakamoto (the infamous creator(s) of the Bitcoin network) to launch the Genesis block with The Times headline embedded in the first transaction: ‘Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks’.

The frenzy that followed brought insane valuations and several thousand new coins into the market with all the crypto-rebels chanting the death of monopolies and centralised authorities.

It would be naïve to think that anyone would take that lying down – especially the grey-haired suits who had built the empires we see still today.

Roll forward a decade and the likes of BBVA, Barclays, Goldman Sacks, JP Morgan Chase, Credit Suisse and many, many others are trialling blockchain and investing in cryptocurrencies. And if the infographic is to be believed, they are also largely in control of the projects whose aims are to disrupt the status quo that they have designed. Trust in blockchain indeed.

However, without throwing the baby out with the bath water, it is worth considering that blockchain and its relatives may actually be of value in building trust, removing business frictions and help level the playing field. Consider the 2 billion unbanked, the unidentified refugees, the charity funds that get misappropriated and the counterfeit pharmaceuticals which damage the health of humans and companies. Somewhere in the centre – between the oligarchy and the dreamy blockchain democracy, is a happy medium.

Humans have been cycling between centralised and decentralised structures for centuries. Just 20 years ago, the internet promised every aspiring shop-keeper to open a website and take back the market from the big stores that dominated the retail arena. It was a great idea – and Jeff Bezos took full advantage of the new technology. Today, Amazon is no longer an online bookstore but an e-tailing behemoth with, what some might consider, way too much influence and power.

FAGA (Facebook, Amazon, Google and Apple) companies are now branching out into healthcare. While many sing the praises of a less expensive, more efficient pharmaceutical delivery service or the ability to share every heartbeat with their family doctor via a watch, others worry about the monopoly, the privacy risk and perhaps the damage done to aspiring entrepreneurs or SMEs. There is little doubt that FAGA-enabled healthcare will be smooth, cheaper and probably save lives. The question is at what cost? Centralising data has its advantages, but it creates an attractive honeypot for hackers and a leverage tool for the oligopolies to command the market as they wish. Do the advantages outweigh the perils? How much do we trust the giants? Recent data breach scandals (and the fact that the business model of some of these giants relies on monetising personal information) only strengthen the need for change.

In steps blockchain and its magical ‘code-is-law’ consensus driven protocol to save the day.

Decentralised, democratised healthcare sounds wonderful: patient-owned and controlled records, granular permissions managed by private keys and a fully transparent audit trail of who did what. Finally, we have a way to get the conflicting stakeholders to work together for the benefit of all. It sounds so attractive in fact, that in 2018 a BIS research report quoted the healthcare blockchain market to be worth $176.8 million and predicted growth to reach a value of $5.61 billion by the end of 2025. The overall digital healthcare market has been predicted to top $379 billion by 2024 and includes Telehealth, the use of AI and other technologies. It is not a big shock, therefore, that FAGA et al. are interested or that droves of aspiring hopefuls present their wares at conferences hoping to get industry leaders to bite.

Who will win? Can blockchain bind organisations together to uproot the almighty incumbents?

It depends on the models of collaboration being offered.

The path to nirvana is inevitably tortuous and long. Technological barriers ignored, the world is yet to settle on whether socialism, capitalism, democracy or benign dictatorships work best for both the individual and the group. So, it is unfair to expect wholesale adoption of a sharing economy because the blockchain code is open-source and distributed.

Some contend that the middle ground lies in the permissioned, semi-trusted private blockchain alternatives such as Hyperledger or Ripple. Others evangelise the censorship-resistant merits of Bitcoin and Ethereum.

While each has its own advantages when we consider scalability, speed, security and privacy, healthcare has its own particular constraints when making these choices.

Fundamentally, though, none of these are mature enough to completely convince all organisations to collaborate without reservation. So how can we progress?

The notion that it all comes out in the crypto-economic wash has not been borne out so far by the health tokens in play.  So far, the successes can be measured in single digits and even they are in embryonic stages of development. Perhaps it is simply too early to tell, but the value of tokens being able to create trust is simply not evident.

Extrapolating the value proposition from Bitcoin (borderless, uncensored, peer-to-peer coin ownership transfer) to building widespread business trust is naively optimistic; the number of variables is far too great. And because any form of collaboration usually includes the possibility that business identities and market shares may be jeopardised, Joint Ventures are generally not done on a whim.

