Category Archives: Law

October 4, 2024 · 21:11

Accepted doubt

This is on my, or better stated my view on matters. In this case it is the Reuters article ‘Exclusive:  Kushner has discussed U.S.-Saudi diplomacy with Saudi crown prince’ (at https://www.reuters.com/world/kushner-has-discussed-us-saudi-diplomacy-with-saudi-crown-prince-2024-10-04/) which was released less than 30 minutes ago. I have had serious doubt on the media on a near global stage and at this moment Reuters has gained several points towards doubt. Yet, in this case I am willing to put doubt on my ability to see things clearly. 

So, lets take a look.

“The news that Kushner and Saudi Arabia’s de-facto leader discussed a peace accord”, here we see the statement “de-facto leader”, we know that Saudi Arabia still has a king, but what stops Reuters to state “The news that Kushner and Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud discussed a peace accord”, both are in principle correct. Yet the Reuters statement comes across as Saudi bashing. ‘To put a person in its place’ might be the interpretation as many would see it, especially in the Middle East. Then we get “renew questions about whether Kushner’s financial ties with Riyadh could influence U.S. policy under his father-in-law”, so what is the issue here? It is a serious question because the article does not give us a complete report on what those ties are, we get a link to the Hill, there we see ““crossed the line of ethics” by accepting a $2 billion investment from the Saudi government in his private investment firm six months after he left the White House” my question in this is were laws broken? You see, the investment was done AFTER he left the White House. So were laws broken, or were they not. 

Then we get “To encourage Saudi Arabia to recognise Israel, the Biden administration has offered Riyadh security guarantees, assistance with a civilian nuclear program and a renewed push for a Palestinian state. The deal could reshape the Middle East by uniting two long-time foes and binding the world’s biggest oil exporter to Washington at a time when China is making inroads in the region” How come that China is diminished with “when China is making inroads in the region” and what is this about “assistance with a civilian nuclear program”. My issue is that China has been making inroads for the better part of two years. As such making inroads, comes across as a joke, massively inaccurate. So why was the civilian nuclear program added? Could be true, could be anything. But the media at present has a massive credibility issue and whilst space on a webpage is nearly free, Reuters is a little stingy on using it.

Last we get to “The Saudi relationship with Trump was notably close. Trump’s first foreign trip as president in 2017 was to Riyadh, accompanied by Kushner. After Saudi expatriate opposition journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Trump stood by the crown prince in spite of a U.S. intelligence assessment that he had authorised the killing. MbS denied involvement.” Is filled with inaccuracies. No clear evidence has been produced that Khashoggi was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Turkey, there was an assumption and the setting that “U.S. intelligence assessment that he had authorised the killing” is even more inaccurate. The document A/HRC/41/CRP.1 which was given to the world by the Human Rights Council does not give us that either. In that report U.S. Intelligence is mentioned twice. In one case we are given “The Directive states that if a U.S. intelligence agency “acquires credible and specific information indicating an impending threat of intentional killing, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping,” that agency has a duty to warn the intended victim.” No mention of authorisation or anything regarding an order by Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud. I am adding that document at the bottom. As such I have issues with the Reuters article. 

There is more but read the article yourself. The article hands us a pice of evidence that Reuters is losing credibility. 

I am not a Trump fan, but at present there is a larger stage and the Biden administration of fumbling the ball, and as issues go at present, China will be a large bigger inroad in the Middle East (Saud Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) in 2025 and I have to wonder how much inroad they will make in Egypt in 2025.

But I hope that the message comes across. And in the second stage, what laws did Kushner break? Because in the end that is what matters. 

Have a great day

a_hrc_41_crp.1Download

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 2, 2024 · 07:57

Greed and stupidity, aligned and enhanced

That is the trouble at times. When captains of ‘industry’ push for legal ‘solutions’ as they seemingly fall short of investor expectations. Well that is how I see it and the Herald Sun (at https://www.heraldsun.com/news/business/article293290914.html) hands you this with ‘Cary’s Epic Games sues Google again. Here’s what the new lawsuit claims.’ In this alignment we are given “As a federal judge weighs what corrective steps Google must take to remove barriers surrounding its Play Store, Cary’s Epic Games has accused the internet search giant of finding a new unlawful way to protect its Android app store monopoly.” I wonder how non-intelligent the connected judge is. You see the Play-store needs more protection, not less. When we are given “create an obstacle for Android owners to use third-party app stores like the Epic Games Store. Epic Games’ latest lawsuit focuses on a Samsung program called Auto Blocker, which stops users from downloading apps from sources other than the Google Play Store or Samsung Galaxy Store.” The danger is that ANY third party app store raises the danger of hackers and/or organised crime to get access to our mobile devices. And I will not allow ANY non-Google player to access my device. In addition, the judge is seen as the culprit if there isn’t a clear message that any play store can be prosecuted for transgressions on our mobile devices and sued for damages to our digital person as well as prosecuted of for data transgressions. This is what I saw coming when I wrote Epic downfall on November 12th 2021 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/11/12/epic-downfall/), when I wrote “I reckon that first issues will emerge within 3 months of the alternative to ApplePay path and it will not take long until lawyers will suit up for class actions all worth billions. Epic will need a lot more lawyers soon enough and it will cost them. It could constitute the dangers (for Epic) that 2021 started the downfall that could have been avoided, a setting they caused themselves and the greedy hackers saw a clear new target, Epic Games with a bullseye. A bullseye that will be painted on their CEO and CFO, what a wild web we tend to weave.” And now Epic goes on suing more (or better stated in other directions). There is a massive call of holding Epic Games accountable for what comes next, will the judge take that into account. All the people that Epic Games endangered for allowing this danger to reach over 800,000,000 devices? I guess not, but then we now have a picture as given in the Durham Herald Sun, so when your device is hacked due to these proceedings, I suggest to look him up and demand an explanation in person. 

Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

October 1, 2024 · 19:11

Two words

I saw an article by the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj31lpvnzl3o) where we are given ‘Netflix fails to get Baby Reindeer lawsuit dropped’ where we are given “The show, created by Richard Gadd, is billed as “a true story”, but certain key events, like the conviction for stalking, did not happen in real life, the judge concluded.” As we look at the ‘facts’ I got the idea that Netflix has a few more problems then they were ready for. Were they really ready for cutting the workforce? In 2023 we were given “The streaming giant said it was cutting 300 more jobs – roughly 4% of its workforce – mostly in the US, after axing 150 people in May” I wonder if one person was made redundant when that person could have given us the same solution that I had in mind and it would have saved them a court case. Instead of handing the viewer “a true story” when two words made the difference through “based on a true story” the word based hands the amounts of alleged inaccuracies towards creative writing and possibly makes the court case  thrown out and the defamation lawsuit falls flat. Now, I could be wrong here, but that I how I see it. In the meantime Netflix will optionally have a larger issue. When defamation becomes proven you will see dozens of involved people go over every movie that Netflix had on their channel for 2-5 years. Leave it to people to see their greed driven pupils draw attention towards that what could leave them loaded with cash. Perhaps a little skeptical, but that is where I am. You see if I could come up with the two words that could save Netflix a defamation case? Why didn’t Netflix come up with that.  But there is more, the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2024/sep/30/fiona-harvey-baby-reindeer-defamation-lawsuit-richard-gadd-netflix) gives us “the show was wrongly billed as a “true story” when Netflix “made no effort” to fact check Gadd’s story or disguise Harvey as the inspiration for Martha”. You see the fact check is another matter. I think that my suggestion could have prevented the case, but the fact check is another matter. I believe that any script writer could be ‘blamed’ for creative writing to give space towards super shrinking the alleged defamation case, but that is merely my point of view. So, what happens at Netflix? That is the question but that should require a lot more consideration on the structure of Netflix. To this part I raise the fact checking and the optional allotment of two words. And there  might be more issues in the weeds. For this I would need a lot more knowledge in the inner working of Netflix and my script(s) are meant for Dubai Media and the SBA (Al Arabiya in particular). So whilst the Guardian gives us “US district judge Gary Klausner noted that because the show’s episodes begin with the line “This is a true story”, it invited viewers to take the story as fact.” As such they didn’t need two more words, they merely needed to change the first two words and that was not done. As I see it, if I interpret the words by US district judge Gary Klausner correctly, my change would negate his observation, or so I believe.

How much would I have saved Netflix, and to be brazen, can I have a slice of that? It might be easier to ask Sergey Brin for $11,000,000 post taxation and a Canadian passport, but I don’t have his phone number. You see, even I am drawn in towards optional cash, but it doesn’t control me or make me greed driven. That is merely the smaller (and optionally more desperate) cluster of people.

Have a great day. We are all on the Wednesday clock. From Vancouver in the East through to Wellington in the west. 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Stories

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 28, 2024 · 00:09

The partial view that is seen

This partial view comes from the BBC. When I looked at the article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz04depp2nro) the headline gave us ‘Can diplomacy bring Middle East ceasefire? Early signs don’t bode well’ it was the second part of the headline that woke me up. We are given “What they meant was they saw getting an agreement from key European countries and Arab states, led by Washington, as a big diplomatic achievement during the current explosive escalation. But this was world powers calling for a ceasefire – not a ceasefire itself.” It holds part of the problem I see. We also get “The statement urges both Israel and Hezbollah to stop fighting now, using a 21-day truce, “to provide space” for further mediated talks. It then urges a diplomatic settlement consistent with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 – adopted to end the last Israel-Lebanon war of 2006, which was never properly implemented. It also calls for agreement on the stalled Gaza ceasefire deal.” The first part that got to me was “United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 – adopted to end the last Israel-Lebanon war of 2006, which was never properly implemented” There were ‘signals’ that were seemingly ignored. “It was unanimously approved by the United Nations Security Council on 11 August 2006. The Lebanese cabinet unanimously approved the resolution on 12 August 2006. On the same day, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said that his militia would honor the call for a ceasefire. He also said that once the Israeli offensive stops, Hezbollah’s rocket attacks on Israel would stop. On 13 August the Israeli Cabinet voted 24–0 in favour of the resolution, with one abstention. The ceasefire began on Monday, 14 August 2006 at 8 AM local time, after increased attacks by both sides.” Now we ‘see’ the message that the resolution (1701) was never properly implemented. It has been basically 18 years. So what wasn’t properly implemented? Why do we see this now after 18 years? My issue is that there are a number of issues, and there are more players than Israel and Hezbollah/Hamas involved. The journalists taking a back seat to whatever digital dollars they are trying to get. The second are the politicians, both the involved and those connected. So why did we not see the repeated messages (via the media) to state who is was lacking in implementation and why?

So there is more than the early signs. As I personally see it there is a lack of follow up in these cases. 

