Category Archives: Law

March 2, 2021 · 00:10

There is a voice

There is always a voice, it goes into one direction, it goes another way, but there is always a voice.  In my Cale the voice belongs to Reuters and it gave us all yesterday ‘Don’t bully Riyadh, Saudi columnists tell Biden administration’, it is nice to see this, especially after stating that very thing for weeks. The article (at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-khashoggi-media/dont-bully-riyadh-saudi-columnists-tell-biden-administration-idUSKCN2AS0BN) gives us “Saudi Arabia, which has relied on the United States for its defence including during the first Gulf War and after 2019 attacks on its massive oil infrastructure, could look to China and Russia for weapons”, the writer Malik states this and I think he is right, in my case the optional $75,000,000 meal ticket has almost nothing to do with it, my larger frame is the sickening hypocrisy that I see from both the US as well as the UK and the EU, so as I am trying to optionally increase that meal ticket to $225,000,000 we need to realise that these three dumbo’s are about to lose billions in revenue in a time where they cannot afford it, but I do not care, hypocrisy comes at a cost and whilst they fail another nuclear accord with Iran, whilst they fail to see the larger stage that Iran cannot be dealt with anymore than a petulant 5 year old will listen to the summarisation of responsibilities and I reckon we need to prepare Saudi Arabia for the larger problems coming their way and if the EU and the US will not prepare them China who is roaring to set the Chengdu to a larger field, they will have they option of raking in the gold and other benefits. The Biden administration and its tools had their misfortune and now they will get some more, it is a simple application of protocol NAH5 (nah, nah, nah, nah, nah).

And me ending optionally (read: hopefully) up with up to $225,000,000 is just icing on the cake. So not only did tools at the CAAT end up missing their goal, they are also the larger party responsible for the UK missing out on billions. Good luck with that!

It gets to be worse when you consider “Abdullah al-Otaibi, writing in London-based Asharq al-Awsat newspaper which is Saudi-owned, said the kingdom, Washington’s oldest Arab ally, was “not a banana republic to be shaken by threats”” the people need to realise that in 2021 and 2022, companies like Salini Impregilo (now: WeBuild) could miss out on hundreds of millions in contracts, contracts that China and Russia will be quarrelling over. And that is merely the tip of the iceberg, So now we have optional contracts that could aid the coffers of the US, UK, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, now all going towards China and Russia. It is a buyers market and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the buyer, make no mistake about that. So when we see these facts and we add ““We want to strengthen deep-rooted ties (with the U.S.) but not at the expense of our sovereignty. Our judiciary and our decisions are a red line,” Fahim al-Hamid wrote in Okaz newspaper” all whilst I have written about the issues in both the UN and the US reports, a stage that I showed a mere three days ago (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/02/27/that-was-easy/) in the article ‘That was easy!’ And then consider what the well (read; overly) paid people claim all whilst they cannot legally back it up. They are now setting the stage of you all to be in extended poverty. When exactly was that ever a good idea?

And you do not need to take my word for it, I included the documents, make up your own mind and see how the legal bitches are all relying on emotion to set the blame whilst making sure that Iran is not mentioned at all (or to the minimum extent) and Iran has been part of the problem for well over a decade, wonder why you will have to pay for that, especially as these people are relying on ‘guilty until proven innocent’ all whilst they are making sure that there is too much confusion in the entire process. If I get to pick up some nice bits because of their stupidity, it will suit me just fine, and let’s be clear, when you rely on populism and emotion to bring legal settings to a place where none apply, it is stupidity plain and simple.

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

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

February 27, 2021 · 08:17

That was easy!

Yup, the report (all three pages) took seconds and the setting of the non-guilt setting of MBS is seen on page 2. Even if we want to give weight to “We base this assessment on the Crown Prince’s control of decision making in the Kingdom”, it was never going to be hard, but the setting of ‘We base this’, ‘we’ being the people who claimed that there were WMD’s in Iraq was never going to be realistic, but you know, we all get surprises at time. The three pages (optionally a much larger report that is still classified) is not enough and even as we can giggle over “We have high confidence that the following individuals participated in, ordered, or were otherwise complicit in or responsible for the death of Jamal Khashoggi”, it has no legal value. It is what you can prove that matters. And in that we need to return to the UN essay that Agnes Callamard wrote. There we see (and it matters). 

This start at [29] where we see “Mr. Khashoggi’s execution is emblematic of a global pattern of targeted killing of, and threats against, journalists and media workers that is regularly denounced by States, UN agencies, Special Procedures, and by numerous international and national human rights organisations.” You see, my issue is with the word ‘execution’ which means “the carrying out of a sentence of death on a condemned person”, meaning that there is a body (at least one would think), then there is ‘a global pattern of targeted killing’ which is a different can of worms at present. Yet it is at [39] when we are given “Intelligence gathering is an open-ended process, and there is rarely a definitive point at which “enough” intelligence has been harvested. Think of a conveyer belt moving information from often disparate sources constantly in front of intelligence officers.  At some point, there comes a time when an intelligence service or operative simply has to make a stab at assimilating what all this means.” It is a fair assessment, and like the WMD’s in Iraq, we need to consider ‘an intelligence service or operative simply has to make a stab at assimilating what all this means’, this can be surmised into one single word ‘Speculation!’, it is fair for Intelligence operatives to do, but in law it is set to evidence and there is none, something I saw in 10 minutes into the initial report. This is about petulant children complaining that the next regent of Saudi Arabia is one that they do not like. Oh, boo hoo hoo hoo hoo! Go cry me a river somewhere else please.