Instead, JVs are built on trust which develops over time and with evidence. Parties generally only enter into these agreements after careful due diligence and the presence of the following success factors:

Each party must have something of value to contribute

There needs to be interdependence and complementarity

Trust in one another and a willingness to share are essential

Both parties require formalised relationships to avoid future disputes

Effective communication systems must be in place.

Healthcare blockchain ventures may therefore need to bear this in mind when constructing their solutions. Akin to building a playground and then hoping rival gangs will use the slides and swings together, platform entrepreneurs might prudently consider gaining buy-in from stakeholders beforehand, and then building relationships on-chain one variable at a time.

Co-ownership of a blockchain platform that is used, generates value and encourages data sharing is surely better than full ownership of a solution that nobody trusts.

There are many challenges ahead. The perfect business models for blockchain are far from being agreed. One thing if for certain, though – if you want to compete with the incumbents, collaboration is essential. It is, ultimately, what blockchains are all about.

Source link http://bit.ly/2SbPJ7N

[teiraymondmccoy78]

Blockchain And The Resistance Of Incumbents

Blockchain And The Resistance Of Incumbents

The level of innovation over the past century has been unprecedented. As each new discovery or invention gives birth to hundreds of spin-off products or services, the competitive landscape becomes more crowded and cut-throat. What represents opportunity for the entrepreneur is a threat for the incumbent and both need to adapt to remain in the game.

Competition is built into the fabric of society, but then again so is a sense of community. It is through the notion of trust that they are reconciled. According to Dunbar, 150 is the maximum number of stable relationships any single individual can maintain before rules and norms need to be enforced to broker the trust required. Building a global business clearly mandates the use of these rules.

Finding ways to trust, particularly at a distance, is tricky. This is perhaps why the world is so excited about blockchains. Distributed consensus through clever cryptography and economic incentives, orchestrated by an impartial protocol is a tantalising prospect. As much as it is promising, it is conceivably frightening too. Trust in the code is easier said than done. After all, computers are as fallible as the humans that program them. The DAO showed us just how vulnerable immutable code can be, and the various blockchain forks illustrate the fragility of consensus. So how can we build a future where power is distributed, trust assumed, that nurtures individual aspirations and also serves society at large?

A fascinating infographic was making its way around LinkedIn not too long ago. Essentially, it was a summary of the blockchain world as it currently exists. The punch line (perhaps not surprisingly) is that, of the many decentralised solutions being developed, almost all appear to be either funded or owned by the big financial players from the non-blockchain world. Presumably some detective work was required to make these assertions and I have not personally verified the accuracy of the claims, but I can believe it to be true. It makes sense for the occupants in power to protect their dominion. Ethics and ideological differences aside, it would be short-sighted to think that anything else would occur. But it does present a conflict which is yet to be resolved.

Many ardent blockchain fans adopt the anarchist view that banks, multinationals and governments need to relinquish their controls. Purportedly the financial crisis and the distrust of bankers prompted Satoshi Nakamoto (the infamous creator(s) of the Bitcoin network) to launch the Genesis block with The Times headline embedded in the first transaction: ‘Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks’.

The frenzy that followed brought insane valuations and several thousand new coins into the market with all the crypto-rebels chanting the death of monopolies and centralised authorities.

It would be naïve to think that anyone would take that lying down – especially the grey-haired suits who had built the empires we see still today.

Roll forward a decade and the likes of BBVA, Barclays, Goldman Sacks, JP Morgan Chase, Credit Suisse and many, many others are trialling blockchain and investing in cryptocurrencies. And if the infographic is to be believed, they are also largely in control of the projects whose aims are to disrupt the status quo that they have designed. Trust in blockchain indeed.

However, without throwing the baby out with the bath water, it is worth considering that blockchain and its relatives may actually be of value in building trust, removing business frictions and help level the playing field. Consider the 2 billion unbanked, the unidentified refugees, the charity funds that get misappropriated and the counterfeit pharmaceuticals which damage the health of humans and companies. Somewhere in the centre – between the oligarchy and the dreamy blockchain democracy, is a happy medium.

Humans have been cycling between centralised and decentralised structures for centuries. Just 20 years ago, the internet promised every aspiring shop-keeper to open a website and take back the market from the big stores that dominated the retail arena. It was a great idea – and Jeff Bezos took full advantage of the new technology. Today, Amazon is no longer an online bookstore but an e-tailing behemoth with, what some might consider, way too much influence and power.

