Smart Homes: RFID and The Internet of Things

"The planet has grown a central nervous system" - IBMSocialMedia "The Internet of Things" (below)

Maybe it's just me, maybe I watch too many horror movies, maybe I watch too much post-apocalyptic sci-fi but The Internet of Things scares the life out of me. I prefer to err on the side of caution but I'm not cyber-dystopian. I'm more likely to subscribe to the Evgeny Morozov school of thought (cyber-realism). I see both sides. So when Teodor Mitew showed an ad for the future of Ericsson depicting Ericsson's version of a Smart Home in his lecture Case: The Internet of Things: From Networked Objects to Ubiquitous Computing I was instantly filled me with both wonder and terror. 

It's all fun and games until someone wants to put a chip inside your head.

For someone as unorganised as me, the thought that my home could organise my life for me was amazing. But in the same breath I had a little SkyNet moment. Yes, I went there. My mind grappled simultaneously with two apposing notions. I saw the cyberutopian future where locking myself out of my house (again and again and again) would never be a problem, I would simply text message my house as I was leaving my car and my house would unlock the door for me as I reached the front step (Mitew 2011). I also saw the cyber-dystopian future where my house may be hacked by a disgruntled ex-lover or prank-loving friend, actively setting my house against me and say, locking me out. Or (if you want to go to extremes) an individual being targeted by remotly controlled inanimate objects in their own home. I can't imagine the level of paranoid that would inspire in someone with a lot of enemies like say, Julian Assange?

Don't tell me the size of that RFID (Radio Frequency Identification tag)

doesn't simultaneously amaze you and freak you out.

In Why Things Matter, Julian Bleeker describes networked objects as transcending from passive things occupying a physical space to active nodes "occupying themselves" (2006). It's not hard to see the advantages of inanimate objects becoming animate through internet connectivity. Whether it's the cattle transmitting health data to the farmer (as per the example shown in the lecture), or RFID tags on your keys that communicate to the rest of the house when you are leaving, initiating a chain reaction of actions performed by other house hold devices, the potential for convenience is astounding. 

Allegedly Indonesia plans to track HIV/AIDS sufferers with RFID chips.

But so is the potential for harm. 

Further Reading:

The Internet of Things Blurs the Lines between Bits and Atoms: I linked this further up in the post but I'm going to link it again here because it's got some fascinating information on RFID tags, Smart Homes, and the companies involved in developing RFID technology.

RFID Chips Watch Grandma Brush her Teeth: Potential uses for RFID technology in the health sector.

International Journal of Smart Home article on RFID and National Security.

ReadWriteWeb: 5 Companies Building the Internet of Things.

Android@Home: Google Gets Smart about the Smart Home.

Blog Sources:

Mitew, T 2011, Case: The Internet of Things: From Networked Objects to Ubiquitous Computing, Lecture, DIGC202 Global Networks, University of Wollongong, delivered 24 October

Bleecker, J. 2006, 'Why Things Matter: A Manifesto for networked objects' accessed 27 October http://www.nearfuturelaboratory.com/files/WhyThingsMatter.pdf

Battle of the Brands: Apple TV vs Google TV

“'Free software' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of 'free' as in 'free speech,' not as in 'free beer'.”

-Richard M. Stallman

Smart TV

In his lecture Case: Apple Vs Google: The Two Futures of Mobile Devices Dr Teodor Mitew discussed the war between Apple and Google for domination of the mobile phone market (2011). Mitew described this as being not just a battle of the brands but a fundamental difference in ideology between open source software provided by companies like Google and so-called 'walled garden' companies like Apple (2011). But the quarrel doesn't stop at handsets and apps, and it certainly isn't confined to just Apple and Google. 

The battle rages on

The war has found itself a new arena, internet compatible television. Enter Google TV and Apple TV and let the games commence... Now you don't have to watch the next two clips that closely to see the before-mentioned ideology clash in action. Jobs does his usual "a 4th the size" of the previous model pitch and as the video progresses we begin to see more and more of the "walled garden" philosophy emerge. Jobs reveals that content will now be viewed on a rental basis, they've got Fox, ABC and Netflix on board. Apple means business here.