The one lollipop I was keeping back was seen at [41], it is “Recordings of only seven different conversations over a two-day period were made available to the inquiry. Combined these amounted to 45 minutes of tape, when, according to Turkish Intelligence, they had access to at least seven hours of recordings. The remaining six hours and 15 minutes may or may not be relevant to the inquiry, but without doubt there remains much more recorded information than that made available to the Special Rapporteur”, as well as “The Special Rapporteur was not allowed to obtain clones of the recordings so she could not authenticate any of the recordings. Among other aspects, such authentication would have involved examination of the recordings’ metadata such as when, how the data were created, the time and date of creation and the source and the process used to create it.” As such we are given that they merely got a partial recording, the stage where recordings were not copied, implying that there is a bigger mess and one that surpasses ‘when, how the data were created’, and the bigger issue is that there is no digital forensic evidence that the person on the tape is actually Jamal Khashoggi, lets not forget that in the proxy war against Iran, Turkey supports Iran, as such they have all kinds of reasons to make the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia look bad. And that is merely assuming that the hardware is of a nature that it allows the creation of metadata in the first place. 

And the noise is completed at [44] where we are given “To evaluate the recordings, in the absence of copies or clones, she asked for the expert opinion of others who had access to the recordings, including representatives of foreign governments. Their opinions were given to her informally. She also, to the extent possible, triangulated Intelligence (information and analysis) with other facts, such as CCTV footage, interviews, contextual information, historical patterns”, as such, the word ‘experts’ is seen 13 times, but where is that list of experts exactly? And in light of ‘others who had access to the recordings’, it comes with ‘Their opinions were given to her informally’, in what court of law would that hold up? All this analyses, informal, and the setting os speculation and assumption is all over the place, all whilst in law we have a setting that is ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’, a threshold that is never ever met in anything here. There is a lot more, but I will not bore you with that, I will merely add both documents at the bottom

Even that work of fiction ‘Blood and Oil’ uses rhetoric to make a case that never was. I honestly had expected a much larger task in determining guilty or not-guilty in the entire Khashoggi mess that the media was trying to hold over our heads, and I can clearly state that in all this Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud is not guilty.

All the time we were given ‘it could be’, or ‘what we were able to gather’ was a stage for all the click bitches in the world to click on article after article, the media has become this pathetic to get some revenue (and visibility). All whilst the report that gives us “the Crown Prince’s support for using violent measures to silence dissidents abroad”, a stage that is not met with actual facts and factual evidence. When we call for that the only thing we will get is a lot of silence. 

Is anyone catching up on that yet? What are you still missing in this? I got some of the answers, but watching you find them is so much more fun, because it also proves just how unreliable some of the media has become.

assessment-saudi-gov-role-in-jk-death-20210226Download
a_hrc_41_crp.1Download

10 Comments

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

February 25, 2021 · 22:32

Filter by Gender.

Yup we have all done it, we tend to filter. The horny (especially teenagers) want to talk, chat and video whatever to the members of the other gender (well, most of them anyway). We filter by the needs we have, business needs, personal needs and artistic needs, we filter. There is for the most nothing wrong with that. Yet it also tends to keep you in a little box. I come from the previous internet era, I never got into Napster but I loved Audiogalaxy. I had it so I could listen to music when I was travelling and it opened up doors. I learned about the Corrs, Bond, the Dixie Chicks, Linkin Park, Orbital and a few others. It grew my CD collection by leaps and that made me happy, in an age where my work kept me from MTV, Audiogalaxy showed me other venues of music. I forwent the filter and I learned about and got to appreciate bands I would never have considered. Filtering is not all bad.

Yet what happens when filtering goes overboard in another direction? Today I learned a new word, I word I should have been aware of but I do not remember hearing it. The word is ‘Femicide’ and it is not a good word. It was Al Jazeera that made me aware, the article ‘Rage boils over amid Argentina’s unrelenting femicide crisis’ (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/24/rage-boils-over-amid-argentinas-unrelenting-femicide-crisis). It got my attention in the first as it was about Argentina and my mother was from there. In the second it was the by-line “Femicide of 18-year-old Ursula Bahillo pushed thousands into the streets of Buenos Aires this month to demand action”. In this there are two parts, the first is “About 87,400 results” (when we look for Ursula Bahillo) and the second part is that the big newspapers are missing on the news search result on the first page. A Spanish version from the BBC is at the bottom of the page, no Washington Post, no NY Times, no Times, no Guardian (the list goes on) and it sickens me for another reason. You see, one hour ago the Guardian gives us ‘Princess Latifa letter urges UK police to investigate sister’s Cambridge abduction’, some princess gets the news on optionally being abducted and whilst Al Jazeera reports “Nearly 300 femicides were reported in the country in 2020”, other newspapers keep us in the dark and these idiots demand money from Facebook and Google, whilst not informing us? I see this as one of the clearest ‘What the Fuck?’ moments of the year.