FAGA (Facebook, Amazon, Google and Apple) companies are now branching out into healthcare. While many sing the praises of a less expensive, more efficient pharmaceutical delivery service or the ability to share every heartbeat with their family doctor via a watch, others worry about the monopoly, the privacy risk and perhaps the damage done to aspiring entrepreneurs or SMEs. There is little doubt that FAGA-enabled healthcare will be smooth, cheaper and probably save lives. The question is at what cost? Centralising data has its advantages, but it creates an attractive honeypot for hackers and a leverage tool for the oligopolies to command the market as they wish. Do the advantages outweigh the perils? How much do we trust the giants? Recent data breach scandals (and the fact that the business model of some of these giants relies on monetising personal information) only strengthen the need for change.

In steps blockchain and its magical ‘code-is-law’ consensus driven protocol to save the day.

Decentralised, democratised healthcare sounds wonderful: patient-owned and controlled records, granular permissions managed by private keys and a fully transparent audit trail of who did what. Finally, we have a way to get the conflicting stakeholders to work together for the benefit of all. It sounds so attractive in fact, that in 2018 a BIS research report quoted the healthcare blockchain market to be worth $176.8 million and predicted growth to reach a value of $5.61 billion by the end of 2025. The overall digital healthcare market has been predicted to top $379 billion by 2024 and includes Telehealth, the use of AI and other technologies. It is not a big shock, therefore, that FAGA et al. are interested or that droves of aspiring hopefuls present their wares at conferences hoping to get industry leaders to bite.

Who will win? Can blockchain bind organisations together to uproot the almighty incumbents?

It depends on the models of collaboration being offered.

The path to nirvana is inevitably tortuous and long. Technological barriers ignored, the world is yet to settle on whether socialism, capitalism, democracy or benign dictatorships work best for both the individual and the group. So, it is unfair to expect wholesale adoption of a sharing economy because the blockchain code is open-source and distributed.

Some contend that the middle ground lies in the permissioned, semi-trusted private blockchain alternatives such as Hyperledger or Ripple. Others evangelise the censorship-resistant merits of Bitcoin and Ethereum.

While each has its own advantages when we consider scalability, speed, security and privacy, healthcare has its own particular constraints when making these choices.

Fundamentally, though, none of these are mature enough to completely convince all organisations to collaborate without reservation. So how can we progress?

The notion that it all comes out in the crypto-economic wash has not been borne out so far by the health tokens in play.  So far, the successes can be measured in single digits and even they are in embryonic stages of development. Perhaps it is simply too early to tell, but the value of tokens being able to create trust is simply not evident.

Extrapolating the value proposition from Bitcoin (borderless, uncensored, peer-to-peer coin ownership transfer) to building widespread business trust is naively optimistic; the number of variables is far too great. And because any form of collaboration usually includes the possibility that business identities and market shares may be jeopardised, Joint Ventures are generally not done on a whim.

Instead, JVs are built on trust which develops over time and with evidence. Parties generally only enter into these agreements after careful due diligence and the presence of the following success factors:

Each party must have something of value to contribute

There needs to be interdependence and complementarity

Trust in one another and a willingness to share are essential

Both parties require formalised relationships to avoid future disputes

Effective communication systems must be in place.

Healthcare blockchain ventures may therefore need to bear this in mind when constructing their solutions. Akin to building a playground and then hoping rival gangs will use the slides and swings together, platform entrepreneurs might prudently consider gaining buy-in from stakeholders beforehand, and then building relationships on-chain one variable at a time.

Co-ownership of a blockchain platform that is used, generates value and encourages data sharing is surely better than full ownership of a solution that nobody trusts.

There are many challenges ahead. The perfect business models for blockchain are far from being agreed. One thing if for certain, though – if you want to compete with the incumbents, collaboration is essential. It is, ultimately, what blockchains are all about.

Source link http://bit.ly/2SbPJ7N

[courtneyvbrooks87]

Blockchain And The Resistance Of Incumbents

Blockchain And The Resistance Of Incumbents

The level of innovation over the past century has been unprecedented. As each new discovery or invention gives birth to hundreds of spin-off products or services, the competitive landscape becomes more crowded and cut-throat. What represents opportunity for the entrepreneur is a threat for the incumbent and both need to adapt to remain in the game.

