On the Internet EVERYBODY knows Ashley is a dog.

On the Internet EVERYBODY knows Ashley is a dog.

I wish candidates (and others) would put legit links in their email, because then I could look at them and be reasonably confident they were legit.
I want to make a donation to a candidate, but I want to make it in the most efficient way possible—without some intermediary siphoning off a bunch of the money. I especially don’t want some rival tricking me with a bogus solicitation.
The email looks legit, but the link to click.actionnetwork.org followed by several hundred random characters does not fill me with confidence. (Some research makes me think it is legit.)
Back in the late 1970s, Merrill Lynch, and then several competitors, created what became known as a Cash Management Account. I really wanted one.
Basically, a Cash Management Account was a brokerage account wrapped around a money market fund and an associated credit card.
It was really aimed at high-value customers. The sort who might make discretionary purchases in the $10,000 range. The sort who wouldn’t want to have multiple tens of thousands of dollars sitting around in cash just in case a few of those purchases might end up being made in the same month. For those customers, a key feature was that the brokerage account was a margin account.
You had an American Express card tied to your account. You could charge whatever you wanted, just like on any other AmEx card. At the end of the month the account would automatically pay the balance on the card. You also had a checkbook that you could use to pay your bills. If either kind of transaction drained the cash out of your account, you’d automatically get a margin loan against your investments. Margin loans were at a preferred rate (because they were secured).
At your own convenience, informed by knowing when more cash would be flowing into your account (dividends on your stocks, interest on your bonds, transfers from the trust your daddy set up for you), you could either let the margin loan be paid off by incoming cash, or else decide to sell some asset or another.
For someone with liquid assets in, let’s say, the million dollar range, it was really very convenient. For someone with much less than that it was less useful, but to keep out the riffraff (people like me), they required a minimum initial investment of $20,000.
By the time I had the money to buy into an account like that, it’s advantages had pretty much been rendered moot by modernization in the financial industry. Now you can roll your own cash management account easily enough.
Here’s what I do:
I have these accounts connected so that I can transfer money between them via the Automated Clearing House (ACH).
I make my local bank the center of everything: All deposits and all payments flow into and out of that checking account. Any time that adds up to surplus money, I transfer the funds to my internet bank to pick up the extra yield, or else to my brokerage account to be invested.
It’s basically exactly like a cash management account, except that I don’t have paying the credit card automated. (Actually, since I originally drafted this post, I’ve gone ahead and automated paying my credit cards. We went on vacation back in July and August, and were going to be out of town right when the bills could be expected, and not back home until after they needed to be paid. So, now almost all of my bills, finally, are paid automatically. I now live in, I don’t know, 2005 or thereabouts.) Oh, also: my brokerage account isn’t a margin account. (It could be, but the whole preferential rate structure for margin loans faded away some years ago, so there’s no point.)
If there’s something about a formal Cash Management account appeals to you, pretty much any bank, brokerage firm, or mutual fund company offers them now, often with no minimum investment. But there’s really no point.
Currently the ACH takes 2–3 days to move money, but the infrastructure for same-day payments (called FedNow) is now in place. Soon enough a few banks and brokerage firms will make it available to customers to distinguish themselves, and either the others will quickly fall in line, or I’ll move my money to the more enlightened institutions.
Every time I go to read an article at @TheNewEuropean, instead of showing me the article, they accuse me of running an ad blocker. This is false, and a little insulting. And it’s a bit annoying that I can’t read their articles. But, oh well. I’ll make do as best I can without reading the latest from @paulmasonnews.
The one good thing about this is that it presents a space where alternatives to Google can compete.
The most discouraging aspect is how Google now doesn’t even bother to return results about vast swaths of the internet. —Bit Rot and Search Engines | Bierfaristo Blog
I looked for @doctorow’s tweet of this (excellent) article, but his twitter feed was so stuffed with retweets of years-ago articles I couldn’t find one.
A phone that knows about you—but doesn’t tell anyone what it knows about you—would be your interface to a better smart city
Yes! I too have exactly this problem. Not with my mom, because she doesn’t do Facebook, but still…
Dear Facebook Engineering: Could you fix this algorithm problem please?
All the smart folks on twitter have been asking questions along this line. If we had civil unrest, would the government try to cut off our internet access? (I have no doubt that if they tried, they’d succeed. Internet and cell phone providers are regulated companies; they’d roll over in two seconds.)
I think that would be bad.
First of all, it would be unconstitutional. At a minimum, such an action would infringe several first amendment freedoms: speech, press, assembly, and to petition the government.
More important, in a stable democracy like the US, I think internet and cellular service would be at least as much a stabilizing force as it would be a destabilizing force. In the event of civil unrest there would be many powerful voices calling for calm and for non-violence. Shutting off the internet would silence those voices along with the voices of those trying to organize protests.
So, I just sent this note to my congressman, urging him to take steps to protect citizens’ access to telecommunications services:
Prompted by the recent news that the Egyptian government cut off internet and cell phone connectivity for its citizens, it occurred to me that this tool of repression should not be available in the United States.
At a minimum, I urge you to oppose any legislation along the lines of last year’s “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act,” but I think you should go further.
I’d very much like to see legislation that would specifically bar the government from shutting down internet or cellular connectivity for US citizens, and that would bar telecommunication providers from “voluntarily” complying with “requests” from the government that they stop providing connectivity to persons in the US.
Of course, legal solutions only go so far. They would be much strengthened by technological solutions. Cell phones and internet access points can be designed to mesh with other nearby devices. That would make it vastly more difficult for a top-down order to shut down connectivity—hopefully, difficult enough that governments wouldn’t even try.
[Updated 30 January 2011: Here’s a list of ad-hoc meshing protocols that might serve as a basis for making a top-down shutdown impossible.]