April 18, 2015 · 10:11

And so it begins!

The ink from my WordPad app has not even dried from the articles a few days ago. And in the UK 5 hours ago we see the following events unfurl in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/17/imf-urges-eu-to-slim-down-its-demands-on-greece). The title is already glooming bad vibes as it states: ‘IMF urges EU to slim down its demands on Greece‘, so here is the first part.

Now we look at the quotes “The International Monetary Fund has urged EU negotiators to slim down their list of demands in debt talks with Greece amid fears that time is running out to reach a deal” as well as the statement by Yanis Varoufakis “There has never been a key date. We have to see everything in combination and cumulatively. On the 24th [April] there will not be a solution, there will be progress“. This is at the centre of deception, this is why Europe is about to face the harsh reality of the people having enough!

The realisation was already there two days ago when I ‘accused’ Mario Draghi of being either Reckless or incompetent. That call was very valid in light of the dangers that Greece faces. Now it becomes a viable thought that there was never any danger for Greece to begin with and they can play the game the way they like, because someone else is willing to play footsie with their inaction.

Now we get to the statement by the Chancellor George Osborne, who stated that one misstep in the Greek debt negotiations could return Europe to the ‘perilous state’ of 2011 and 2012. The problem here is not the negotiations, but the fact that Greece is unwilling to do anything. The statement of Yanis Varoufakis makes that a given. In addition, progress or not, if acceptable plans are not delivered by April 24th, they should not be allowed to get the 7.2 billion. But here is the kicker, that makes Grexit a direct reality and if we reiterate the words from Mario Draghi, that was never a consideration.

So here comes my predicament: “If the UK (Prime Minister David Cameron and the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne) do not put the hammer down at this point, there is every indication that the British voters see this in the air of ‘more of the same’ and they would hand the dangers of a massive victory towards UKIP”. This is not just a simple party issue. The taxpayers of the United Kingdom at large will not accept the austerities they face, whilst the Greek politicians are playing with themselves in the shower not doing anything productive. People from all over Labour, Conservatives as well as the Liberal Democrats will then listen to the words of Nigel Farage when he can state with some pride: “I told you so!”, that movement will not be a small one and the orchestration we are likely to face between April 24th and May 5th will only push people towards UKIP faster. Should Mario Draghi, Christine Lagarde and Pierre Moscovici ignore this, then be certain that the cold turkey that is about to be served will not taste too good for them.

They are already making changes to the timeline, as the statement was made 9 hours ago: “European Commissioner Pierre Moscovici has thrown down a challenge to Greece; you must produce a concrete set of reforms by May 11“, why the delay again? To make sure it comes AFTER the UK elections? No, time is up dear players!

You see, the UK is only step one, the tidal wave towards UKIP is nothing compared to the wave National Front and Marine Le Penn will gain under these conditions. Although the matter will not be as strong for the Dutch as their elections are not until 2018, the Dutch PVV would benefit the conditional game that some are playing now.

 

We see part of the fear in a response we saw less than 24 hours ago. One response is: “GREECE’S MAIN CREDITORS SAID TO BE UNWILLING TO ALLOW EURO EXIT You surprised? Natch they’d like their money back and pref the EU to sub it“, which is what we expected all along and the voters can reduce that risk by well over 7 billion by tossing Greece out of the Euro now. In addition we see the mention: “Greek FinMin Varoufakis: Draghi meeting lasted an hour, he said he wants a resolution soon to help #Greece grow“. Is that so?

Growth in Greece is pretty much not an option, when you have nothing left, you can only whether the storm by nailing down the hatches and let part of your crew (read the Greek population) drown. The fact that Tsipras has not done anything substantial since he got elected should be a clear indication, the entire rockstar Varoufakis tour going past every nation (in really nice hotels) has gotten the Greek people nothing more than ‘On the 24th [April] there will not be a solution, there will be progress‘ is at the heart of the matter. Billions (from rich Greeks) are safely out of Greece (read Swiss bank accounts) and those questioning that were thrown into court, no actions on previous administrations have been made and no setting to reduce the costs that the Greek government cannot pay for have been addressed. So tell me, why would anyone desire to keep Greece in the fold, when the first route Tsipras took was a trip to the Kremlin (you know, the people behind the Eastern Ukraine debacle)?

So what is in store for the UK? This is at the centre, because the ‘manage bad news’ cycles that we see from team Lagarde-Draghi will be fuelling the Farage engine more than anything else. It is not just that people are expecting Greece to be ‘saved’ again, it is done whilst those making loads of money are not held to account. By the way Mr Draghi, I hit on hard times and whilst I am doing anything possible. I am making little progress, so can you please deposit £650.000, which I will repay at 0.1% interest annual over 30 year. Seems only fair that you give the amount to people more responsible (especially me) than the Greek elected officials, ‘n’est-ce pas?‘ and ‘sans rancune‘ (after the deposit).