Competition is built into the fabric of society, but then again so is a sense of community. It is through the notion of trust that they are reconciled. According to Dunbar, 150 is the maximum number of stable relationships any single individual can maintain before rules and norms need to be enforced to broker the trust required. Building a global business clearly mandates the use of these rules.

Finding ways to trust, particularly at a distance, is tricky. This is perhaps why the world is so excited about blockchains. Distributed consensus through clever cryptography and economic incentives, orchestrated by an impartial protocol is a tantalising prospect. As much as it is promising, it is conceivably frightening too. Trust in the code is easier said than done. After all, computers are as fallible as the humans that program them. The DAO showed us just how vulnerable immutable code can be, and the various blockchain forks illustrate the fragility of consensus. So how can we build a future where power is distributed, trust assumed, that nurtures individual aspirations and also serves society at large?

A fascinating infographic was making its way around LinkedIn not too long ago. Essentially, it was a summary of the blockchain world as it currently exists. The punch line (perhaps not surprisingly) is that, of the many decentralised solutions being developed, almost all appear to be either funded or owned by the big financial players from the non-blockchain world. Presumably some detective work was required to make these assertions and I have not personally verified the accuracy of the claims, but I can believe it to be true. It makes sense for the occupants in power to protect their dominion. Ethics and ideological differences aside, it would be short-sighted to think that anything else would occur. But it does present a conflict which is yet to be resolved.

Many ardent blockchain fans adopt the anarchist view that banks, multinationals and governments need to relinquish their controls. Purportedly the financial crisis and the distrust of bankers prompted Satoshi Nakamoto (the infamous creator(s) of the Bitcoin network) to launch the Genesis block with The Times headline embedded in the first transaction: ‘Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks’.

The frenzy that followed brought insane valuations and several thousand new coins into the market with all the crypto-rebels chanting the death of monopolies and centralised authorities.

It would be naïve to think that anyone would take that lying down – especially the grey-haired suits who had built the empires we see still today.

Roll forward a decade and the likes of BBVA, Barclays, Goldman Sacks, JP Morgan Chase, Credit Suisse and many, many others are trialling blockchain and investing in cryptocurrencies. And if the infographic is to be believed, they are also largely in control of the projects whose aims are to disrupt the status quo that they have designed. Trust in blockchain indeed.

However, without throwing the baby out with the bath water, it is worth considering that blockchain and its relatives may actually be of value in building trust, removing business frictions and help level the playing field. Consider the 2 billion unbanked, the unidentified refugees, the charity funds that get misappropriated and the counterfeit pharmaceuticals which damage the health of humans and companies. Somewhere in the centre – between the oligarchy and the dreamy blockchain democracy, is a happy medium.

Humans have been cycling between centralised and decentralised structures for centuries. Just 20 years ago, the internet promised every aspiring shop-keeper to open a website and take back the market from the big stores that dominated the retail arena. It was a great idea – and Jeff Bezos took full advantage of the new technology. Today, Amazon is no longer an online bookstore but an e-tailing behemoth with, what some might consider, way too much influence and power.

FAGA (Facebook, Amazon, Google and Apple) companies are now branching out into healthcare. While many sing the praises of a less expensive, more efficient pharmaceutical delivery service or the ability to share every heartbeat with their family doctor via a watch, others worry about the monopoly, the privacy risk and perhaps the damage done to aspiring entrepreneurs or SMEs. There is little doubt that FAGA-enabled healthcare will be smooth, cheaper and probably save lives. The question is at what cost? Centralising data has its advantages, but it creates an attractive honeypot for hackers and a leverage tool for the oligopolies to command the market as they wish. Do the advantages outweigh the perils? How much do we trust the giants? Recent data breach scandals (and the fact that the business model of some of these giants relies on monetising personal information) only strengthen the need for change.

In steps blockchain and its magical ‘code-is-law’ consensus driven protocol to save the day.

Decentralised, democratised healthcare sounds wonderful: patient-owned and controlled records, granular permissions managed by private keys and a fully transparent audit trail of who did what. Finally, we have a way to get the conflicting stakeholders to work together for the benefit of all. It sounds so attractive in fact, that in 2018 a BIS research report quoted the healthcare blockchain market to be worth $176.8 million and predicted growth to reach a value of $5.61 billion by the end of 2025. The overall digital healthcare market has been predicted to top $379 billion by 2024 and includes Telehealth, the use of AI and other technologies. It is not a big shock, therefore, that FAGA et al. are interested or that droves of aspiring hopefuls present their wares at conferences hoping to get industry leaders to bite.