For more on Apple TV see the further reading at the end of this post.

Moving on to Google. As Daniel Roth mentions in his article Google's Open Source Android OS Will Free the Wireless Web for Wired magazine, Google seeks to create an "entire new wireless family tree" in the mobile handset market with the help of Android (2008). Does Google TV seek to do the same? Let's compare the video below to the one we've just seen. Google's pitch is basically the same as Apple's, television with internet capability etc.

But notice the difference in format. Google makes no mention of agreements with other companies, it mentions Netflix, but only that it is possible to use the subscription service with the device. The difference in philosophy emerges indirectly as Google explains that while you can buy a device that allows you to access Google TV through an existing television,  some televisions will come with Google TV already installed. Google TV compatible devices imply open source devices. But in the end, as Mitew discussed in the lecture, the ideological difference can be summed up as thus: closed system device orientated Apple vs compatibility driven software with less of a focus on what connects you and more of a focus on how (2011).

And for everyone who looked at this post and went "lol, TL;DR", here's a friendly infograph to help you out.

I'm cruel aren't I? To view a sight friendly version, click here.

Further Reading:

As Apple TV rumors build, Google upgrades Google TV.

Microsoft sees Xmas debut for Xbox TV: I didn't have time (or space) to mention it in this post, but Microsoft we weigh in later this year with their own contender, Xbox TV. Which is sure to shake things up even more.

If you don't read any other article on Google, Apple and Microsoft and their battle for your TV viewing read this one. Apple, Google and Microsoft fight for TV: it outlines the rivalry, the upgrades and Steve Job's last word on the venture. It's only two pages long and also mentions other companies trying to break into the internet TV market including Boxee and Chinese company Hisense and the innovations they're flaunting to gain attention.

Google TV and Apple TV Comparison. Comparison in table form.

Blog Sources: 


Roth, D, 2008, 'Google's Open Source Android OS Will Free the Wireless Web' Wired, 23 June accessed 24/10/2011 http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/magazine/16-07/ff_android


Mitew, T 2011, Case: Apple Vs Google: The Two Futures of Mobile Devices, Lecture, DIGC202 Global Networks, University of Wollongong, delivered 17 October.

Cyber-realism, Cyber-utopianism and Slacktivism: a cat and mouse issue.

Now that I've indulged my love of a good conspiracy theory, I'll move on... to awesome videos from Youtube!

In this video from the thersa.org's 'RSA Animate' Youtube channel, Evgeny Morozov explains (in audio taken from one of his 2009 lectures) the cyber-utopian view of the internet and why, in his opinion, this view is a very 'naive' one (2011). It explains many complex concepts in an easy and (let's be honest) fun form.

Who doesn't want to see world politics played out by cats and mice, am I right?

But seriously though, in the video - for those who can't be bothered watching the whole thing, I know it's almost 11mins long and I don't judge, I'm sure you're all fantastically busy people - Morozov discusses the Iranian government and specifically (around the 7min mark if you want to skip straight to it) the dangers social networking sites like Facebook pose to the protesters (2011). 

Saudi Arabia cat disapproves of Keyboard Cat

He makes a good point towards the end about younger digital generations and the cyber-utopian assumption that they will naturally engage in activism and adhere to the "democratic values" of their predecessors, suggesting that realistically younger digital generations are more likely to heavily involve themselves in the entertainment side of the internet rather than cyber-activism (2011). 

Don't go student protests, you'll lose an eye.

I see his point and I'm even guilty of this political apathy (or 'Slacktivism' as mentioned in Dimity's post: Level 9 Cyberspace Victory) myself at times. But I think he leans a little to heavily on the pessimism here. This maybe true of the younger digital generations in countries not experiencing civil unrest but what of the countries that are? Surely a high percentage of the younger digital generations in those countries that are  involved in civil violence, who are brought up in a politically oppressive environments become engaged in protest/political activities? Is that an ignorant western assumption on my part? Perhaps.

Don't hate the hashtag.

So now we move onto video number two, which is not quite as fun but is no less important.  Evgeny Morozov talks cyber-utopianism to 'The Stream'. A great example of not only the debate but also how the program itself is encouraging engagement via Google Plus forums, Twitter hashtags etc.