This gives me the next part in all this. When you take a look at the Guardian election page, it seems to me that apart from one piece by Stuart Heritage, the visibility of UKIP is almost none existent. The fear that the other parties have in regards to what UKIP could do is in my view decently staggering. In my personal view, I do not think that UKIP is the right solution for the UK, yet this is decided by voters and as 97.3% of that electorate is nowhere near my intellect and insight, the fact that these people will see it the same way is not a given, more important, when we consider the article by Stuart Heritage (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/17/nigel-farage-was-the-only-winner-in-final-tv-election-debate), which we see in the quote “Calling out the assembled masses for being a bunch of hoity-toity pinkos, though? That’s madness. That’s suicide. That’s the political equivalent of a Blackmar-Diemer gambit. But Farage knew what he was doing. He knew he still had a MOAB in his back pocket. A showstopper. His very own Candle in the Wind. And so, just when it looked like events were spiralling out of his control, Farage pulled out his joker – the old “Foreigners with Aids are making British people die of cancer” line“, which did the trick, but now consider the following quote we are likely to read soon: “We, hardworking brits are paying for expensive Greek officials, we are paying the money they are spending in many irresponsible ways and we have no option but to accept their extravagant spending, even their own rich do not have to pay for anything there!” how long until the anger of these people demand change? Consider that according to the government 17% of all individuals are on an absolute low income (at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/325416/households-below-average-income-1994-1995-2012-2013.pdf), in addition, when we compare this in housing we see that 40% of those on relative low incomes are social rented sector tenants. This is a massive part of the UK that is struggling to get by and the banking wealth is very willing to let it all continue, so that those who made a really bad investment (read Greek bonds) will get their money’s worth. How do you think the British population will react in the coming week to the ‘be nice to the Greeks so that we can keep them in the Euro’ group? That is a massive electorate that UKIP can tap into and I feel certain that we will see this happen in the week leading to the election, so April 27th to May 5th as the Greeks will suddenly go into theatrical tragedy mode (read Tsipras and Varoufakis will stand in a ‘we are defeated‘ pose), who will buy it then? If UKIP does sweep the nation Christine Lagarde will have an entirely new danger to deal with, just because she was unable to muzzle the greed driven population trying to get more Greek money. The entire Greek comedy was mishandled from the very day they were allowed to go back to the market (by the way, I think I predicted that one correctly, so please deposit 2.1% of the 40 million in kickbacks the bond traders ended up with in commissions). This should take care of my bar bill for the period 2015-2019.

Yes, when we add it all up, the future looks grim and if team Cameron/Osborne (the team I support) do not bring out the big guns now, my initial prediction in 2013 (where I predicted that Labour and Conservatives ended up in opposition together) could come true. I need to find my application for running a popcorn and peanut stand in front of parliament, because the public bench will be so overcrowded that first year, giving me an interesting enterprising income (to pay back the loan from Mario Draghi), which is what Britain was all about in the first place, to be enterprising!

So, was I enterprising enough? Am I correct?

That part is at the heart of the matter. I do not know, but the dangers of this all happening is growing by the day, every day we see a new excuse on giving the Greeks more time is changing the game we face in both the UK and soon thereafter in France too. So the quote by Michael Gove ‘There will be no Conservative-UKIP deal after the general election, the Tory chief whip Michael Gove has said‘ could be very correct, because if the ECB and IMF do not change their tune, the winnings of UKIP could be large enough for UKIP not to need the Tories at all. But on the positive side, Nick Clegg will end up having a new political idol to follow, isn’t that nice?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

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

April 17, 2015 · 18:27

I read the news today, oh boy!

It was not today but, yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away, this accountant is not here to stay, I hope we fear for yesterday!

It seems appropriate to use the words of the Beatles here. Even though many at times wonder whether London had remained British (it’s a foreign bankers thing), we all agree Liverpool is as British as it gets.

So, what brought this about? Well, it was another part in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/15/imf-forecast-uk-george-osborne-deficit-reduction-growth-fuel-tax). You see, I had an issue with all this right from the start. Perhaps you all remember how in April 2013, the IMF told Osborne to slow austerity and spend more, because that was good for the economy. George Osborne stood firm, ignored the IMF and he was right. Lowering debts as much as possible, tightening the belt was a solution. It was not a popular one, but behold, the UK economy went slightly better. So when we read ‘IMF forecast blows hole in George Osborne’s deficit reduction plan‘, I am faced with all kinds of doubts in the direction of the IMF. the subtitle gives us ‘Gloomy view on UK economy says government spending on welfare may need to be higher than Treasury plans, while lower tax receipts will undermine growth‘, two parts, the first part would be nice, because those on welfare are truly in a bad place. Yet, the UK treasury is less then empty, it is at minus 1.7 trillion and the dangers of Greece is adding fuel to that danger. Lower tax receipts do not undermine growth in my view, it starts spending to some extent and hopefully investments in business and staff to a better extent. Whether that is true remains to be seen, but raising tax receipts is definitely not going to work.

