New website monetization approaches

Historically, websites have made money by selling wares, services or advertising. In the last two weeks it seems like two new business models are starting to emerge. One more publicly supported and the other less publicly supported.

Europe’s new copyright law

According to an article I read recently (This newly approved European copyright law might break the Internet), Article 11 of Europe’s new Copyright Directive (not quite law yet) will require search engines, news aggregators and other users of Internet content to pay a “link tax” to copyright holders of anything they link to. As a long time blogger, podcaster and content provider, I find this new copyright policy very intriguing.

The article proposes that this will bankrupt small publishers as larger ones will charge less for the traffic. But presently, I get nothing for links to my content. And, I’d be delighted to get any amount – in fact I’d match any large publishers link tax amount that the market demands.

But my main concern is the impact this might have on site traffic. If aggregators pay a link tax, why would they want to use content that charges any tax. Yes at some point aggregators need content. But there are many websites full of content, certainly there would be some willing to forego tax fees for more traffic.

I also happen to be a copyright user. Most of my blog posts are from articles I read on the web. I usually link to an article in the 1st one or two paragraphs (see above and below) of a post and may refer (and link) to more that go deeper into a subject. Will I have to pay a link tax to the content owner?

How much of a link tax is anyone’s guess. I’m not sure it would amount to much. But a link tax, if done judiciously might even raise the quality of the content on the web.

Browser’s of the world, lay down your blockchains

The second article was a recent research paper (Digging into browser based crypto mining). Researchers at RWTH Aachen University had developed a new method to associate mined blocks to mining pools as a way to unearth browser-based mined crypto coins. With this technique they estimated that 1.8% of all Monero coins were mined by CoinHive using participant browsers to mine the coin or ~$250K/month from browser mining.

I see this as steeling compute power. But with that much coin being generated, it might be a reasonable way for an honest website to make some cash from people browsing their web pages. The browsing party would need to be informed of the mining operation in the page’s information, sort of like “we use cookies” today.

Just think, someone creates a WP plugin to do ETH mining and when activated, a WP website pops up a message that says “We mine coins while you browse – OK?”.

In another twist perhaps the websites could share the ETH mined on their browser with the person doing the browsing, similar to airline/hotel travel awards. Today most travel is done on corporate dime, but awards go to the person doing the traveling. Similarly, employees could browse using corporate computers but they would keep a portion of the ETH that’s mined while they browse away… Sounds like a deal.

Other monetization approaches

We’ve tried Google AdSense and other advertising but it only generated pennies a month. So, it wasn’t worth it.