Who will win? Can blockchain bind organisations together to uproot the almighty incumbents?

It depends on the models of collaboration being offered.

The path to nirvana is inevitably tortuous and long. Technological barriers ignored, the world is yet to settle on whether socialism, capitalism, democracy or benign dictatorships work best for both the individual and the group. So, it is unfair to expect wholesale adoption of a sharing economy because the blockchain code is open-source and distributed.

Some contend that the middle ground lies in the permissioned, semi-trusted private blockchain alternatives such as Hyperledger or Ripple. Others evangelise the censorship-resistant merits of Bitcoin and Ethereum.

While each has its own advantages when we consider scalability, speed, security and privacy, healthcare has its own particular constraints when making these choices.

Fundamentally, though, none of these are mature enough to completely convince all organisations to collaborate without reservation. So how can we progress?

The notion that it all comes out in the crypto-economic wash has not been borne out so far by the health tokens in play.  So far, the successes can be measured in single digits and even they are in embryonic stages of development. Perhaps it is simply too early to tell, but the value of tokens being able to create trust is simply not evident.

Extrapolating the value proposition from Bitcoin (borderless, uncensored, peer-to-peer coin ownership transfer) to building widespread business trust is naively optimistic; the number of variables is far too great. And because any form of collaboration usually includes the possibility that business identities and market shares may be jeopardised, Joint Ventures are generally not done on a whim.

Instead, JVs are built on trust which develops over time and with evidence. Parties generally only enter into these agreements after careful due diligence and the presence of the following success factors:

Each party must have something of value to contribute

There needs to be interdependence and complementarity

Trust in one another and a willingness to share are essential

Both parties require formalised relationships to avoid future disputes

Effective communication systems must be in place.

Healthcare blockchain ventures may therefore need to bear this in mind when constructing their solutions. Akin to building a playground and then hoping rival gangs will use the slides and swings together, platform entrepreneurs might prudently consider gaining buy-in from stakeholders beforehand, and then building relationships on-chain one variable at a time.

Co-ownership of a blockchain platform that is used, generates value and encourages data sharing is surely better than full ownership of a solution that nobody trusts.

There are many challenges ahead. The perfect business models for blockchain are far from being agreed. One thing if for certain, though – if you want to compete with the incumbents, collaboration is essential. It is, ultimately, what blockchains are all about.

Source link http://bit.ly/2SbPJ7N

[bobbynolanios88]

Blockchain And The Resistance Of Incumbents

Blockchain And The Resistance Of Incumbents

The level of innovation over the past century has been unprecedented. As each new discovery or invention gives birth to hundreds of spin-off products or services, the competitive landscape becomes more crowded and cut-throat. What represents opportunity for the entrepreneur is a threat for the incumbent and both need to adapt to remain in the game.

Competition is built into the fabric of society, but then again so is a sense of community. It is through the notion of trust that they are reconciled. According to Dunbar, 150 is the maximum number of stable relationships any single individual can maintain before rules and norms need to be enforced to broker the trust required. Building a global business clearly mandates the use of these rules.

Finding ways to trust, particularly at a distance, is tricky. This is perhaps why the world is so excited about blockchains. Distributed consensus through clever cryptography and economic incentives, orchestrated by an impartial protocol is a tantalising prospect. As much as it is promising, it is conceivably frightening too. Trust in the code is easier said than done. After all, computers are as fallible as the humans that program them. The DAO showed us just how vulnerable immutable code can be, and the various blockchain forks illustrate the fragility of consensus. So how can we build a future where power is distributed, trust assumed, that nurtures individual aspirations and also serves society at large?

A fascinating infographic was making its way around LinkedIn not too long ago. Essentially, it was a summary of the blockchain world as it currently exists. The punch line (perhaps not surprisingly) is that, of the many decentralised solutions being developed, almost all appear to be either funded or owned by the big financial players from the non-blockchain world. Presumably some detective work was required to make these assertions and I have not personally verified the accuracy of the claims, but I can believe it to be true. It makes sense for the occupants in power to protect their dominion. Ethics and ideological differences aside, it would be short-sighted to think that anything else would occur. But it does present a conflict which is yet to be resolved.