We then get “intensive diplomacy led by Washington has failed to reach a ceasefire and hostage release deal between Israel and Hamas, with the US currently blaming a lack of “political will” by Hamas and Israel. Meanwhile, the US has continued to arm Israel. That doesn’t inspire confidence that Washington and its allies can now strong-arm Israel and Hezbollah into a quick truce, especially given the fighting on the ground, the intensity of Israel’s air strikes and last week’s explosive pager attacks on Hezbollah, which has continued to fire into Israel.” The part that I do not agree with is “a lack of “political will” by Hamas and Israel.” My issue is that (possibly) both players here have seen a massive lack of commitment from several sides. The very first is given through “United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 – adopted to end the last Israel-Lebanon war of 2006, which was never properly implemented” I cannot tell who dropped the ball first, or which players lacked in their ‘commitments’ but there were players who failed (optionally merely Hezbollah and/or Israel), the simple setting taking us back 18 years as well as the fact that nowadays media (this last decade) is more driven to chase digital dollars then the news. That gives doubt to how far this thing goes. And it goes beyond the Lebanese borders. The setting that exists with Gaza is still evolving. The US administration, as well as the EU have been playing these settings fast and loose is a dangerous setting and these players are no longer regarded as reliable. That becomes the ball game. Mediation only works when the mediator or mediators are no longer trusted, no ceasefire will ever work. 

It is my speculation, one I had for many years is, that the EU and the USA have been playing a dangerous game, optionally staged towards ‘a one step tactic from destabilisation’ and in this the games that Iran is playing do not help and now that it all goes to (assumed) shit, no amount of ceasefire prays will offer any decent insight into any resolution. So the ‘early signs don’t bode well’ is to be expected. That is clear, is it not? 

If you wonder what can be done I am, like many others at a loss for words or advice. The problem is that too many player have had their own agenda in mind. That is less speculation, more presumption. In this I call for the first piece of evidence “United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 – adopted to end the last Israel-Lebanon war of 2006, which was never properly implemented” and the evidence is that in 1982 I worked for the United Nations Security Council, and they have failed to keep the audience (as far as I know) properly informed for 18 years? So what good were they? I understand that they do not inform the audience, but they do report, usually governments, and this gets to the media one way or another. As such I see a massive failure in play. And you wonder why either Israel or Hezbollah has issues with either (or both) America and the EU? I wonder if this setting is not better served by mediation through a joined council of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and USA. The USA is essential to get Israel on board. I doubt that they will accept merely the other three parties but that is merely my speculation in this.

So as I just sailed into the night of Saturday, have a great day and as Vancouver is trailing us by 17 hours. I can report to them that nothing is happening at 00:03. Have a great day, wherever you are.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 25, 2024 · 21:13

Good News

Well, it is good news of a sort. The Guardian reported yesterday (at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/23/violent-crime-murder-rate-fbi-2023) that ‘FBI confirms US murders declined in 2023, contrary to Republican claims’, it is here we get “Murder dropped by more than 11% in largest single-year decline in decades while rape and other crimes also fell”, as plenty of us consider the one nation that is mostly in decline (due to the Karen’s) it is nice that we see an article like this. We also get “Meanwhile, the broader category of violent crime nationwide decreased about 3%, said the data, which is audited and confirms earlier reporting from unaudited statistics”, as well as “the FBI said rape decreased by an estimated 9.4%, property crime dropped 2.4% and burglary fell by an estimated 7.6%”. Some say that it is nothing to write home about. The larger setting is that in a country as overloaded with 343,477,335 people both good and less so. These drops are nothing to be sneered at. I say hurrah to the police and FBI department on a national scale. I am still of the mind that criminals tend to find other ‘activities’ to fuel their need for greed and violence. What it is is anyone’s guess. In certain fields I tend to be a gloomy source of skepticism. And it is here that Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), said: “Data drives policy, and without having a complete understanding of the problem, we cannot effectively address this significant surge in hate violence” OK, I will agree with that. Data tends to be the driving instigator in understanding certain crimes. It is also a little weird that hate violence would be the driving power against sexual assaults and burglaries. One does not optionally fuel the other side and as such I feel uncertain what to think. That is the other side of data. The lack of numbers does not fuel the understanding into another side. It is not that we can state with any kind of ‘comprehension’ that (2022) 16 sexual assaults + 84 burglaries = 14 sexual assaults + 58 burglaries + 28 hate crimes (2023) it just presumptuously does not work that way. But in the end crime went down to some extent and for that we can say ‘hurray ye police departments’ and ‘hurray ye FBI’. We then get ““Our administration has improved and expanded background checks, announced the single largest investment in youth mental health in history, and been an unprecedented resource to states, cities, and local communities,” said Kamala Harris” I am less convinced here. I am not debating the soul and spirit of the thought, there is a larger stage to consider. I wrote a few years ago that the ATF is staggeringly underfunded and for the longest time there was no head at the organisation. There was a lack of IT funds and all kinds of settings that sets the ATF with decades of lack of innovations at their disposal. In addition, last year the WBUR (in 2023) gave its audience ‘Does the man enforcing the country’s gun laws have the tools to do the job?’ I had raised that amendment issue a few years earlier. They gave us “ATF protects the public from crimes involving firearms, explosives, arson, and the diversion of alcohol and tobacco products. Regulates lawful commerce in firearms and explosives, and provides worldwide support to law enforcement, public safety, and industry partners.” All whilst the gun lobby does everything to make things harder for the ATF. And all whilst all the Tech biggies (Amazon with AWS, Microsoft with Azure and Google with Gemini) have lacked in assisting the ATF in ways that work. I am not placing blame in any of those three, but the lack of innovation in IT power in the ATF is staggering. And in that setting the FBI and the local police forces need to do their work. Weird is it not? Then in 2020 we see ‘Rethinking ATF’s Budget To Prioritise Effective Gun Violence Prevention’ apart from the fact that the ATF was without a permanent director for seven years the wondering setting by Kamala Harris with “Our administration has improved and expanded background checks” but I have issues with the statement. I will fully agree with the statement that it was true, but consider a car in 2022 when it was going at a speed of 23 mph, the fact that it now does 43 mph makes the statement true, but when we consider that the fact that the ATF is to be seen as The Tiger Brigades (1974) where the officers relied on something not dissimilar of the Ford model T, the improvements would be impressive all whilst the criminals out there relied on their Lamborghini Countach LP400 (179 mph), you do see that the police has absolutely no way of winning. When we realise this a lot more could be done, but political players relying on the gun lobby donations are o so willing to throw a clog in the wheels (the origin of the expression saboteur) and the larger issue is not that America needs to stop crime. It is important that they are gaining access to the tools that allows them to do their job.