We also sell research and occasionally someone buys some (see SCI Research Shop). And I do sell services but not through my website.

~~~

Not sure a link tax will fly. It would be a race to the bottom and anyone that charged a tax would suffer from less links until they decided to charge a $0 link tax.

Maybe if every link had a tax associated with it, whether the site owner wanted it or not there could be a level playing field. Recording, paying/receiving and accounting for all these link tax micro payments would be another nightmare altogether.

But a WP plugin, that announces and mines crypto coins with a user’s approval and splits the profit with them might work. Corporate wouldn’t like it but employees would just be browsing websites, where’s the harm in that.

Browse a website and share the mined crypto coin with site owner. Sounds fine to me.

Photo Credit(s): Strasburg – European Parliament|Giorgio Barlocco

Crypto News Daily – Telegram cancels ICO…

Photo of Bitcoin, Etherium and Litecoin|QuoteInspector

Data banks, data deposits & data withdrawals in the data economy – part 1

perspective by anomalous4 (cc) (from Flickr)
Big data visualization, Facebook friend connections
Facebook friend carrousel by antjeverena (cc) (from flickr)

Read an interesting article this week in The Atlantic, Why Technology Favors Tyranny by Yuvai Noah Harari, about the inevitable future of technology and how the use of data will drive it.

At the end of the article Harari talks about the need to take back ownership of our data in order to gain some control over the tech giants that currently control our data.

In part 3, Harari discusses the coming AI revolution and the impact on humanity. Yes there will still be jobs, but early on less jobs for unskilled labor and over time less jobs for skilled labor.

Yet, our data continues to be valuable. AI neural net (NN) accuracy increases as a function of the amount of data used to train it. As a result,  he has the most data creates the best AI NN. This means our data has value and can be used over and over again to train other AI NNs. This all sounds like data is just another form of capital, at least for AI NN training.

If only we could own our data, then there would still be value from people’s (digital) exertions (labor), regardless of how much AI has taken over the reigns of production or reduced the need for human work.Safe by cjc4454 (cc) (from flickr)

Safe by cjc4454 (cc) (from flickr)What we need is data (savings) banks. These banks would hold people’s data, gathered from social media likes/dislikes,  cell phone metadata, app/web history, search history, credit history, purchase history,  photo/video streams, email streams, lab work, X-rays, wearables info, etc. Probably many more categories need to be identified but ultimately ALL the digital data we generate today would need to be owned by people and deposited in their digital bank accounts.

Data deposits?

Social media companies, telecom, search companies, financial services app companies, internet  providers, etc. anywhere you do business should supply a copy of the digital data they gather for a person back to that persons data bank account.

There are many technical problems to overcome here but it could be as simple as an object storage bucket, assigned to each person that each digital business deposits (XML versions of) our  digital data they create for everyone that uses their service. They would do this as compensation for using our data in their business activities.

How to change data ownership?

Today, we all sign user agreements which essentially gives a company the rights to our data in perpetuity. That needs to change. I see a few ways that this change could come about

  1. Countries could enact laws to insure personal data ownership resides in the person generating it and enforce periodic distribution of this data
  2. Market dynamics could impel data distribution, e.g. if some search firm supplied data to us, we would be more likely to use them.
  3. Societal changes, as AI becomes more important to profit making activities and reduces the need for human work, and as data continues to be an important factor in AI success, data ownership becomes essential to retaining the value of human labor in society.

Probably, all of the above and maybe more would be required to change the ownership structure of data.

How to profit from data?

Technical entities needing data to train AI NNs could solicit data contributions through an Initial Data Offering (IDO). IDO’s would specify types of data required and a proportion of AI NN ownership, they would cede to all  data providers. Data providers would be apportioned ownership based on the % identified and the number of IDO data subscribers.

perspective by anomalous4 (cc) (from Flickr)
perspective by anomalous4 (cc) (from Flickr)

Data banks would extract the data requested by the IDO and supply it to the IDO entity for use. For IDOs, just like ICO’s or IPO’s, some would fail and others would succeed. But the data used in them would represent an ownership share sort of like a  stock (data) certificate in the AI NN.

Data bank responsibilities

Data banks would have various responsibilities and would need to collect fees to perform them. For example, data banks would be responsible for:

  1. Protecting data deposits – to insure data deposits are never lost, are never accessed without permission, are always trackable as to how they are used..
  2. Performing data deposits – to verify that data is deposited from proper digital entities, to validate that data deposits are in a usable form and to properly store the data in a customers object storage bucket.
  3. Performing data withdrawals – upon customer request, to extract all the appropriate data requested by an IDO,  anonymize it, secure it, package it and send it to the IDO originator.
  4. Reconciling data accounts – to track data transactions, data banks would supply a monthly statement that identifies all data deposits and data withdrawals, data revenues and data expenses/fees.
  5. Enforcing data withdrawal types – to enforce data withdrawal types, as data  withdrawals can have many different characteristics, such as exclusivity, expiration, geographic bounds, etc. Data banks would need to enforce withdrawal characteristics, at least to the extent they can
  6. Auditing data transactions – to insure that data is used properly, a consortium of data banks or possibly data accountancies would need to audit AI training data sets to verify that only data that has been properly withdrawn is used in trying the NN. .

AI NN, tools and framework responsibilities

In order for personal data ownership to work well, AI NNs, tools and frameworks used today would need to change to account for data ownership.

  1. Generate, maintain and supply immutable data ownership digests – data ownership digests would be a sort of stock registry for the data used in training the AI NN. They would need to be a part of any AI NN and be viewable by proper data authorities
  2. Track data use – any and all data used in AI NN training should be traceable so that proper data ownership can be guaranteed.
  3. Identify AI NN revenues – NN revenues would need to be isolated, identified and accounted for so that data owners could be rewarded.
  4. Identify AI NN data expenses – NN data costs would need to somehow be isolated, identified and accounted for so that data expenses could be properly deducted from data owner awards. .

At some point there’s a need for almost a data profit and loss statement as well as a data balance sheet for at an AI NN level. The information supplied above should make auditing data ownership, use and rewards much more feasible. But it all starts with identifying data ownership and the data used in training the AI.