Many ardent blockchain fans adopt the anarchist view that banks, multinationals and governments need to relinquish their controls. Purportedly the financial crisis and the distrust of bankers prompted Satoshi Nakamoto (the infamous creator(s) of the Bitcoin network) to launch the Genesis block with The Times headline embedded in the first transaction: ‘Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks’.

The frenzy that followed brought insane valuations and several thousand new coins into the market with all the crypto-rebels chanting the death of monopolies and centralised authorities.

It would be naïve to think that anyone would take that lying down – especially the grey-haired suits who had built the empires we see still today.

Roll forward a decade and the likes of BBVA, Barclays, Goldman Sacks, JP Morgan Chase, Credit Suisse and many, many others are trialling blockchain and investing in cryptocurrencies. And if the infographic is to be believed, they are also largely in control of the projects whose aims are to disrupt the status quo that they have designed. Trust in blockchain indeed.

However, without throwing the baby out with the bath water, it is worth considering that blockchain and its relatives may actually be of value in building trust, removing business frictions and help level the playing field. Consider the 2 billion unbanked, the unidentified refugees, the charity funds that get misappropriated and the counterfeit pharmaceuticals which damage the health of humans and companies. Somewhere in the centre – between the oligarchy and the dreamy blockchain democracy, is a happy medium.

Humans have been cycling between centralised and decentralised structures for centuries. Just 20 years ago, the internet promised every aspiring shop-keeper to open a website and take back the market from the big stores that dominated the retail arena. It was a great idea – and Jeff Bezos took full advantage of the new technology. Today, Amazon is no longer an online bookstore but an e-tailing behemoth with, what some might consider, way too much influence and power.

FAGA (Facebook, Amazon, Google and Apple) companies are now branching out into healthcare. While many sing the praises of a less expensive, more efficient pharmaceutical delivery service or the ability to share every heartbeat with their family doctor via a watch, others worry about the monopoly, the privacy risk and perhaps the damage done to aspiring entrepreneurs or SMEs. There is little doubt that FAGA-enabled healthcare will be smooth, cheaper and probably save lives. The question is at what cost? Centralising data has its advantages, but it creates an attractive honeypot for hackers and a leverage tool for the oligopolies to command the market as they wish. Do the advantages outweigh the perils? How much do we trust the giants? Recent data breach scandals (and the fact that the business model of some of these giants relies on monetising personal information) only strengthen the need for change.

In steps blockchain and its magical ‘code-is-law’ consensus driven protocol to save the day.

Decentralised, democratised healthcare sounds wonderful: patient-owned and controlled records, granular permissions managed by private keys and a fully transparent audit trail of who did what. Finally, we have a way to get the conflicting stakeholders to work together for the benefit of all. It sounds so attractive in fact, that in 2018 a BIS research report quoted the healthcare blockchain market to be worth $176.8 million and predicted growth to reach a value of $5.61 billion by the end of 2025. The overall digital healthcare market has been predicted to top $379 billion by 2024 and includes Telehealth, the use of AI and other technologies. It is not a big shock, therefore, that FAGA et al. are interested or that droves of aspiring hopefuls present their wares at conferences hoping to get industry leaders to bite.

Who will win? Can blockchain bind organisations together to uproot the almighty incumbents?

It depends on the models of collaboration being offered.

The path to nirvana is inevitably tortuous and long. Technological barriers ignored, the world is yet to settle on whether socialism, capitalism, democracy or benign dictatorships work best for both the individual and the group. So, it is unfair to expect wholesale adoption of a sharing economy because the blockchain code is open-source and distributed.

Some contend that the middle ground lies in the permissioned, semi-trusted private blockchain alternatives such as Hyperledger or Ripple. Others evangelise the censorship-resistant merits of Bitcoin and Ethereum.

While each has its own advantages when we consider scalability, speed, security and privacy, healthcare has its own particular constraints when making these choices.

Fundamentally, though, none of these are mature enough to completely convince all organisations to collaborate without reservation. So how can we progress?

The notion that it all comes out in the crypto-economic wash has not been borne out so far by the health tokens in play.  So far, the successes can be measured in single digits and even they are in embryonic stages of development. Perhaps it is simply too early to tell, but the value of tokens being able to create trust is simply not evident.