So I am not attacking the good news we were given, but the fact that the truth is that certain organisations were supposed to do their job with one hand on their back. The lacking funds for infrastructure does not help I reckon. 

All reasons for applauding the local police departments and the FBI for getting some of the work done. So to all involved: “Well Done!”

I am now pondering a thought I had yesterday and a larger premise. Not sure yet what to do, but it is a consideration to behold. And now, with my eyes on the Scotia bank on Yonge street (Toronto) I will sign off and enjoy a glass of ice tea.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 18, 2024 · 23:35

It’s fun to get it right

On the 11th of September I wrote ‘A brief recollection’, a story where I had issues with the setting of ‘monopolisation’ by Google and with that I also stated “Google innovated this market more than anyone ever considered. The fact that Microsoft has no chance and lacks expertise in software to make any dent in Google application is one part of the evidence. It also didn’t stifle competition, the fact that Microsoft had no option to push anything in Google’s path seems to me that this is the second part of the evidence is also nullified. After decades of ‘exploitation’ of customers, Google gave them all a fair chance. So why doesn’t anyone see that?” And now, less then four hours ago, the BBC gives us ‘Google scores rare legal win as 1.49bn euro fine scrapped’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62rjd363j1o) with the text “It said the Commission had not considered “all the relevant circumstances” concerning the contract clauses and how it defined the market. Because of this, it ruled the Commission did not establish “an abuse of dominant position.”” That was what I basically said. The lack of creativity by others (read Microsoft) is no evidence of abuse. Their failure to see an equal footing five times over (once by Apple, once by Amazon, once by Sony and twice by Google) is not a setting of dominant abuse, it is merely dominant captaincy due to a failing to set the stage on creativity and I myself am about to give that lesson to Microsoft twice more. So how stupid do they need to get? 

As such it seems that the legal profession had to admit defeat on the mere stage to scrap the fine with the quote “The Commission concluded Google had abused its dominance to prevent websites from using brokers other than AdSense when they were seeking adverts for their web pages”, which is not correct either. You see Microsoft has edge and its advertisement solution. It is however failing on several fronts It falls behind Chrome having 65% and behind Safari with its 18.5%, Edge has a mere 5.3%. And behold, Safari is only on Mac systems. In February 2024 MacOS systems had a mere 15.42% and PC’s had over 72% and even in that environment Edge has a mere 5.3%, failing to come close to Safari. Does that not tell you something. It isn’t that Google is abusing dominance, there simply isn’t anything close to compatible. It isn’t abuse, there is simply no equivalent in that game and the advertisement game is cut throat to say the least. And as I see that, I see two additional blows I can give Microsoft and that pretty much ends Microsoft to be the competitor. It is a mere agent of mediocrity and as such it loses more and more market share. I can give (for a fee) one to Google and the other one to Amazon and they can show Microsoft what it is to be dead last in a game that only has space for the victor. Soon America will try its luck on shaking down Google for cash as we are told “The US government is also taking the tech giant to court over the same issue, with prosecutors alleging its parent company, Alphabet, illegally operates a monopoly in the market.” I wonder how they tend to prove that when the competitors (mainly Microsoft) are showing to be ridiculously short changed on competition. As I see it, it is a court session waiting to fail. The nice side is that I could optionally still rely on Kingdom Holding and Tencent Technology to enter a deal with me to broker technology and is definitely worth it when it comes to Kingdom Holding, and optionally Tencent Technology would be a worth the talk to. Amazon waked away from this and once these two setting pan out, all can see how much of a shortage Microsoft had. And that is a shortage that has been visible to those who think critically for at least a decade. The media spin has no hold over them and as we are told ‘Microsoft Wants To Stop The Next CrowdStrike Error Before It Causes PC Shutdown’ a mere 10 hours ago is set against “Microsoft even got everyone together at a security summit earlier this month where the company had talks about changing the dynamics of who can access the Windows kernel and control the changes” with the added “Microsoft realises that unrestricted access to Windows kernel is the big reason why the Crowdstrike outage occurred in the first place. It was even pointed out that Apple will never give that kind of access to its partners and vendors, which explains why no Mac machine was down on that day.” As such we get that MAC systems never had the issue and the collaborated events give rise to the stage that the CrowdStrike issues could optionally still happen. Did anyone guess what happens to cloud systems when this is not addressed in the next 48 hours? How many vendors will switch to AWS as such? When we consider that “changing the dynamics of who can access the Windows kernel and control the changes” could not normally be resolved in 48 hours at all. This is the setting that Microsoft is up against and that is all before we realise that it is a fundamental shift required in search and advertisement systems that makes Edge even less of a competitor soon enough and that gives Google more leeway. That realisation is what these courts are fighting against. There is no monopoly when there is not competition. And Microsoft is no longer any kind of interfering factor. That merely leaves Google, Amazon and Apple. Amazon holds 7.3% of the online ad market, Apple gets 30% from Google, which only leaves the optional others. And when we consider that Amazon has a bigger share than Microsoft/Edge. How much of a competitor was Microsoft to begin with? So who is setting the fictive breach towards ‘abusive monopoly’? Isn’t that the critical question? What voices speak to the EU and US lawmakers? That is the question that matters and I personally think that it is those who have a personal gain through Microsoft stages that are screaming murder. They bet on the wrong horse and as I see it Microsoft is a horse no show. The EU had to cancel that €1.49B euro fine as this could optionally backfire as well. The stage as I saw it was always different. As Microsoft went its way into the boardrooms, they forgot that those dozen people (times Fortune 500) depend on millions of workers doing stuff and that was where Google grew. And the Microsoft strategy fell flat. I myself found another nice worth billions in pretty much the same way. As such one of my solutions was primarily for Amazon as Google dropped their Stadia, which made the Amazon Luna the only contender and Microsoft with its solution fell flat behind Sony (PlayStation) and Nintendo (Switch), yet Tencent came roaring with its solution and became a contender. This shows how certain people in the US are using the Department of Justice and as (September 9th) we were given “According to the lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice (DoJ) and a coalition of states in 2023, Google dominates the digital ad marketplace and has leveraged its market power to stifle innovation and competition.” I see the same failing happen under Google “leveraged its market power to stifle innovation and competition” and equal shortage as there are no innovators (they heed to solve their CrowdStrike issues before they also lose the cloud market and there is no competition as there is a competition of one, that is no monopoly, it is the lack of equally sharp minded people gaining serious forward momentum. That is the actual stage and that was the setting all along. And the setting is easy to fathom. Consider the mere first strike “On the 9th of October 2006, YouTube was purchased by Google for $1.65 billion” In 2006 Microsoft had the cash and the option to buy this, but they did not. 