I never felt comfortable bout honour killings. I understand that it exist and in those countries there is an issue, I am massively against that setting in other nations. I cannot convict it as I am not Muslim, yet outside of Muslim nations it is an issue, yet femicide should not be ANYWHERE and the fact that we are kept in the dark by most papers is a larger issue, but I will let you worry about that. It kind of intersects with ‘Australia urged to follow allies in denouncing China’s repression of Uighurs as ‘genocide’’, the fact that genocide is happening and someone needs to ‘urge’ Australia shows that we are not as evolved as we think we are. By the way, the first 5 pages of that search shows no Australian papers at all, as such should they be allowed to exist? That is a more serious question than you think. If the ACCC are all about media laws and the need to blame tech companies, in this my message after seeing ‘ACCC chief claims victory after Facebook standoff’ to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chair Rod Sims will be “Sir, I consider you to be a fucking joke! You are hereby responsible to make sure that the events around Ursula Bahillo are to be seen in EVERY Australian newspaper as per immediate. If you (as it seems) champion discrimination, you need to be openly told this”, my issue here is that Microsoft was left out of the media consideration, they were waiting all their resources on their Azure cloud and now that we see “Microsoft will ensure that small businesses who wish to transfer their advertising to Bing can do so simply and with no transfer costs.  We recognise the important role search advertising plays to the more than two million small businesses in Australia” (source: Microsoft) all whilst we see western media absent to the plight of Ursula Bahillo and hundreds more shows that the media was never to be considered any options (if the Leveson report was not enough evidence). As such, how much action did the UN take to the Femicide cause? I know they have done some work, yet when I see ‘United Nations asks UAE for proof that Princess Latifa is alive’ all whilst the Google Search “Ursula Bahillo United Nations” gives no real links on the western media, why is that? That is even beside the fact on how active UN essay writers became against the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, they even went so far to push for issues regarding  cyber crimes on an American Industrial (Jeff Bezos) all whilst the presented evidence had several shades of debatability. As I see it, we need larger changes and if the media relies on political bitches (as one might say) to do their revenue work for them, they will need to be held liable, yet I reckon that some editors will cry like little bitches and point towards ‘freedom of the press’, I wonder how long it will take for someone to consider that ‘accountability of the press’ is also a matter that needs consideration. Al Jazeera brought more to the surface than some media players are happy with. Consider your paper, or their website (whichever it is) and look for Ursula Bahillo, how many articles did you find? What we are shown matters, whether is be Femicide in Argentina, persecution of Uighurs or any other news. As I personally see it when we filter by gender and the filtering agent is the media we have lost control and the insane are at the helm of a ship called sanity. That’s merely my $0.02 on the matter.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

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

February 18, 2021 · 21:00

The danger of being wrong

It happens, to you and me, sometimes we are wrong. It can be because of belief, it can be because of presented facts, or it is linked to the faith you hold. Faith, not religion! In this I have a surprising large foundation of preference towards being incorrect, not being wrong. They are not the same. When you are incorrect, it tends to be towards a specific part of the equation, when you are wrong, you are looking at another equation. That tends to set you on the wrong foot, the one that cannot kick the ball.

For me it started roughly 780 seconds ago when the BBC gives us ‘Facebook Australia: PM Scott Morrison ‘will not be intimidated‘ by tech giant’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56109036). To be honest this mess started a few weeks ago when politicians were starting to suck up to a desperate media setting. The larger fear is not merely the new linking and cookie solution that Google is working on, and that is before they realise that my new IP takes the newspapers out of ALL equations. It was not intentional, but the fact that my solution gets rid of ‘filtered information’ carriers is just icing on the cake. So the article gives us “Australians on Thursday woke up to find that Facebook pages of all local and global news sites were unavailable. People outside the country are also unable to read or access any Australian news publications on the platform”, which suit me just fine, it is not my use of social media, as such I do not care of seeing news (read: filtered information) there. So when we consider the information from the same source giving us “The world-first law aims to address the media’s loss of advertising revenue to US tech firms” my initial somewhat less diplomatic view tends to lean towards “Who the fuck are you legalising advertisement revenue and who gets it?” From my seat it looks like that everyone is all about free trade until the friends of politicians lose their trade, then it becomes a political setting towards protecting those moneybags, that is how I see it. The fact that the media did not comprehend what digital media and digital advertisement was until it was much too late, why do we cater to them? In that same setting how much protection will the Yellow Pages receive against that same media outlet trying to rip dollars from tech companies? The world evolves and those who cannot adjust die, or go under. This is how capitalism works. The stage is even less acceptable when we consider the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/oct/11/the-press-were-never-in-a-post-leveson-straitjacket) giving us “It has always suited journalists to suggest it is unwise for victims of illegality to pursue justice against newspaper publishers”, so not only is it unwise for victims to get against their media harassers, we see a larger stage where politicians and laws are devised to protect them from acts of technological evolution. In this at what point are they held to account for their actions?

So when we consider the part where we see “Under the code, news outlets will be required to negotiate commercial deals individually or collectively with Facebook and Google. If they cannot reach an agreement, an arbitrator will decide whose offer is more reasonable. If Facebook or Google break any resulting agreements, they can be fined up to A$10 million ($7.4 million) in civil penalties”, we see discrimination. Microsoft Bing is not in that equation, why not? In addition, why would we want to see any Australian news in our social media? Come think of it, the setting that Facebook has with advertisements goes back to 2007, so over almost 14 years, the media was incomprehensibly incompetent toward advertisements and the impact. 

In 14 years they did almost nothing to counter it with their own version, by the end of 2012 they had passed 1 billion users, 5 years later they doubled that. (at https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/)
And the media sat on their hands, they sat on their hands to such a degree that now politicians are aiding the filtered information bringers to get some more undeserved revenue, in addition these same politicians did nothing to overhaul the tax laws, so how does that play?