Extrapolating the value proposition from Bitcoin (borderless, uncensored, peer-to-peer coin ownership transfer) to building widespread business trust is naively optimistic; the number of variables is far too great. And because any form of collaboration usually includes the possibility that business identities and market shares may be jeopardised, Joint Ventures are generally not done on a whim.

Instead, JVs are built on trust which develops over time and with evidence. Parties generally only enter into these agreements after careful due diligence and the presence of the following success factors:

Each party must have something of value to contribute

There needs to be interdependence and complementarity

Trust in one another and a willingness to share are essential

Both parties require formalised relationships to avoid future disputes

Effective communication systems must be in place.

Healthcare blockchain ventures may therefore need to bear this in mind when constructing their solutions. Akin to building a playground and then hoping rival gangs will use the slides and swings together, platform entrepreneurs might prudently consider gaining buy-in from stakeholders beforehand, and then building relationships on-chain one variable at a time.

Co-ownership of a blockchain platform that is used, generates value and encourages data sharing is surely better than full ownership of a solution that nobody trusts.

There are many challenges ahead. The perfect business models for blockchain are far from being agreed. One thing if for certain, though – if you want to compete with the incumbents, collaboration is essential. It is, ultimately, what blockchains are all about.

Source link http://bit.ly/2SbPJ7N

[vanessawestwcrtr5]

Blockchain And The Resistance Of Incumbents

Blockchain And The Resistance Of Incumbents

The level of innovation over the past century has been unprecedented. As each new discovery or invention gives birth to hundreds of spin-off products or services, the competitive landscape becomes more crowded and cut-throat. What represents opportunity for the entrepreneur is a threat for the incumbent and both need to adapt to remain in the game.

Competition is built into the fabric of society, but then again so is a sense of community. It is through the notion of trust that they are reconciled. According to Dunbar, 150 is the maximum number of stable relationships any single individual can maintain before rules and norms need to be enforced to broker the trust required. Building a global business clearly mandates the use of these rules.

Finding ways to trust, particularly at a distance, is tricky. This is perhaps why the world is so excited about blockchains. Distributed consensus through clever cryptography and economic incentives, orchestrated by an impartial protocol is a tantalising prospect. As much as it is promising, it is conceivably frightening too. Trust in the code is easier said than done. After all, computers are as fallible as the humans that program them. The DAO showed us just how vulnerable immutable code can be, and the various blockchain forks illustrate the fragility of consensus. So how can we build a future where power is distributed, trust assumed, that nurtures individual aspirations and also serves society at large?

A fascinating infographic was making its way around LinkedIn not too long ago. Essentially, it was a summary of the blockchain world as it currently exists. The punch line (perhaps not surprisingly) is that, of the many decentralised solutions being developed, almost all appear to be either funded or owned by the big financial players from the non-blockchain world. Presumably some detective work was required to make these assertions and I have not personally verified the accuracy of the claims, but I can believe it to be true. It makes sense for the occupants in power to protect their dominion. Ethics and ideological differences aside, it would be short-sighted to think that anything else would occur. But it does present a conflict which is yet to be resolved.

Many ardent blockchain fans adopt the anarchist view that banks, multinationals and governments need to relinquish their controls. Purportedly the financial crisis and the distrust of bankers prompted Satoshi Nakamoto (the infamous creator(s) of the Bitcoin network) to launch the Genesis block with The Times headline embedded in the first transaction: ‘Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks’.

The frenzy that followed brought insane valuations and several thousand new coins into the market with all the crypto-rebels chanting the death of monopolies and centralised authorities.

It would be naïve to think that anyone would take that lying down – especially the grey-haired suits who had built the empires we see still today.

Roll forward a decade and the likes of BBVA, Barclays, Goldman Sacks, JP Morgan Chase, Credit Suisse and many, many others are trialling blockchain and investing in cryptocurrencies. And if the infographic is to be believed, they are also largely in control of the projects whose aims are to disrupt the status quo that they have designed. Trust in blockchain indeed.

However, without throwing the baby out with the bath water, it is worth considering that blockchain and its relatives may actually be of value in building trust, removing business frictions and help level the playing field. Consider the 2 billion unbanked, the unidentified refugees, the charity funds that get misappropriated and the counterfeit pharmaceuticals which damage the health of humans and companies. Somewhere in the centre – between the oligarchy and the dreamy blockchain democracy, is a happy medium.