The former employees of PayPal were out there and Microsoft didn’t see the option. That is how much they failed for 18 years. After that Microsoft had at least three options to compete, but they did not. 2005, 2006, and 2014. Microsoft did nothing (as far as I know). More over in September 2016 ByteDance created TikTok. In 4 years it surpassed 2 billion downloads and still Microsoft was in the dark on what they had missed. You think this is not related, but it is. The competitors a near complete lack of comprehending its audience for close to 18 years and that is where the Department of Justice comes in? Competition is created by the players who understand their audience. It is something that is known for half a century. A monopoly is created when there are like minded players stifle matters like innovations (which requires innovators) and competition (which requires market share) most (especially Microsoft) failed on both matters. Amazon had its own niche market and had its own 7.3%. The only one with any right to cry foul (or is that fowl) is ByteDance, but the Department of Justice are silencing that voice. 

So as I am having fun because I saw the field correctly all along will (hopefully) soon have two more reasons to roll on the floor laughing and the fun part is that a player like Microsoft is too stupid to see the audience that they are disregarding. 

I wonder what the American DoJ will make of that.

Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 11, 2024 · 03:01

A brief recollection

Yesterday I saw an article (source: BBC) that gave me reason to give a little recollection. The article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg2dpkpmv1o) giving us ‘Google’s lucrative ad tech business goes on trial’ and the text “A trial beginning on Monday will hear the Department of Justice’s case that the search engine’s parent company Alphabet illegally operates a monopoly in the market.” set me off. You see, I worked on that system as an operator, a technical account manager if you prefer. I worked on this system in 2015. This is important because in the nine following years Microsoft and its ‘system’ Bing couldn’t even remotely get anything working that presented some weak looking imitation. The system was that excellent. And excellent is the operative word. You see before that advertising agencies were taking their clients in some kind of a looting ride. Prices were out of this world for the advertisers. It was a business limited to big business. The Google ad system was made so that everyone had a clear possibility, a fair system that didn’t overcharge, something that wasn’t possible before. That was a new approach to advertising. 

Bid for placeCharged
9.001.28
3.001.27
2.001.26
1.251.25

The setting was that the higher bid was only charged one cent more than the previous one. The advertisement agencies would pocket the difference from $7.62 of the first bidder. Now consider this happening ten thousands of times every day. When you realise this you see how this was the better system. There was no monopoly, customers suddenly had a fair chance to their advertisement options. That part is missing. It is not the fault of the BBC, they merely report. They also give us “Alphabet has argued its success is due to the “effectiveness” of its services – but prosecutors say it has used its market dominance to stifle rivals” which is exactly what I am saying. But the prosecutors are exaggerating (as anyone would suggest). We then get ““It is a really important industry that grabs billions of consumer dollars every year,” said Laura Phillips-Sawyer, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law.” A statement (possibly taken out of context) from a law professor from Georgia. The less excusable statement was “grabs billions of consumer dollars every year”, that is where my example comes in. This is not the way of this system. It tempers the cost and need for ‘over’ bidding. I gave an example of four, but the list goes on for a lot more. This illustrates the loss of Laura Phillips-Sawyer and how little she knows of this system. So its not “I think all consumers have an interest in this litigation”, I believe that Microsoft minded people want to get into this business and the prosecutor is a possible way for these people to get in. 