As such why do they deserve that leg up? Oh and in this stage if the population is a solar system, planet earth becomes a system with planet Bing, planet IBM, planet Google, planet Facebook and planet media. In this planet media is mercury, scorched from being too close to the sun, Saturn and Jupiter are Google and Facebook, each with their own asteroids and moons, al having their own function, Mercury, like the media has no moons, no services to offer, merely a printed media solution, as such, how much protection did the parchment guild get when the news went to the pulp business? What was left for the paper mills?

The paper mill is a nice touch, I actually went to one, I saw how paper is made and we all go towards: ‘Yes, but that is now obsolete’, this is true, but in that same light, the media we see today made THEMSELVES obsolete. They did not apply the brakes when they had the option and the Leveson inquiry is merely one of a few examples. When one side of media becomes too populistic, people can no longer tell or differentiate, that made them obsolete and now that this is the stage they want to hang to any solution they can, even the ones that require legality, all whilst they hang freedom of speech and freedom of expression somewhere else so they can accuse others of negating their right to show that freedom of filtered information.

Another voice is journalism professor at City University New York Jeff Jarvis, he gives us (at https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-bargaining-code/) ““The Code is built on a series of fallacies. First is the idea that Google and Facebook should owe publishers so much as a farthing for linking to their content, sending them audience, giving them marketing. In any rational market, publishers would owe platforms for this free marketing, except that Google at its founding decided not to sell links outside of advertisements. The headlines and snippets the platforms quote are necessary to link to them, and if the publishers don’t want to be included, it is easy for them to opt out…”, he gave this yesterday, I was on that train a week ago. And as I see “if the publishers don’t want to be included, it is easy for them to opt out”, the ACCC was eager not to include that little snippet of the equation making them a tool and optionally a joke too. As such we might wonder what politicians are dong (apart from helping their media friends remaining a non-poor entity), I could be wrong, I could be incorrect. I believe I am neither and that is the stage we see, all whilst the bringers of filtered information continue their revenue round one more lap, that is until the race is called. I believe it was called some time ago, but that is merely me. I could be wrong.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

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

February 15, 2021 · 09:43

From drain to sewer

To be honest, I am not surprised. In this day and age of overruling greed and the lack of care I see a change and this change will set woe to Australia and its local brands. It all started with overly stupid shareholders and stake holders, who engaged greed driven politicians on prolonging the lifestyle that some would and should never have been allowed to continue. I am of course talking on those relying on journalism. This is not about the journalists, although they are not entirely without blame. The news was happy to side with a player who has less than 5% of the market. So they were happy to go towards a player who has a mere 1/20 slice of the advertisement cake, this was never about fair, or about realism. 

In the first when we see “Under the proposed bill digital platforms would be required to pay media companies for content” EVERYONE is ignoring the part where the media can decide not to be on the digital format, they can decide not to post their messages on Google Search or place them on Facebook. So why is it an option. It is like advertising on the Yellow Pages and demanding the Yellow Pages for payment for the privilege of showing these articles. The ACCC and a few other players were happy to ignore that part, in addition we see them ignoring the fact that some of these papers have articles that ALWAYS push the link to a payment portal. There is more, these greed driven silly people relied on Microsoft and their Bing flaw to take the forefront into staging the response of “both would have to better compensate news publications for displaying their content, as well as give outlets more information about their search and newsfeed algorithms”, in this, the stage of ‘better compensate news publications’ as well as ‘give outlets more information about their search and newsfeed algorithms’, in this Microsoft who only has at best 5% is eager to increase its market share, yet there is a reason that they only have 5% and the news is only getting worse. As Australia moves away from Google search, they are cutting their fingers in a few more places as well. As silly people are all about their personal gains and personal wealth, the idiots owning the media that they are demanding payment for are all in a stage that they never understood in the first place. The Conversation gives us ‘The old news business model is broken: making Google and Facebook pay won’t save journalism’ (at https://theconversation.com/the-old-news-business-model-is-broken-making-google-and-facebook-pay-wont-save-journalism-150357). There we see “The code is meant to help alleviate the revenue crisis facing news publishers. Over the past two decades they have made deep cuts to newsrooms. Scores of local print papers have become “digital only” or been shut down completely”, as such, we seem to overlook that the elderly owning news media (example the Murdoch wannabe’s) never understood the digital part. We optionally see this in “To understand why the commercial news model is so broken, we first need to recognise what the primary business of commercial news media has been: attracting an audience that can be sold to advertisers”, Google already has the audience and Microsoft wants them too, so silly people (optionally including the politicians) are setting a slippery slope and Australia is about to lose whatever global foothold they have. In this the silly people are clueless on the damage that will hit. 