Humans have been cycling between centralised and decentralised structures for centuries. Just 20 years ago, the internet promised every aspiring shop-keeper to open a website and take back the market from the big stores that dominated the retail arena. It was a great idea – and Jeff Bezos took full advantage of the new technology. Today, Amazon is no longer an online bookstore but an e-tailing behemoth with, what some might consider, way too much influence and power.

FAGA (Facebook, Amazon, Google and Apple) companies are now branching out into healthcare. While many sing the praises of a less expensive, more efficient pharmaceutical delivery service or the ability to share every heartbeat with their family doctor via a watch, others worry about the monopoly, the privacy risk and perhaps the damage done to aspiring entrepreneurs or SMEs. There is little doubt that FAGA-enabled healthcare will be smooth, cheaper and probably save lives. The question is at what cost? Centralising data has its advantages, but it creates an attractive honeypot for hackers and a leverage tool for the oligopolies to command the market as they wish. Do the advantages outweigh the perils? How much do we trust the giants? Recent data breach scandals (and the fact that the business model of some of these giants relies on monetising personal information) only strengthen the need for change.

In steps blockchain and its magical ‘code-is-law’ consensus driven protocol to save the day.

Decentralised, democratised healthcare sounds wonderful: patient-owned and controlled records, granular permissions managed by private keys and a fully transparent audit trail of who did what. Finally, we have a way to get the conflicting stakeholders to work together for the benefit of all. It sounds so attractive in fact, that in 2018 a BIS research report quoted the healthcare blockchain market to be worth $176.8 million and predicted growth to reach a value of $5.61 billion by the end of 2025. The overall digital healthcare market has been predicted to top $379 billion by 2024 and includes Telehealth, the use of AI and other technologies. It is not a big shock, therefore, that FAGA et al. are interested or that droves of aspiring hopefuls present their wares at conferences hoping to get industry leaders to bite.

Who will win? Can blockchain bind organisations together to uproot the almighty incumbents?

It depends on the models of collaboration being offered.

The path to nirvana is inevitably tortuous and long. Technological barriers ignored, the world is yet to settle on whether socialism, capitalism, democracy or benign dictatorships work best for both the individual and the group. So, it is unfair to expect wholesale adoption of a sharing economy because the blockchain code is open-source and distributed.

Some contend that the middle ground lies in the permissioned, semi-trusted private blockchain alternatives such as Hyperledger or Ripple. Others evangelise the censorship-resistant merits of Bitcoin and Ethereum.

While each has its own advantages when we consider scalability, speed, security and privacy, healthcare has its own particular constraints when making these choices.

Fundamentally, though, none of these are mature enough to completely convince all organisations to collaborate without reservation. So how can we progress?

The notion that it all comes out in the crypto-economic wash has not been borne out so far by the health tokens in play.  So far, the successes can be measured in single digits and even they are in embryonic stages of development. Perhaps it is simply too early to tell, but the value of tokens being able to create trust is simply not evident.

Extrapolating the value proposition from Bitcoin (borderless, uncensored, peer-to-peer coin ownership transfer) to building widespread business trust is naively optimistic; the number of variables is far too great. And because any form of collaboration usually includes the possibility that business identities and market shares may be jeopardised, Joint Ventures are generally not done on a whim.

Instead, JVs are built on trust which develops over time and with evidence. Parties generally only enter into these agreements after careful due diligence and the presence of the following success factors:

Each party must have something of value to contribute

There needs to be interdependence and complementarity

Trust in one another and a willingness to share are essential

Both parties require formalised relationships to avoid future disputes

Effective communication systems must be in place.

Healthcare blockchain ventures may therefore need to bear this in mind when constructing their solutions. Akin to building a playground and then hoping rival gangs will use the slides and swings together, platform entrepreneurs might prudently consider gaining buy-in from stakeholders beforehand, and then building relationships on-chain one variable at a time.

Co-ownership of a blockchain platform that is used, generates value and encourages data sharing is surely better than full ownership of a solution that nobody trusts.

There are many challenges ahead. The perfect business models for blockchain are far from being agreed. One thing if for certain, though – if you want to compete with the incumbents, collaboration is essential. It is, ultimately, what blockchains are all about.

Source link http://bit.ly/2SbPJ7N