~~~~

There are a thousand more questions that come to mind. For example

  • Who owns earth sensing satellite, IoT sensors, weather sensors, car sensors etc. data? Everyone in the world (or country) being monitored is laboring to create the environment sensed by these devices. Shouldn’t this sensor data be apportioned to the people of the world or country where these sensors operate.
  • Who pays data bank fees? The generators/extractors of the data could pay in addition to providing data deposits for the privilege to use our data. I could also see the people paying.  Having the company pay would give them an incentive to make the data load be as efficient and complete as possible. Having the people pay would induce them to use their data more productively.
  • What’s a decent data expiration period? Given application time frames these days, 7-15 years would make sense. But what happens to the AI NN when data expires. Some way would need to be created to extract data from a NN, or the AI NN would need to cease being used and a new one would  need to be created with new data.
  • Can data deposits be rented/sold to data aggregators? Sort of like a AI VC partnership only using data deposits rather than money to fund AI startups.
  • What happens to data deposits when a person dies? Can one inherit a data deposits, would a data deposit inheritance be taxable as part of an estate transfer?

In the end, as data is required to train better AI, ownership of our data makes us all be capitalist (datalists) in the creation of new AI NNs and the subsequent advancement of society. And that’s a good thing.

Comments?

 

 

Marketing meet Big Data, call records, credit card purchases & demographics

Read an article in Science Daily (Understanding urban issues through credit cards) that talked about a study published in Nature (Sequences of purchases in credit card data reveals lifestyles of urban populations) that applies big data to B2C marketing.

The researchers examined call data records (CDRs), credit card transactions records (CCRs) and demographic (age, sex, residential zip code, wage level, etc.) data and did a cross table between them to identify sequences of purchases. They then used these sequences to identify different lifestyle groups in the urban area.

Marketing 2.0

The analyzed data from Mexico City, Mexico. The CCR data was collected for 10 weeks across 150K users. The had CDR data for 1/10th of the users for 6 months surrounding the 10 weeks duration. Credit card adoption is still low in Mexico (18%), so the analysis may be biased.  When thy matched CCR expenditures against median wages in a district and they found their participants came from higher wage populations. Their data also spanned all districts within the city.

The analysis identified sequences of purchase categories as well as expenditures.  They characterized purchase sequences as “words”.

 

 

 

Using the word data and further statistical analysis they were able to split the population up into 5 distinct lifestyle groups. 

The loops of icons above represent major purchase categories derived from the CCR data merchant category codes (MCC).  Each of the rings in “a” above show the same 12 major MCC purchase categories. If you look at each ring, one can identify a central or core node that seems to have the most incoming or outgoing arks. These seem to be the central purchases made by that lifestyle group after which they branch out to other purchase categories.

There are five different lifestyle categories (they also show the city average) delineated in the data:

  • Commuter – generally they have to pay tolls, have longer travel between home and work and have a diverse sequence of purchase that occurs after purchases from the toll category.
  • Household – purchases seem to center on grocery stores/supermarkets and then branch off from there.
  • Young – purchases seem to center on the taxicab category and then go to computer-networking, restaurants, grocery stores/supermarkets.
  • Hi-Tech – purchases seem to center on computer-networking,  then go to gas stations, grocery stores/supermarkets, restaurants, and telecomm.
  • Average – seems to have two focuses grocery stores/supermarkets and restaurants and then goes out from there to gas stations, specialty food stores and department stores.
  • Dinner-out – purchases seem to center on restaurants and then branch out fro there to computer-networking, gas stations, supermarkets, fast food, etc.

In “b”  breakout above, you can see the socio-demographic characteristics of each lifestyle group as compared with the median user. And in “c” one can see some population histograms of the demographic data.

They were then able to use the CDR data to construct a map of which lifestyle called which other life style to identify call correlation data. Most calls were contacts between the same groups but the second most active call was calls to householders.