Ok, so at 15mins it's a bit longer but it mentions much of what was talked about in the lectures and tutorials, for example, Tunisia and the Sidi Bouzid incident - a street vendor that set him self on fire sparking nationwide protest (The Stream 2011). Also it's hilarious to see how animated everyone gets debating the subject.

This video really helped me to better understand Morozov's theory. I had originally mistakenly thought that  cyber-realism was being presented as a dystopian view of the internet but it's not that at all. Morozov's theory of cyber realism is about a balanced and objective view of the internet and social media's influence on political revolution over the black and white, good vs bad, cyber-utopian vs cyber-dystopian approach to the effect of digital technologies.  

Further Reading:
Of Cyber-Skeptics and Cyber-Utopians – Debunking Myths and Discussing the Future: READ this article, if only for the of so appropriate quote at the end which sums up how I'm starting to feel about the whole issue.

It is probably time to stop overstating the evils of technology and begin constructive conversation about the road ahead for a leaderless revolution. Even the cyber-skeptic/cyber-utopian  trope is unhelpful to the field as it allows thinkers to pigeon-hole one another and discredit each other’s arguments with buzzwords. Cyber-skepticism, moderate support or illusions of cyber-utopians will not decide the future of Egypt. Just like its revolution, it will be decided and carried forward by its people. 

- Nikila Srinivasan, 2011.

Mashable: How to turn Slacktivists into Activists with Social Media. 
How-To, opinion article. Pretty self exploratory.

The Political Power of Social Media: Essay on social media's effect on modern protesting. I haven't had a chance to read all of it yet (it's nine pages long) but it discusses Morozov, China, Iran, protest before and after social media, censorship and so on.

From Slactivism to Activism: Participatory Culture in the Age of Social Media.: Twitter, Facebook Slacktivism, txt messaging earthquake relief donations vs colouring your profile picture to support Iranian democracy - another good source.

Digiactive: A World of Digital Activists. Cyber activist resources.

Blog Resources:

"Cyber realism versus Cyber-utopians" 2011, The Stream, Aljazeera, accessed 10/10/2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2-INCZx_KM&feature=player_embedded#! )

thersa.org, 2011, RSA Animate - The Internet in Society: Empowering or Censoring Citizens? accessed 10/10/2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk8x3V-sUgU&feature=player_embedded

The Revolution Conspiracy

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate." - Noam Chomsky The Common Good, 1998.

Now I'm no conspiracy buff but I like to indulge in the odd matrix-esque, 'the truth is out there', big-brother controls everything-style theory once in a while. And Chomsky's words may sound overly anti-establishment to some but I must admit, it makes sense. 

The truth is out there and it has giant pink hands.

This week Dr Teodor Mitew addressed social media and it's effect on political revolution in the Middle East and North Africa in his lecture #mena #arabspring: The Social Network Revolutions (2011). He mentioned the 'a Gay Girl in Damascus' hoax and briefly, the conspiracy theories behind it (Mitew 2011). I vaguely knew of the hoax but not the ramifications behind it. This idea of social media, long praised as a tool in aid of revolution as a quasi-double agent in political revolution, stuck with me. Did the CIA mastermind the 'gay girl in Damascus' hoax to further civil unrest in Syria as the conspiracy theories suggest? 

  Beware blue and white colour schemes.

How heavy is the CIA's involvement in political revolution in the Middle East and North Africa? Is the CIA really using social media to weaken the regimes of foreign countries to aid their own political agendas? Its possible. It's absolutely probable if you lean towards cyber-utopianism and believe that social networks are the root of modern political revolution. 

Google, Facebook, ebay and Paypal: brought to you by the grumpy men in black. 

But as Evgeny Morozov suggests in this article for the guardian, that would be underestimating the "real-world activism" behind the political unrest (Morozov 2011). Personally, I understand the importance of social media in distributing political content to a wider audience; I understand the role digital technology plays in giving voice to those who may not have had a voice otherwise, but I'm not completely sold on the idea of cyber-utopianism. Cyber-realism on the other hand, seems a little too the other way, I agree that individuals start revolutions not technology but you can't deny that Facebook and Twitter have changed the face of the modern protest.