This is seen in two parts, the first is “2021 Cloud Report from Cockroach Labs ranked Google Cloud Platform as the best-performing of the three major public cloud platforms, offering an impressive threefold advantage in throughput capability”, so not only is Microsoft out of options, they are severely outclassed by Google (and optionally IBM as well), a stage that is influencing a global stage that we see (at https://www2.deloitte.com/au/en/pages/consumer-industrial-products/articles/global-powers-of-retailing.html#), so consider the players that have some global visibility. Players like Wesfarmers, Woolworths and JB HiFi. All players that were until 2020 in the top 250, now consider that they are removed from that field. This is because Microsoft does not count on the global field, not with a mere 5%, 7% on the global stage, we get it that Microsoft wants it desperately, but the silly people never realised that the media is now influencing a stage where others will no longer count as well. It is the purest form of ‘Think local, act global’ it would sound nice, but it merely makes Australian brands no longer a global player, a stage that will make New Zealand the number one consumer target for Australian brands and wherever they are second place, they become obsolete. The ACCC should be proud of not comprehending the larger stage. And in all this as the Conversation informs us of “before 2000 print media attracted nearly 60% of Australian advertiser dollars, according to an analysis for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s Digital Platforms Inquiry. By 2017 it was just 12%”, we see the initial folly, it almost reads like the setting of Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin where we see ‘There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader’, but the media was never a leader in the digital media (or media for that matter), they were merely facilitators to shareholders and stake holders, as such ‘their’ people are already the population of planet Google and Microsoft wants to annex that population in any way they can. So whilst the ACCC is setting a Microsoft stage, the media is still clueless on what is required. As we see “the core of the problem is that funding such journalism through advertising is no longer viable. Other solutions are needed – locally and nationally – to ensure its survival”, it is the larger setting they all relied on advertisers, advertiser whores for a better reference, yet in all this the newspapers are all drowning most pages in advertisements, it is partial evidence of remaining clueless. The owners needed to act over a decade ago, that is seen in the decrease from 60% to 12%, a decade of decrease and nothing was done and now that they are desperate Microsoft steps in, they will save the day, or so they say but will they? They only have a 7% global penetration, they did this to themselves by forgetting that the consumer had become in charge to some degree, it is what Google wanted all along, they merely became the facilitator of whatever the consumer required and requested, the media does not understand as they think that they are the centre of the universe, but in a global setting with thousands of voices they are merely a discord in a choir at best. 

So as the small players listening to the media are throwing away whatever options they have to the media, the media is locally acting to fill its pockets, although they will not see it that way and Microsoft is in a stage where they gain 25,000,000 bing users. And in that stage where 5G passes Microsoft by, the Australians will see a decade of hardship with no future options at all. Well some players will proclaim in their presentations that this is not the case, but when their presentations run dry and when we get to 2023 and players like Wesfarmers, Woolworths and JB HiFi will no longer be on a top 500 list, at that point some people will wonder why they listened to the silly people. I can only hope that my IP is sold before that because the hardship Australia faces with no global audience is not one I hope to rely on, and when you realise just how dangerous this setting is, you will not want that either.

In this when you realise that the media pushed you to a room in the sewer with that view, will you finally realise that the media, their shareholders, stakeholders and advertisers have sold you a bag of goods whilst calling it ‘life on quality street’? Who will you hold accountable the moment you realise that?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

February 14, 2021 · 08:49

The black door of death

Yup there is a door, a black door, some say it is the door of death. Hades assures me it is a door of change and opportunity, but then that man is not happy until the news given to all is gloomy beyond belief. I am a republican, I never made a secret of that and in some cases I gave that news up front. Today we see why! Al Jazeera gives us (among others) “Trump lawyers and House impeachment managers have decided to avoid calling witnesses in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, beginning four hours of closing statements”, then we get ABC giving us “Mr Evans, 35, appeared before a federal judge in Huntington West Virginia on Friday afternoon after being arrested. If convicted, he faces up to a year and a half in federal prison for two misdemeanours: entering a restricted area and disorderly conduct. A growing number of Republicans and Democrats have said they want to expel Mr Evans from the legislature if he does not resign. His lawyer, John Bryan, said Mr Evans was acting as an amateur journalist recording the day’s events and he was not involved in violence. He said Evans did not commit a crime and did not plan to step down”, a setting when we consider “two black men were arrested last week when a store employee called police to say the men were trespassing. The protests followed the release of a video that showed the two men being arrested after a store manager called the police because they were sitting in the store without placing an order” (source: the Guardian), as such, they could have avoided arrest and cuffing if they called themselves ‘amateur journalists’?

We see the defence give us “It was a report from a reporter from a friend of somebody who had some hearsay they heard the night before at a bar somewhere”, we see hundreds of hours of footage, we see a loud mouthed petulant bullish childish NYC realtor gave us on January 6th “Today I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election”, we are also given “Trump defence dodges question on what he did to stop Capitol attack, says there was no insurrection”, yet the democrats miss the ball again and again. So what was this media circus, a show? A let this all be good for the grace of death?

And now we see “Former President Donald Trump acquitted again” (source: ABC news). The democrats foil the ball yet again, OK, I will admit that there are a few dubious characters on my side of the isle, yet proper investigation and interrogation might have gone a long way in this. 

So why do I care? I think something despicable happened, and a knowingly lying former president of the USA is not a good way to stage the setting. But that also opens the door of opportunity. And that door is not a nice one. I hereby call upon the specialist (read: CIA Wet Teams) to set a new standard. In an age of “Ransomware attacks are proving more lucrative for cyber criminals as even organisations that can restore from backups are paying ransom demands to prevent further damage”, as well as “As 2020 started, only the Maze ransomware gang was using this tactic. But as it ended, an additional 17 ransomware crews had taken to publishing stolen data of victims if they didn’t receive payment”. As such I am asking (read: demanding) that the CIA Wet teams are activated to secure American business safety. The victims are wide spread “They included 1,681 schools, colleges and universities, 560 healthcare facilities and 113 federal, state and municipal governments and agencies. Meanwhile, over 1,300 private companies were also hit by ransomware attacks”, as such we set the C.W.T. (CIA Wet Teams) in the field and we kill these people, no long wasted court-time, just a bullet through the back of the head. I don’t care it comes from a 16 year old with a crying excuse “I wanted to be cool”, that person will be pretty cool (ground temperature) in a casket, unless he is cremated, that person will be room temperature (still cool). Is that too much? I think it is time to set a different premise, it is time to set the premise of ‘enough is enough’, the law has not worked , not for 2-3 decades, scare tactics did not and as such, after the first half dozen are found and put to death, the rest will dump their computers faster than anything else they ever had and as such they are dealt with. It is a bit over the top, but Hades told me that there would be opportunity, so I sought one, I found one and now I am casing one. 