As such we see that the statement “Google dominates the digital ad marketplace and has leveraged its market power to stifle innovation and competition” Google innovated this market more than anyone ever considered. The fact that Microsoft has no chance and lacks expertise in software to make any dent in Google application is one part of the evidence. It also didn’t stifle competition, the fact that Microsoft had no option to push anything in Google’s path seems to me that this is the second part of the evidence is also nullified. After decades of ‘exploitation’ of customers, Google gave them all a fair chance. So why doesn’t anyone see that? How come that this is not shown to us all? Is it perhaps that the prosecutor has the ear of those people who lost their golden eggs? I am stating that not only is Google innocent in this, the world doesn’t realise how fair this system is. And the wannabe’s want to hack into this system for their own selfish needs. We are also given “It argues that competition in the digital ad space is growing, not contracting – citing increased ad growth and revenues for companies such as Apple, Amazon and TikTok as proof”, in this I say that the digital ad space is growing because Google made it more fair and as such players like Apple, Amazon and TikTok are given a space where they have millions more to advertise against the once exploitative system. What we do not get to see is that I enabled dozens of advertisers, small business units to get a grasp of advertisement space on. Monthly basis. They had the option to set a budget for as little as $5 a month to get several placements every day. Yes, they might not be above the fold as the expression goes, but they were on the page. The advertisement agencies would not have even talked to those. Now consider that this happens to tens of thousands of customers and realise that the statement “I think all consumers have an interest in this litigation” becomes folly.

When we consider this the statement “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly” is equally folly. And I wonder who Judge Amit Mehta was serving. Even as the judge was an optional idolising fair play person we need to realise that the Google rank system was re-invented

The eigenvalue problem behind PageRank’s algorithm was independently rediscovered and reused in many scoring problems. 

In 1895, Edmund Landau suggested using it for determining the winner of a chess tournament. The eigenvalue problem was also suggested in 1976 by Gabriel Pinski and Francis Narin, who worked on scientometrics ranking scientific journals, in 1977 by Thomas Saaty in his concept of Analytic Hierarchy Process which weighted alternative choices, and in 1995 by Bradley Love and Steven Sloman as a cognitive model for concepts, the centrality algorithm. (Source: wiki). 

Now consider that Sergey Brin and Larry Page made this system 30 years ago based on ideas dating back to (as quoted) 1895. And then three times more and no one at Microsoft woke up. They were all so focussed on greed and gaining the attention of board of directors at big business. Google focussed on the millions of people working there and getting the attention of people who needed a better option. “As of September 24, 2019, all patents associated with PageRank have expired” and now these systems are under attack. However, the data is already with Google and the larger players (read: Microsoft) will need decades to catch up and they know they are not able to, in case of Microsoft I personally believe that they merely have at most 24 months left until they collapse and that is it for the once computer behemoth. As per now, fr a player like Microsoft, the ad space is a much safer option to recollect lost revenue and keep their head above water. I admit that this is speculative, but it makes the most sense. Even in 1995 I saw how Microsoft was lagging behind, but they had serious problems (read: Netscape) and it get worse after that. But that is not the aim of this article. As I have shown here Google was a true innovator and you need to wonder if monopoly is a valid setting when all the others cannot even get close because their innovators are merely presented spinners, or optionally previous exploiters. How is it a monopoly when there is no other realistic contender for the crown? Is an island with a population of one totalitarian in nature?

Simple questions that are hard to answer. Enjoy your day today, this fine Wednesday where we start yearning for the coming weekend.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 7, 2024 · 03:34

Is the media now too corrupt?

That is the question that I saw coming my way (via my brain). I stumbled on an article accusing something bad, in many ways. The issue becomes that there was only ONE source. No one touched the article. Does it make it fake news? Or is the media now so corrupt that Microsoft gets a pass on everything? It is a serious question. You see the story starts with ‘Bombshell allegations that Microsoft is using Chinese employees inside China to oversee DoD, Federal government cloud infrastructure’ after all the anti-China rumbles, they are OK with this? 

The article (at https://lawenforcementtoday.com/bombshell-allegations-that-microsoft-using-chinese-employees-inside-china-to-oversee-dod-federal-government-cloud-infrastructure) gives plenty to worry about. If not Microsoft then at least the media. The setting tarts with “In September 2023, FBI Director Christopher Wray told a conference that China has a “bigger hacking program” than the competition. He warned that Beijing has a “cyber espionage program so vast that it is bigger than all of its major competitors combined.”” And it gets a lot worse after that. We get “Tom Schiller, a senior software developer with a stellar resume, is the CEO of Next Defense, a consultancy agency specialising in Virtual Reality and Artificial Intelligence for defense training. Schiller is a subject matter expert. He reached out to Law Enforcement Today, and what he told us was chilling. He told us of a program hatched between Microsoft and the Obama administration that is directly tied to China and puts our national security in peril.” This is the first setting that the media should have referred to this article. They have no issues copying text on faceless accusations against Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, but this is not touched? And I waited a fair amount of hours (in case all the media was suddenly asleep). And before you think that this is nothing we get “After the raid, a China-based Microsoft spokesperson emailed, “We’re serious about complying with China’s laws and committed to SAIC’s questions and concerns.” That statement contradicts the Microsoft president’s statement before the House Homeland Security Committee in June 2014, when he said that the Chinese government had previously ordered the company to comply with their laws and probes. He said the Chinese were told that he “was not allowed that and will not.” Schiller also noted that Microsoft has shared source code with China and let them insert their own source code into Microsoft’s proprietary source code. That is a direct contradiction to the Microsoft president’s statement to Congress.” So we get the setting that a key member of Microsoft made a statement to Congress that seemingly is found to be contradictive. Take time to read the article, there is way too much in there and copying the text seems a little overactive, so I am putting a pdf version of that page at the end of the article. So the end does give a hot stick of dynamite. 

We are given “Schiller advised Gimenez that he had alerted the DoD CIO and DISA IG about a possible breach in the US cloud infrastructure. 