Oh and by the way, I'm a dirty rotten liar. I love conspiracy theories. 

I just don't necessarily believe them.

Further Reading:

'Time to break the cyber-utopian myth': This video is under six minutes long and it's a really interesting crucial source that reflects much of what we talked about in the tutorials re: bilingual internet users sharing content, Aljazeera, Jo McQuilty's comment on users logging on to the internet for the sense of community it provides and more - it has it all!

Principles of Cyber-Realism: Explains fundamental points of cyber-realism. Discusses global citizenship, the importance of access and 'cyber-places' (online communities). 

'Facebook & Google are CIA Fonts': Website listing various conspiracy theories around current events etc.

A Gay Girl in Damascus: How the Hoax Unfolded. Telegraph article displaying a timeline of the events leading up to and following the exposure of the 'A Gay Girl in Damascus' blog as a hoax.

Jay Rosen Is Wrong: “Twitter Revolution” And “FacebookRevolution” Cyber-Utopians Really Do Think It’s That Simple: Omri Ceren of the University of Southern Carolina discusses cyber-utopianism, social media, Egypt, Morozov and more. As you no doubt guessed by the title, it's critical of cyber-utopianism.

Cyber-utopianism reflecting on the Arab revolutions: Too optimistic too early?: Hurriyet Daily News (Turkish News site) discusses the role of social media in Syria, Wael Ghonim, Morozov, cyber-utopianism and more. It's a good source but mainly as a reiteration of what we covered in the lecture/tutorial.

and last but not least...

The Conscious Ape: Conspiracy theories, UFOs, ghosts, psychics and all that other fun stuff. Go on, have a look, you know you want to...

Blog Resources:

Chomsky, N, 1998, The Common Good, Odonian Press, accessed 10 October 2011 

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/Common_Good_Chomsky.html

Morozov, E, 2011, ' Facebook and Twitter are just places revolutionaries go' The Guardian, 7 March. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/07/facebook-twitter-revolutionaries-cyber-utopians

Mitew, T, 2011, #mena #arabspring: The Social Network Revolutions. DIGC202 Global Networks, University of Wollongong, delivered 10th October.

Black Hat Redemption: Ethical Hackers

In Dr Teodor Mitew's Counter-networks lecture he discussed hacktivism, whistleblowers and Wikileaks. Wikileaks is nothing new to me, though I didn't have quite the same picture of Julian Assange as The New Yorker. But the whole electronic frontier as a modern wild west idea really stuck with me (Mitew 2011). I imagine Assange as the Clint Eastwood to Lulsec's Lee Van Cleef a la' The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

White and Black hat cyber cowboys.

But even The Good have dark pasts. Mitew mentioned in the lectures and tutorials that retired or caught Black Hats (hacker badguys) are often employed for White Hat (hacker goodguys) for 'ethical' purposes, to test systems for weaknesses etc (2011). But what distinguishes a White Hat from a Black? Are they mutually exclusive and just how fine is the line between them? 

Grey Hats: Cyberspace's answer to Two-Face?

The more you research hacking the more the term 'Ethical Hacker' arises. There seems to be a great amount of value placed on the skills of white hats in the security industry, so much so that there is now places, ebooks and DVDs that will train you to be a White Hat. 

7 hours of hacker training for only $99.95 - What a bargain!

But even ethical hacking is not without its criticisms. In Danish Jamil and Muhammad Numan Ali Kha's article 'Is Ethical Hacking Ethical?' for the International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology they sum up the issue often raised when discussing ethical hackers: just how much can we trust them?

It can be argued that after working on a big projects with one of the countries big financial companies to find security flaws to help remedy problems, can help to reinforce the knowledge of a ethical hacker and sometime in the future out of curiosity or through spite breach his contract and sell his ideas to criminals. It was argued that this can be achieved and that this is one of the many problems ethical hacking faces (Jamil, D & Kha, M. N. A, 2011).