The setting stage of such failing blunders on the democratic side is just the start of the larger stage, the attacks on Saudi Arabia, whilst the actions by Iran on this are are almost 100% ignored, there is more one sided actions, as such setting a larger footprint on the other side of the fence is not the worst tactic to use, and lets face it, apart from the ransomware attackers (and their mummies and daddies) how much real opposition will there be? The second acquittal opened a new door, a door of all those thinking there would be no accountability for electing a stupid person, lets make sure that the new signals are a clear given sign that this was not the case and that we are all in a stage of having had enough. That is how I see it, yet I could be wrong.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

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

February 8, 2021 · 22:05

Setting sun of reality

There was a BBC story that struck a chord with me, it was about jobs and it is given to us by Andrea Murad. The article called ‘The computers rejecting your job application’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55932977) shows us new ways on how HR and recruiters are just a joke. Even as Andrea Murad (unintentionally) falsely gives us “Welcome to the fast-growing world of AI recruitment”, we see the initial failure, AI does not exist, not yet at least and that setting is the larger lie that HR’s and recruiters are spinning. As such whist we look at “While recruiters have been using AI for around the past decade, the technology has been greatly refined in recent years. And demand for it has risen strongly since the pandemic, thanks to its convenience and fast results at a time when staff may be off due to Covid-19” we get the following:

  1. AI does not exist.
  2. Demand for something that does not exist is a delusional lie.
  3. Convenience of what, something that does not exist?

The stage is slowly starting, you see games are games and these recruitment games are set to get rid of the ‘slow’ applications, then they look at the ones with the most errors and the most hesitations, you see everything is measured in these games. So even if the explanation is a little wobbly, as people are trying to figure things out, they get one shot. And that is not even close to the end.

So when we see “The questions, and your answers to them, are designed to evaluate several aspects of a jobseeker’s personality and intelligence, such as your risk tolerance and how quickly you respond to situations”, it is one that is loaded with issues, but the nice part is that it follows “Or as Pymetrics puts it, “to fairly and accurately measure cognitive and emotional attributes in only 25 minutes””, or as I put it, there is no fairly stage, you are set against others and the lower scores are basically cut off, a game does not measure emotional I attributes and any test that is set to seconds can never not now, not ever fairly measure emotions. I am not even touching cognitive, as I would see it, in the case of Pymetrics, it is like watching a slide ruler judge the precision of a calculator. It is the new way of HR divisions to set scores to the needs of bosses and it will backfire in the most disastrous of ways. 

This all gets to be worse when we look at “The audio of this is then converted into text, and an AI algorithm analyses it for key words, such as the use of “I” instead of “we” in response to questions about teamwork. The recruiting company can then choose to let HireVue’s system reject candidates without having a human double-check, or have the candidate moved on for a video interview with an actual recruiter”, it is a system where the older fail, they are not accustomed to zoom style interviews, a stage that is, as I personally see it, a way to legalise age discrimination. There is also the stage of the questions and how impersonal edged questions wash out even more people, people that would for the most be great candidates. And that is not all there are signs (unproven ones) that these systems are also used to categorise people, fake jobs and the creation of rainbow results, a fake version of something that does not even exist at present (AI that is).

Yet the article is still good, when we get to the latter part and we are given some issues by Prof Sandra Wachter, a senior research fellow in AI at Oxford University we see that there is a larger stage and the stage is debatable. It is seen in “All machine learning works in the same basic way – you go through a bunch of data, and find patterns and similarities. So in recruitment, looking at the successful candidates of the past is the data you have. Who were the chief executives in the past, who were the Oxford professors in the past?” In this we see the first issue ‘machine learning’ is a part of AI, it is NOT AI, and those relying on machine learning will lose a lot. To see this, I found an image by Daniel S. Christian, I believe it is incomplete, but it is a larger stage we see and optionally you will see how those claimants of AI are just wrong. You see the image misses, Datapoint Creation, category creation, new data comprehension and verification of data (new against old old), this is essential because if that I not done it is not AI, a person will always be in the mix to make calls making the data arbitrary and obsolete (read: useless) from the get go.

And all that is before we consider that those with a bad webcam will be judged unfairly, so the poor with indecent equipment will not be judged correctly against those with much better webcams, if that is not the case there can be no AI, because face recognition would be essential in emotional recognition, or not?

The worst part in all this is all these sources going on about ‘AI’, I wonder what kind of cool-aid they are drinking, it’s a set of fake values and as such the entire setting is fake, it is fake for all kinds of reasons, yet I personally feel it is so that these ‘wielders’ can indiscriminately discriminate the pool of applicants, it is merely my view on the matter, and there will be plenty of greed driven players calling my view foul, I will let you decide for yourself.

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

February 6, 2021 · 22:22

Number of states

We all have states, we all have considerations. There isn’t a person who does not enter that stage, the stage of the blame game. Now, I could blame the Saudi Crown prince for my poverty, they never did anything for me, but is that not the central part in all this? 