They took this same analysis to another city in Mexico and came up with six  lifestyle categories, five of the same and a different one.

~~~~

When I went to Uni (a long long time ago), I attended an urban geography class that was much more scientific and mathematical than any other geography class I had ever attended. I remember asking the professor when did geography become an exact science. As best as I can recall, he laughed and said over the last decade.

Analysis like the above could make B2C marketing, almost an exact science.

Big Data meet Marketing – Buyer beware.

Comments?

Photo Credit(s):  All charts/photos are from the Nature article Sequences of purchase in credit card data reveal lifestyles in urban populations

GPU growth and the compute changeover

Attended SC17 last month in Denver and Nvidia had almost as big a presence as Intel. Their VR display was very nice as compared to some of the others at the show.

GPU past

GPU’s were originally designed to support visualization and the computation to render a specific scene quickly and efficiently. In order to do this they were designed with 100s to now 1000s of arithmetically intensive (floating point) compute engines where each engine could be given an individual pixel or segment of an image and compute all the light rays and visual aspects pertinent to that scene in a very short amount of time. This created a quick and efficient multi-core engine to render textures and map polygons of an image.

Image rendering required highly parallel computations and as such more compute engines meant faster scene throughput. This led to todays GPUs that have 1000s of cores. In contrast, standard microprocessor CPUs have 10-60 compute cores today.

GPUs today 

Funny thing, there are lots of other applications for many core engines. For example, GPUs also have a place to play in the development and mining of crypto currencies because of their ability to perform many cryptographic operations a second, all in parallel

Another significant driver of GPU sales and usage today seems to be AI, especially machine learning. For instance, at SC17, visual image recognition was on display at dozens of booths besides Intel and Nvidia. Such image recognition  AI requires a lot of floating point computation to perform well.

I saw one article that said GPUs can speed up Machine Learning (ML) by a factor of 250 over standard CPUs. There’s a highly entertaining video clip at the bottom of the Nvidia post that shows how parallel compute works as compared to standard CPUs.

GPU’s play an important role in speech recognition and image recognition (through ML) as well. So we find that they are being used in self-driving cars, face recognition, and other image processing/speech recognition tasks.

The latest Apple X iPhone has a Neural Engine which my best guess is just another version of a GPU. And the iPhone 8 has a custom GPU.

Tesla is also working on a custom AI engine for its self driving cars.

So, over time, GPUs will have an increasing role to play in the future of AI and crypto currency and as always, image rendering.

 

Photo Credit(s): SC17 logo, SC17 website;

GTX1070(GP104) vs. GTX1060(GP106) by Fritzchens Fritz;

Intel 2nd Generation core microprocessor codenamed Sandy Bridge wafer by Intel Free Press

A tale of two storage companies – NetApp and Vantara (HDS-Insight Grp-Pentaho)

It was the worst of times. The industry changes had been gathering for a decade almost and by this time were starting to hurt.

The cloud was taking over all new business and some of the old. Flash’s performance was making high performance easy and reducing storage requirements commensurately. Software defined was displacing low and midrange storage, which was fine for margins but injurious to revenues.

Both companies had user events in Vegas the last month, NetApp Insight 2017 last week and Hitachi NEXT2017 conference two weeks ago.

As both companies respond to industry trends, they provide an interesting comparison to watch companies in transition.

Company role

  • NetApp’s underlying theme is to change the world with data and they want to change to help companies do this.
  • Vantara’s philosophy is data and processing is ultimately moving into the Internet of things (IoT) and they want to be wherever the data takes them.

Hitachi Vantara is a brand new company that combines Hitachi Data Systems, Hitachi Insight Group and Pentaho (an analytics acquisition) into one organization to go after the IoT market. Pentaho will continue as a separate brand/subsidiary, but HDS and Insight Group cease to exist as separate companies/subsidiaries and are now inside Vantara.

NetApp sees transitions occurring in the way IT conducts business but ultimately, a continuing and ongoing role for IT. NetApp’s ultimate role is as a data service provider to IT.

Customer problem

  • Vantara believes the main customer issue is the need to digitize the business. Because competition is emerging everywhere, the only way for a company to succeed against this interminable onslaught is to digitize everything. That is digitize your manufacturing/service production, sales, marketing, maintenance, any and all customer touch points, across your whole value chain and do it as rapidly as possible. If you don’t your competition will.
  • NetApp sees customers today have three potential concerns: 1) how to modernize current infrastructure; 2) how to take advantage of (hybrid) cloud; and 3) how to build out the next generation data center. Modernization is needed to free capital and expense from traditional IT for use in Hybrid cloud and next generation data centers. Most organizations have all three going on concurrently.

Vantara sees the threat of startups, regional operators and more advanced digitized competitors as existential for today’s companies. The only way to keep your business alive under these onslaughts is to optimize your value delivery. And to do that, you have to digitize every step in that path.

NetApp views the threat to IT as originating from LoB/shadow IT originating applications born and grown in the cloud or other groups creating next gen applications using capabilities outside of IT.

Product direction