It sounds like a logical argument right? Rob Cotton expresses similar concerns in his article for ComputerWeekly.com stating 

If you used to get your kicks from undermining national security, can you really be trusted to protect it? (2009)

Especially when paired with evidence like this. WIRED magazine ran an article in 2001 on 'Max Vision', a supposed White Hat FBI informant that was jailed for attacking military computer systems in 1998 (2001). Of course most of this criticism is aimed at the use of ex-Black Hats as ethical hackers but you could argue that the same risks/issues apply to security professionals and 'pure' White Hats too.

Further Reading (and sources on the other side of the 'ethical hacker' argument) :

Online Articles

NTRO’s ethical hackers to conquer China

LulzSec, Anonymous and Hacktivism: Crappy Security has Caught Up with Us

Hacking boosts students' cybersecurity skills

Journal Articles

The moral ambiguity of social control in cyberspace: a retroassessment of the ‘golden age’ of hacking

(access via UOW database)

Ethical Hackers - Can We Trust Them?

(can be accessed via UOW database)

No Jobs for the Bad Boys

(access via UOW database)

When Black Hats are Really White

(access via UOW database)

Sources:

Cotton, R, 2009, 'Recruiting Hackers to Defend the UK is Lunacy' ComputerWeekly.com, 30 June, accessed 7/10/2011. http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/06/30/236701/Recruiting-hackers-to-defend-the-UK-is-lunacy.htm

Delio, M, 2001 'A White Hat goes to Jail', Wired Magazine, 22 May, accessed 7/10/2011, http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/05/44007

Jamil, D & Kha, M. N. A, 2011 'Is Ethical Hacking Ethical?', International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, vol. 3, issue 5, pp 3758-3763. accessed 7/10/2011 via University of Wollongong library database http://www.ijest.info/docs/IJEST11-03-05-186.pdf

Khatchadourian, R, 2010, 'No Secrets: Julian Assange's mission for total transparency', The New Yorker, June 7. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian

Mitew, T, 2011, Counter-networks: online activism, whistleblowers, and the dark side of the net. DIGC202 Global Networks, University of Wollongong, delivered 19th September.

Industrial media bites the hand that distributes it on ABC's Media Watch.

Worse still, such new competitors with the products of the journalism industry frequently take professional journalists themselves to task where their standards have appeared to have slipped, and are beginning to match the news industry’s incumbents in terms of insight and informational value...

- Axel Bruns, News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: New Directions for e-Journalism, 2009.

There has been a lot of talk this week of journalism "in crisis" due to the over-saturation of citizen journalism on the internet (Bruns 2009). Now, while Bruns' article doesn't continue to be as alarmist (compared to other sources I've found.) as the above quote suggests, industrial media and it's journalists do not seem to like being called out on their short-comings. So what happens when industrial media embraces citizen journalism and turns on its own kind? Well then, you get the glory that is ABC's Media Watch. 

 Presented by that dashing 'silver fox' Jonathon Holmes.

With a tag line like "everyone loves it until they're on it", you know it's going to make waves. This program is an example of industrial journalism embracing a citizen journalism attitude and calling out the press on its faults (Bruns 2009). If you go to their website they have a 'confidential tip offs' section where anyone can submit an issue they think needs to be addressed or an example of bad journalism (mostly the ridiculous excuse for journalism that is A Current Affair and Today Tonight). They also have a section called 'The Dog House', a collection of the 'best/worst/funniest' content submitted by users. 

 It makes me feel like a spy just looking at it.

They further the embrace a 'participatory culture' by providing audiences with a message board/forum platform on which to discuss issues relevant to the program (Mitew, 2011).  By providing this platform, what was already an open discussion becomes an inception-like network of opinion and criticism, allowing audiences to criticise not just Media Watch but other 'produsers' content (Mitew, 2011). As discussed in both the lecture and Steven Johnson's article How Twitter Will Change The Way We Live, Twitter's 'hashtags' allows the many voices of us as nodes to intertwine into a coherent narrative (Mitew, 2011). Media Watch both allows and encourages this through its Twitter account.You can also continue the discussion and post you're own links by joining their Facebook page. Now you'd be forgiven for thinking that a show of this nature wouldn't bite that hand that feeds it but Media Watch, for the sake of journalist integrity, shames everyone, including the ABC and even the program itself. They also provide a link on their website to a list of corrections for mistakes made on their program. Don't believe me? Here's a recent tweet from their Twitter page:

ABCMediaWatch ABC Media Watch

We loved Media Watch, until we were on it abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra… #mediawatch

22 Aug

Media Watch airs on the ABC, Monday nights at 9:20pm. Will you be watching tonight?