It started some time ago, yet the Al Jazeera article that starts with “Lawyers have filed an amended complaint in the US-based lawsuit against Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) containing allegations about attempts to “lure” an ex-spymaster’s family to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and summons for two alleged members of the “Tiger” hit squad”, the there are the allegations to ‘lure’, interesting as lure means “tempt (a person or animal) to do something or to go somewhere”, in this I wonder is it a crime, and there is a stage: ““Luring” is not a crime at the top of most people’s minds, but the law in Washington and other states does make luring a child or developmentally disabled person a felony”, as such is ex-Saudi intelligence officer Saad al-Jabri a child or a disabled person? In the second, what evidence is there that there is a direct connection between the attempted lure and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS)? I am not stating that this is not the case, I actually do not know, so I am asking the question. And as we turn to the PDF (at https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.220747/gov.uscourts.dcd.220747.66.1.pdf), we see a few things. The first is seen at [4], when we see “Fortunately, in the United States, justice is measured not by the might of one’s arms; what is lawful is measured not by the reach of one’s sword; and the law itself is not laggard when faced with a prince who, having directed the dismemberment of a prominent U.S. journalist overseas, also dispatched a team of hunters and killers into the United States and Canada to murder again.”, and I hereby demand that the accusers show evidence, evidence that holds up in court, in the pretrial the stage of ‘the dismemberment of a prominent U.S. journalist’, so at what stage was some journalist dismembered, what evidence is there that this ever happened?

Then at [5] we are treated to “The target of that attempted killing is Plaintiff Dr. Saad Aljabri”, at what stage did “attempts to “lure”” change into “attempted killing”? What evidence supports this?

So when the delusional man (Dr. Saad Aljabri) relies on “a longtime trusted partner of senior U.S. intelligence officials”, all whilst he no longer has value, it stands to reason that he uses his so called friends one more time to get a huge pay day. Something to hold him over until he passes away and as some of these people rely on the delusional stage of immortality, that pay day needs to be bigger and better.

At that point there is all kinds of emotions, and when we get to [11] we see “Defendant bin Salman has taken steps to lure Dr. Saad back to Saudi Arabia or to another jurisdiction where he could be more easily killed without consequences”, so what evidence is there that the Crown Prince was directly involved, also ‘where he could be more easily killed’ is an assumption that cannot be proven, not proven as an act and not proven towards any person. And this charade of laughing usage of the law, is set in 199 pages, the pages, I added in the link, the pages that Al Jazeera correctly added. It is like the second instalment of Blood and Oil, that fictional piece by Bradley Hope and Justin Scheck, to my amazement I have never seen so many organisations using fiction, allegations and innuendo to frame a person, in this case Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Oh and before I forget, who was that prominent US journalist? Khashoggi was a columnist and an author. A columnist for the Washington Post, that does not make him a prominent US journalist, does it? 

And there is more the use of intentional ‘mis-statements’ like at [7] “Dr. Saad ledhelped to lead a team that saved hundreds” are emotional statements that have no bearing on the alleged case, a stage that is set to folly from the get go. 

So lets take a look at this respected person

  • He was dismissed from his governmental positions on 10 September 2015.
  • In September 2017, Saudi authorities sought Al Jabri’s arrest for corruption. 

I reckon that part is not illuminated in the brief, is it? In addition to this the number one laughing stage is that we are told “border agents at Toronto Pearson International Airport stopped the group and refused them entry into Canada”, so not only is it an alleged setting, it is an alleged setting that was allegedly staged in Canada, so why is it in an American court? This is about something else and it has nothing to do with Dr. Saad Aljabri, but with his American friends, perhaps they get a slice of that yummy settlement cake. Feel free to disagree and especially to oppose this, it is fair to do so, I am just saddened that the law, especially US law allows for such pieces of fiction to proceed. I would be happy to support anything to go to court if it was a lot less fictional, and let’s face it, consider that it was an attempted lure, a lot more facts on a brief that would be a lot less than 199 pages might have done the trick. I see so much fiction there, on so many pages, I wonder how the writer of that brief can live with him/her self. And in all this, when exactly did Canada become the 51st state?

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

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

February 5, 2021 · 05:10

A Swift rescue

I was half asleep one moment and the next I wake up to ‘Theme park sues singer over Evermore album name’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55932164). So, in this setting, what are the rules? Well, one of them is “Common words and phrases can be trademarked if the person or company seeking the trademark can demonstrate that the phrase has acquired a distinctive secondary meaning apart from its original meaning. That secondary meaning must be one that identifies the phrase with a particular good or service”, the word has existed in an ecclesiastical sense for centuries. So the original word meant “always”, it is one of the words also at times we see it as ‘aways and forever’. So, the trade-marker must now show that it “identifies the phrase with a particular good or service”, and there we have the issue, Taylor Swift has a real identifiable service, the service of an entertainer/performer, as Evermore has “opened its doors officially to the public on September 29, 2018. In contrast to most theme parks, Evermore Park does not feature any major rides; instead, trained actors who portray fantasy characters are the main attraction”, and if I were a betting man, I would bet against the theme park. It’s creative director Josh Shipley, has called Evermore a “living theatrical park”, a park, not a CD, not a place where at all times a collection of songs can be listened to, a park. This was their way to get extra visibility. A bad choice as I see it. I reckon that if all the fans of Taylor Swift made a proper and polite complaint against this (at +1 801-796-2372) their phones will be blocked for weeks. In the second, did they sue the Australian band Evermore as well? Then there is Neil Diamond, who also had a song with that title. Now, that song was out for a while, so there can be no claim, the Australian band Evermore existed for some time as well, the list goes on. 