  • NetApp is looking mostly towards the cloud. At their conference they announced a new Azure NFS service powered by NetApp. They already had Cloud ONTAP and NPS, both current cloud offerings, a software defined storage in the cloud and a co-lo hardware offering directly attached to public cloud (Azure & AWS), respectively.
  • Vantara is looking towards IoT. At their conference they announced Lumada 2.0, an Industrial IoT (IIoT) product framework using plenty of Hitachi software functionality and intended to bring data and analytics under one software umbrella.

NetApp is following a path laid down years past when they devised the data fabric. Now, they are integrating and implementing data fabric across their whole product line. With the ultimate goal that wherever your data goes, the data fabric will be there to help you with it.

Vantara is broadening their focus, from IT products and solutions to IoT. It’s not so much an abandoning present day IT, as looking forward to the day where present day IT is just one cog in an ever expanding, completely integrated digital entity which the new organization becomes.

They both had other announcements, NetApp announced ONTAP 9.3, Active IQ (AI applied to predictive service) and FlexPod SF ([H]CI with SolidFire storage) and Vantara announced a new IoT turnkey appliance running Lumada and a smart data center (IoT) solution.

Who’s right?

They both are.

Digitization is the future, the sooner organizations realize and embrace this, the better for their long term health. Digitization will happen with or without organizations and when it does, it will result in a significant re-ordering of today’s competitive landscape. IoT is one component of organizational digitization, specifically outside of IT data centers, but using IT resources.

In the mean time, IT must become more effective and efficient. This means it has to modernize to free up resources to support (hybrid) cloud applications and supply the infrastructure needed for next gen applications.

One could argue that Vantara is positioning themselves for the long term and NetApp is positioning themselves for the short term. But that denies the possibility that IT will have a role in digitization. In the end both are correct and both can succeed if they deliver on their promise.

Comments?

 

Hardware vs. software innovation – round 4

We, the industry and I, have had a long running debate on whether hardware innovation still makes sense anymore (see my Hardware vs. software innovation – rounds 1, 2, & 3 posts).

The news within the last week or so is that Dell-EMC cancelled their multi-million$, DSSD project, which was a new hardware innovation intensive, Tier 0 flash storage solution, offering 10 million of IO/sec at 100µsec response times to a rack of servers.

DSSD required specialized hardware and software in the client or host server, specialized cabling between the client and the DSSD storage device and specialized hardware and flash storage in the storage device.

What ultimately did DSSD in, was the emergence of NVMe protocols, NVMe SSDs and RoCE (RDMA over Converged Ethernet) NICs.

Last weeks post on Excelero (see my 4.5M IO/sec@227µsec … post) was just one example of what can be done with such “commodity” hardware. We just finished a GreyBeardsOnStorage podcast (GreyBeards podcast with Zivan Ori, CEO & Co-founder, E8 storage) with E8 Storage which is yet another approach to using NVMe-RoCE “commodity” hardware and providing amazing performance.

Both Excelero and E8 Storage offer over 4 million IO/sec with ~120 to ~230µsec response times to multiple racks of servers. All this with off the shelf, commodity hardware and lots of software magic.

Lessons for future hardware innovation

What can be learned from the DSSD to NVMe(SSDs & protocol)-RoCE technological transition for future hardware innovation:

  1. Closely track all commodity hardware innovations, especially ones that offer similar functionality and/or performance to what you are doing with your hardware.
  2. Intensely focus any specialized hardware innovation to a small subset of functionality that gives you the most bang, most benefits at minimum cost and avoid unnecessary changes to other hardware.
  3. Speedup hardware design-validation-prototype-production cycle as much as possible to get your solution to the market faster and try to outrun and get ahead of commodity hardware innovation for as long as possible.
  4. When (and not if) commodity hardware innovation emerges that provides  similar functionality/performance, abandon your hardware approach as quick as possible and adopt commodity hardware.

Of all the above, I believe the main problem is hardware innovation cycle times. Yes, hardware innovation costs too much (not discussed above) but I believe that these costs are a concern only if the product doesn’t succeed in the market.

When a storage (or any systems) company can startup and in 18-24 months produce a competitive product with only software development and aggressive hardware sourcing/validation/testing, having specialized hardware innovation that takes 18 months to start and another 1-2 years to get to GA ready is way too long.

What’s the solution?

I think FPGA’s have to be a part of any solution to making hardware innovation faster. With FPGA’s hardware innovation can occur in days weeks rather than months to years. Yes ASICs cost much less but cycle time is THE problem from my perspective.

I’d like to think that ASIC development cycle times of design, validation, prototype and production could also be reduced. But I don’t see how. Maybe AI can help to reduce time for design-validation. But independent FABs can only speed the prototype and production phases for new ASICs, so much.

ASIC failures also happen on a regular basis. There’s got to be a way to more quickly fix ASIC and other hardware errors. Yes some hardware fixes can be done in software but occasionally the fix requires hardware changes. A quicker hardware fix approach should help.

Finally, there must be an expectation that commodity hardware will catch up eventually, especially if the market is large enough. So an eventual changeover to commodity hardware should be baked in, from the start.