Further Reading:

Available online (ebook) through the UOW database: 

Public Journalism 2.0 : The Promise and Reality of a Citizen Engaged Press by Rosenberry, Jack; John, Burton St.

PDF file:

Open Society Foundations: Mapping Digital Media: Citizen Journalism and the Internet by Nadine Jurrat

Blog Post Sources:

Bruns, A, 2009, 'News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: New Directions for e-Journalism', http://produsage.org/files/News%20Blogs%20and%20Citizen%20Journalism.pdf

Mitew, T, 2011, Citizen Journalism and New Media Audiences, DIGC202 Global Networks, University of Wollongong, delivered 12th September.

Generatives and Literature: I still buy books but I've given up on bookstores.

In Dr Teodor Mitew's lecture Into the Cloud: the Long Tail and the Attention Economy discussed the attention economy; the 'Longtail' effect, 'self referential' online store's like Amazon, their recommendations and its effect consumer purchases (2011).

An example of the 'Longtail' effect in publishing. Click here for more.

Now, I'm no Amazon user but sites like Bookdepository.com, have changed the way I buy books. I no longer buy from bookstores and here's why. The site has a 'wishlist' tool which allows you to save a list of books you'd like to purchase at a later date. It allows customers to write a review of the book and underneath each entry it has the oh-so-helpful "other people who viewed this bought" list. It also has editor's picks and recommendations, making my purchasing choices a lot easier. 

Which brings me to the "Longtail" phenomenon mentioned in Dr Teodor Mitew's lecture (2011). Bookstores have lost me, I held in there a little while for the sake of nostalgia and immediacy but the online bookstores won out. 'Real' Bookstores are expensive and their immediacy does not make up for their lack of niche stock. Online stores however, have tapped into the tail-end of the Longtail effect and therefore stock the obscure literary theory textbook that I need at a lower price than any bookstore and with free shipping (2011).

But in the age of e-readers and free downloadable content, why do I still buy books even if I can get them cheaper online? In the words of Kevin Kelly, it comes down to a matter of 'generatives' (2008). Sure I could download a book in PDF format, but I buy books for their embodiment value (yes, even the textbooks). I buy them for their aesthetics. They function as entertainment and decor, I love the look of a shelf full of books. I've bought multiple copies of Sylvia Plath's Ariel. I could have just downloaded it but I buy the copies for their collect-ability, I want the hardback as well as the paperback version, and I want all the different of cover art.

Plus if I buy a hard-copy textbook there is always a chance I can get back some of the money I've spent by selling it second-hand.


Further Reading:

Joe Wikert's Publishing 2020 Blog: A Book Publisher's Future Visions of Print, Online, Video and All Media Formats Not Yet Invented. Bookstores Vs Online: Part three of a multi-part series on how bookstores can compete against online stores.

Chris Anderson's Blog on the Wired Network: The Longtail.

Esp check out the FAQ section (you'll recognize him from his article in Wired 12.10 that was part of the reading). He discusses the Longtail effect not just in terms of online sales but also travel and other areas of interest.

If you're after a peer-reviewed article and more of an intense read (and I do mean intense):

Harvard assistant professor Anita Elber's paper on the longtail effect. It uses data gleaned from American online music store Rhapsody and Australia's answer to Netflix, the aptly named Quickflix.

I didn't get all the way through this one (31 pages long, 44 if you count references etc.) but  if you're up for the task I recommend skipping the dense discussion and equations and going straight to the 'Data' and 'Findings' sections or even just reading the conclusion. This article isn't for the faint hearted. 

Sources:

Kelly, K 2008, 'Better than Free', http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kelly08/kelly08_index.html

Mitew, T, 2011, Into the Cloud: The Longtail and the Attention Economy, DIGC202 Global Networks, University of Wollongong, delivered 5 September. 

First Posted: Sept 11th, 2nd edit 12th Sept.