So for a theme park no one had heard of to use Taylor Swift to get visibility is one thing, would it not have been better to contact Taylor Swift to request the launch of her album at the park? No, the American will sue to get the upper hand for marketing. That is how I see it. And back to the law, the park was opened in 2018, so the stage of “one that identifies the phrase with a particular good or service”, that is not possible, because the theme park is not open forever and always, as their website states: ‘Evermore Park Is Currently Closed’, so they are not forever or always open, they are closed. As such the stage of “the trademark can demonstrate that the phrase has acquired a distinctive secondary meaning”, which will fail very distinctively and directly, but when they open and if you are a fan of Taylor Swift, please complain politely (at +1 801-796-2372). Oh and lastly, the CD has the ‘e’ in lowercase, the park has it as ‘E’ (uppercase), so the name is not enough, the word is not more alike than not, another setting to let the claim fail.

Well, that is my part done for the day and I am still feeling frisky for some humour, so let take a look at what types of mischief the Kremlin is up to, I cannot make fun of Josh Shipley and not make fun of President Putin, or can I? Ah, 05:00 the new day is starting, lets see what else I can do this morning.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as , , ,

January 24, 2021 · 22:29

Setting a standard

As I am rewatching the Stand (1996), I am also interested watching the new version when it is released. A stage where we wonder if the Stand is fiction or a stage where it becomes future history, and if that is debatable,  should the Stand now be seen as a documentary? You think I am joking, but merely partially so. You see, the news gives us ‘Ten Republicans voted to impeach Donald Trump. The backlash has been swift’ (at https://www.sbs.com.au/news/ten-republicans-voted-to-impeach-donald-trump-the-backlash-has-been-swift). A stage tht SBS gives and a lot do not, why is that? So as we see “In Michigan, a challenger to Mr Meijer received a boost when Steve Bannon promoted him on his podcast”, we should wonder if Steve Bannon, who was (quote NY Times) “charged on Thursday with defrauding donors to a private fund-raising effort called We Build the Wall, which was intended to bolster the president’s signature initiative along the Mexican border”, should we give any consideration to a person who was pardoned before it went to court? And this is a man who was directly connected to Cambridge Analytica. A person like that is (as I personally see it) tainted, and as such I wonder if we can trust a person who is challenging Peter Meijer in Michigan. I personally see it that anyone pushed forward by Steve Bannon will come at a cost, can we afford to accept that? It is equally an issue that there were only 10 republicans on the impeachment side, I reckon that they are ten people who still have some level of morals and the US has seen enough moral-less behaviour.

The setting is a lot bigger than you think, as we see the far right scrapping for attention, we also see the danger of Trumpism, especially in a stage where its industrial complexes are surpassed by China. We hear all the accusations of IP theft, yet so far the US, Sweden (Ericsson) and Finland (Nokia) are barely catching up with China, they are still decently behind Huawei, and if that IP was stolen, they would at the very least be on par and Europe is catching on. The US is about to become irrelevant. Irrelevant due to a $25 trillion debt, irrelevant due to a lack of innovation and irrelevant due to Trumpism, the US needs to set a standard, the Republicans need to set a standard and they have to do it fast, or they will not be seen in office until past 2035, optionally past 2039. With the Democratic nanny state in charge, and no exit strategy in place, the Corona issues will merely set a much faster downfall than ever seen before. Even now we are treated to ‘New Zealand reports first case in the community in months’, the cause was a woman who had been in self isolation for 2 weeks. And it gets to be worse, what I warned for recently is now a given “The Ministry of Health said the woman had tested negative twice before leaving an isolation facility in Auckland on 13 January”, we see one patient and two false negatives, yet the media is drowning the events. Then we see ‘despite Pfizer shortages overseas’, a setting I expected as the amounts required were nowhere near possible and in all this the stage of properly informing the public is out of the question, we see small bites of events and I see a lot as I check 8-14 news sources, but a lot of it will not be seen everywhere, merely in some places, and why is that? Sop whilst the US is trying to figure things out, the world has its own demons to fight and in all this the media is seen as less and less reliable. 

We need to set a standard, we need to stop facilitating and we need to hold people to account, that includes politicians that facilitate for greed and industrial needs, and as the media (in this case the Guardian give us “World Health Organization estimates air pollution kills more than 7 million people each year”, we still see the absence of the actual issue, even as they source against ‘1% of people cause half of global aviation emissions’, a stage that is debatable at best, the Guardian is actively ignoring the fact that the European Environment Agency told us all that 1% of ALL plants are responsible for 50% of the Air pollution damages, they did not come out against with evidence, no with the Commercial world having 24,000 planes flying, we get “Frequent-flying “‘super emitters” who represent just 1% of the world’s population caused half of aviation’s carbon emissions in 2018, according to a study”, so 80,000,000 people caused that, all whilst the 1% of plants are more manageable, so why keep us in the dark? Hiding behind the word ‘study’ is equally BS. And the setting will get worse as the nanny state pussies will cater to the media again and again, because, as I personally see it, they cater to the share holders, the stake holders and the advertisers and they are the industrials that are greed, revenue driven, contribution driven and profit driven, and if you think that Trumpism is a problem, the sliding of standards is pushing Trumpism to the surface, because the greed driven profit from that side too, and that is debatable, I know that, I get it and I understand it. Consider the quote from a comedy ‘Operation Petticoat’ (1959) where we are treated to the quote “In confusion there is profit!”, we are living the confusion, you better believe that someone is banking on the profit, and until we regain a setting of standards this will continue.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Science

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