~~~~

In the end, project failures like this happen. Hardware innovation needs to learn from them and move on. I commend Dell-EMC for making the hard decision to kill the project.

There will be a next time for specialized hardware innovation and it will be better. There are just too many problems that remain in the storage (and systems) industry and a select few of these can only be solved with specialized hardware.

Comments?

Picture credit(s): Gravestones by Sherry NelsonMotherboard 1 by Gareth Palidwor; Copy of a DSSD slide photo taken from EMC presentation by Author (c) Dell-EMC

Crowdsourcing made better

765140960_735722ddf8_zRead an article the other day in MIT News (Better wisdom from crowds) about a new approach to drawing out better information from crowdsourced surveys. It’s based on something the researchers have named the “surprising popularity” algorithm.

Normally, when someone performs a crowdsourced survey, the results of the survey are typically some statistically based (simple or confidence weighted) average of all the responses. But this may not be correct because, if the majority are ill-informed then any average of their responses will most likely be incorrect.

Surprisingly popular?

10955401155_89f0f3f05a_zWhat surprising popularity does, is it asks respondents what they believe will be the most popular answer to a question and then asks what the respondent believes the correct answer to the question. It’s these two answers that they then use to choose the most surprisingly popular answer.

For example, lets say the answer the surveyors are looking for is the capital of Pennsylvania (PA, a state in the eastern USA) Philadelphia or not. They ask everyone what answer would be the most popular answer. In this case yes, because Philadelphia is large and well known and historically important. But they then ask for a yes or no on whether Philadelphia is the capital of PA. Of course the answer they get back from the crowd here is also yes.

But, a sizable contingent would answer that the capital of PA is  Philadelphia wrong (it is actually Harisburg). And because there’s a (knowledgeable) group that all answers the same (no) this becomes the “surprisingly popular” answer and this is the answer the surprisingly popular algorithm would choose.

What it means

The MIT researchers indicated that their approach reduced errors by 21.3% over a simple majority and 24.2% over a confidence weighted average.

What the researchers have found, is that surprisingly popular algorithm can be used to identify a knowledgeable subset of individuals in the respondents that knows the correct answer.  By knowing the most popular answer, the algorithm can discount this and then identify the surprisingly popular (next most frequent) answer and use this as the result of the survey.

Where might this be useful?

In our (USA) last election there were quite a few false news stories that were sent out via social media (Facebook and Twitter). If there were a mechanism to survey the readers of these stories that asked both whether this story was false/made up or not and asked what the most popular answer would be, perhaps the new story truthfulness could be completely established by the crowd.

In the past, there were a number of crowdsourced markets that were being used to predict stock movements, commodity production and other securities market values. Crowd sourcing using surprisingly popular methods might be used to better identify the correct answer from the crowd.

Problems with surprisingly popular methods

The one issue is that this approach could be gamed. If a group wanted some answer (lets say that a news story was true), they could easily indicate that the most popular answer would be false and then the method would fail. But it would fail in any case if the group could command a majority of responses, so it’s no worse than any other crowdsourced approach.

Comments?

Photo Credit(s): Crowd shot by Andrew WestLost in the crowd by Eric Sonstroem