“In my expert opinion, the breach has significantly compromised all U.S. Government and DoD cloud services, posing a grave ongoing and present danger to our nation’s security and the safety of the American people. He continued to explain to Gimenez Microsoft’s use of “un-cleared Chinese nationals based in China to conduct and control over 90% of the work and support for the Microsoft U.S. Government and DoD cloud environments,” explaining that the “authorisation agreement…was inadequately written, leaving things open-ended and unclarified.” He told Gimenez that “Microsoft has taken full advantage of this and has in turn used to essentially hand over control of the U.S. Sovereign Cloud to China,” adding that this had “actively been going on since around 2016.” Schiller told Gimenez he has “three additional senior-level whistleblowers from the Microsoft U.S. Government and DoD contract who are prepared to testify.” Schiller asked Gimenez to contact him so a complete briefing of facts could take place.” So lets recap the lessons of history. America goes anti China in a heartbeat. It sanctions Huawei (A Chinese company) and tells Europe to stop handing business deals to Huawei and now we see that China is managing the clouds of the Department of Defence and the US Governments? Where is the logic in this? 

And the way the media is silencing this makes even less sense. They weren’t the source and they could have stuck with their usual BS (like inserting words like ‘alleged’ and ‘anonymous sources let us know’) we see non of that and only ONE article comes up in Google Search? This does not make sense. I will not blame Microsoft without ‘evidence’ but this article is a clear setting of time going back to 2022 and no one saw this? 

I wonder if the media suddenly wakes up, their is something amiss in all of this. It is either one side, or the other side. In this scenario there is no non-side. Oh and the source of this piece was Law Enforcement Today, so I would side with the fact that this is a serious stage for the United States, or do we call them the Peoples Republic of America from this forward?

So have a nice day and remember in China they prefer Long Jing tea, you should have some in stock if you are in America.

Bombshell allegations that Microsoft is using Chinese employees inside China to oversee DoD, FederalDownload

1 Comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 3, 2024 · 19:37

The Saudi Dissent

There is a premise, the utter need of the so called utter mighty to be kept in check. That is not a new saying, it goes back to the days of the roman empire. Some refer to this as ‘power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely’ This is to a larger stage true for all christian based governments. As first piece of evidence I would like to submit the Treaty of Clermont 1094, it set the beginning of the crusades under Pope Urban II. There are examples that go deep into the Roman Empire days with one year having 4 Roman emperors. But this example is the setting we get from a derivation of that saying, but more stated as ‘power corrupts, wannabe powers corrupt a lot quicker’. This is the premise and with this we get to the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gz8934wrro) The piece has a setting of baloney (as the phrase goes) and with “We were surprised that there was a royal decree to allow the ground interventions,” Jabri says. “He forged the signature of his dad for that royal decree. The king’s mental capacity was deteriorating.” It is a stage where I left the article for the most, but as we now see this being copied all over the western media. It is time to take up the baton calling the media on their BS. You see, what evidence is there? Is it Saad al-Jabri? He is both an alleged traitor and alleged thief. For this I need to take you back to another article I wrote in 2020 (August 11th) in ‘The 51st State’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/08/11/the-51st-state/), I had an issue with him then. The media never caught on it seems. The first was the quote

Gulf News (at https://gulfnews.com/world/gulf/saudi/report-fugitive-saudi-official-misspent-11b-in-government-funds-1.72662340) gives us ‘Fugitive Saudi official misspent $11b in government funds’, and lets face it, if I walked away with $11,000,000,000 I would move to Canada, buy the Edmonton Oilers, or the Calgary Flames, buy a nice mansion in either city, train to be their goalie and live the life until I die. It is a plan, not a plan everyone will embrace, but I like that plan, especially if I have that much money.

We then get :

Oh, and the quote gives is “Al Jabri, a 61-year-old with a doctorate in computer science, was the virtual No 2 in the Saudi Interior Ministry, which was run for years by Mohammed bin Nayef. Al Jabri ran a special ministry fund that mixed government spending on high-priority antiterrorism efforts with bonuses for himself and others, according to documents reviewed by the Journal and interviews with Saudi officials and Al Jabri’s confidants,” the WSJ report read”. In all this and in fact of that accusation of corruption and through that (as well as) “spending on high-priority antiterrorism efforts with bonuses for himself and others”, who else was paid? So in this, how much investigation was done by the FBI, for did they allegedly acquire enough self-funding to be above the law? I am merely asking!

This should have given us the setting that we need to dissect anything the man gives us especially as there is a realistic chance that the Government of Saudi Arabia has a sore feeling about the west being a speaking platform for people like that. If there was ANY evidence, we were not given it and that stage has been around for over 4 years (at present)

Then we get to 2021, the eighth of December in ‘Six of one’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/12/08/six-of-one/) There we get a few items, like

So as some might remember “Aljabri gained worldwide attention last year when he filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., alleging he had been the target of a failed assassination plot orchestrated by Mohammed bin Salman”, an assassination attempt? In Canada? So why is the US courts involved? Why is this not set in Canada? Then we get “Sakab Saudi Holding Company, “had no operational business” despite receiving $8 billion US in government funding and was used “almost exclusively” as a vehicle to funnel money to the other companies”. My issue here is not merely whether this is on the up and up, it is happening under the noses (optionally with blessing) of the CSIS, this is an Unites States setting (with $8,000,000,000) and it is happening in Canada. 

As well as:

what we get is “he made at least $385M — and says there’s ‘nothing unusual’ about it”, really? Last time most people made a mere few millions, close to every tax agent within 50 miles came calling for a cup of coffee, but then I must have forgotten about the US and their $8,000,000,000 investment opportunity.

Now we get the first bullet (as the saying goes), these interviews are 4 years old, at no time was there a mention of forged signatures. And this was after 4 years of Yemeni atrocities by Houthi terrorists. So I have issues. Is this some drip-drip intelligence setting? If so, the US and its CIA, as well as the NSA have been sleeping at the wheel and this in pushed onto CSIS territory. 

He did more interviews, as far as I remember the Toronto Star, the BBC, CBC and Wall Street Journal. They all dropped the ball on journalism and now the Times is following them. I have an issue with an alleged criminal with these transgressions to get such a speaking platform. Now, there could be a case that there is evidence and I think that this needs to be shown. Oh, and I have some jealousy issues with any governmental person gets to go home with well over $385,000,000, we all would have that. Perhaps a little more transparency by the CIA would have helped that these positions of government have such pay checks. It as that simple a setting and the CIA should have seen that. These simple ad-hoc statements without evidence is something the media should know better that to merely accept them. It gives the nasty vibe that they are doing the work of governments making Saudi Arabia look bad. It is somewhat of a repetition that Clermont give us in 1094. Didn’t we basically went on a pilferage there, calling it pilgrimage? That was over 1000 years ago and we are still seeing the fallout from that event.

In a ‘fair’ space Saudi Arabia might decide to lower the delivery of oil to Europe and America by 100,000 barrels a day each and offer that to China for the same amount (no real reason that it should cost Saudi Arabia). I reckon China will happily agree and Europe as well as America? Well, you made a platform for a alleged thief and alleged traitor (the display of evidence towards the forged autograph will prove that part). I reckon that these two places will implode a lot faster then they thought. 

That is merely my oversimplification of the Gordian knot. Sometimes it is just better to burn what its tying. As people will shout that I am wrong. This is fair enough, but they opened the door of spouting news without evidence or justification. The interviews going back to 2020 are online and visible. So where is the mention? There is no stage of ‘it was complex’ a non-monarch is accused of forging the monarchs signature. In the western world that is high treason and in the near past they hung people for that (see: Nuremberg trials).

Oh before I forget, I just uncovered a wannabe mole in the CIA. Can I collect please? I know it will not be $385,000,000. Yet a $38,500,000 fee is reasonable (I think). It allows me my apartment in Toronto and a house in Golden Oaks Orlando. So I can celebrate an abundant retirement in Disney World and Universal world (both in Orlando). There is an option that the CIA will object to(fair enough), but then they should give us the evidence, don’t you agree? Lets not forget that the US courts did not allow the Saudi lawyers to present evidence in their courts. Turnabout is such a nasty feeling when you become the object of evidence. 

Still, have a great day. As the Vancouverians are joining us in this Tuesday, the whole planet is now aligned to the same day. Enjoy.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 31, 2024 · 10:20

If you Musk, you Musk

That setting is a much larger setting then we realise. The BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o) gives us ‘Musk’s X banned in Brazil after disinformation row’ and I honestly don’t get it. He has the premise of gaining billions closing in on a trillion in business. We get to see “X, formerly Twitter, has been banned in Brazil after failing to meet a deadline set by a Supreme Court judge to name a new legal representative in the country” and that is merely the beginning. Judge Alexandre de Moraes has suspended X (aka Twitter) until that is done and in addition Musk sets all fines that are outstanding. I have no idea how much that amounts to. The larger premise is that Musk is sitting on IP that could gain him close to a trillion, if only these people had woken up. The current setting is that this case could invigorate a much larger anti-Musk stage and Twitter (aka X) could be banned from a whole range of nations with anti-Musk feelings. That is not a given, but Brazil just opened that door. Basically any nation with a right wing nuisance could entertain that premise diminishing Twitter and as such Jack Dorsey could buy back X/Twitter for 125 million after selling it for $44,000,000,000 not a bad deal for a 3 year gap. I surmised that it was only worth a maximum of 24 billion at that time. As such Jack Dorsey could be making a killing on the deal whilst the value of that company doubles in the first month he regains control. They say that a foolish billionaire and his money are soon parted, but here that expression takes on a whole new meaning.

And it got so far because Twitter/X, Meta and Telegram because they would not set the larger premise. There needs to be accountability and they all were eager to avoid those. Now we see that social media is being thumped on by a whole range of governments. There is such a think as accountability. I already said so in 2013, now we see that governments have had enough and this first case is likely to open the floodgates. 

If is an attack on free speech? No, I do not believe it is so. People should have free speech, but not under the guise of anonymity. If you disagree, say so, but the digital world sees a lot more flames and digital waves when they can say things without revealing themselves. It is the stopgap for chaos to spread their wings. The media has everything to do with this and they are equally guilty (like ‘unnamed sources told us’). So when was that at any time a long standing solution?

Now Elon Musk is cutting his own fingers and soon the solution he had for the world will be largely ignored, and if accepted there will be massive constraints, which would cost him up to 20% from what he could have had. In my book 20% is a lot and when you get close to a trillion it is a lot more than I have ever seen (many like me have that setting).

There is another side to this. At this point Mastodon, Reddit, Threads, Bluesky, Discord, Tumblr, and Truth Social will get to have a place to gain market share against the accounts of Twitter/X. It might not be much, but it is a start. As more nations follow suit there places will gain momentum whilst Twitter/X could she well over 10% of the accounts and even when reinstated, the time gives the others time to get the advertisement revenue that Musk losses. So how will he bring that news to the people who invested in that 44 billion dollar caper? They want to see cash and when that doesn’t come Elon Musk must put up his own cash or lose a lot more. That wasn’t hard was it?

And with the early threat that Musk is pulling out of Europe (October 2023). It becomes an early grave for Twitter. China has its own settings and that will become an increasing pressure whilst one person (aka Elon Musk) gets to live with the invoked byline ‘2022-2025 where has my $44,000,000,000 gone’. A weird setting for a person who at one time had the products that everyone on the planet wanted. 

The higher the climb the harder they fall. Enjoy your day

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,