“The Washington-based organisation said the current prediction of a £7bn surplus in the last year of the next parliament would instead be a £7bn deficit” is an interesting quote! What was it based upon? You see, they imply an error of 14 billion, which is 1/3rd of the entire Defence spending. More apt, 14 billion is the budget of ‘protection’ for 2016, which covers: Police services, Fire-protection services, Law courts, Prisons, R&D Public order and safety, Public order and safety n.e.c., so how exactly can we see this 14 billion blowout? The quote “the IMF warned that its officials took a gloomier view of the UK’s growth prospects over the next five years” should be read carefully. Just like the initial mismanaged prediction the IMF made in 2013, what are they not telling us? Yes, we might ‘accept’ the harsh words from Christine Lagarde as given in another place where we read “The head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, said delaying the payments would be an unprecedented action that would only make the situation worse“, in regards to the 1 billion Euro bill that Greece has to pay in the very very near future. Yet, Mario Draghi stated only a day earlier in regards to a Greek default “I don’t even want to contemplate that. And based on the Greek government leaders’ statements this option is not contemplated by themselves as well. So I’m not ready to discuss any possible situation like that“. So is Mario Draghi at this point utterly reckless or incompetent? There is clear indication that Greece cannot pay. Bonds for Greece are now set at well over 22%, which is almost unheard off, it also means that repackaging old debts could cost many billions extra. In addition we see the speculation from some economists “If Greece was unable to pay the IMF and is forced to default on payments to public sector staff, pensioners and welfare recipients, economists have speculated it may be forced to introduce capital controls to prevent a flight of funds out of the country“, so what do you mean prevent? Do you remember the Article by Kostas Vaxevanis? It was in 2012, where the journalist (not them tax evaders) was arrested for publishing that list of almost 2100 rich Greeks with well over 2 billion Euro in Swiss Bank accounts. This is less about money leaving and more about those who already filled their pockets (all Greeks) living somewhere else in luxury for a decade or two whilst Greece burns down.

So back to the British budget, yes when Greece defaults (which is a reality we could actually face) it will also hit the British budget. Consider the punch that Grexit will have on Italy and France, export to those two nations will lower considerably, their budgets will hit hard and anyone who financially supported Greece will now face the reality of losing out of that 300 billion means that the money comes from those underwriting those loans. Who and for how much I cannot tell at present, but it will be a distinguished list. So in all this, is the response from Mario Draghi reckless or incompetent? I let you decide!

The next part of the issue with the article is one that is an issue for me as well. The quote “Earlier this week the IMF warned that the UK’s stellar growth was due to slow from 2.7% this year to 2.3% in 2016. A judgment on the likelihood of a messy outcome to the election was behind that forecast, which it said would have knock-on effects for several years to come“. There is truth in it! You see, it should not matter too much, but the one party that could change it is UKIP. I guarantee you that if Greece gets any leniency whilst they have not done one thing to remain credible, there will be a push towards UKIP in a way we have never seen before. The people are angry! They have been cut to below a minimum and at the same time, the Greeks get to toss around 300 billion, unaccountable in any way. Timing is an issue here and I believe it had another part to play. If UKIP gets the infusion because others are going soft on Greece in the 25th hour, it will also push the power Marine Le Penn (France) needed. At that moment the push for National Front could result in a landslide victory, which means that the two largest players will walk away from the Euro, this pushes Germany as well, because it must protect itself. The fallout will be legendary.

First I must warn you that the last part is a personal view, so you should look at where you live and whether my vision has any reality, but if so, consider what would happen and how much it hurts your future!

But back to Britain we go! Those elements have an impact and that is why they had to be mentioned, but the reasoning of the IMF projecting it all 14 billion lower is still and issue. They were wrong before, but are they wrong now? Are they factoring in Greece? The IMF looks further, but now includes greenhouse gas emissions. It is stating a needed change (to some extent) to counter lower taxation due to collapsed oil prices into raised taxation based on energy usage. I am not sure if there is a case here, if the lower oil prices gets people moving, preferably into jobs, that that would also spike the Tax coffers as welfare goes down and taxable income increases. Pushing people into high energy bills is not a solution, especially if that stops a workforce from becoming mobile. So, I have issues with this article on several sides.

Beyond the budget, the first duty will be to lower to total debt. It will be a hard road and it will mean ongoing austerity, but if now, consider how Greece could be a factor in toppling the governments of France and Italy as their debt is maxed out, we must walk away from the walk softly approach, we must battle the debts if we want to come out on top, which relates again to the IMF and some of their statements, who are they representing stronger with their ‘status quo’ message? Japan? US? Or their own chance to survive?

The question there is too complex for me to see a solution in, but there is clarity that the first duty of the Commonwealth will be to get our budgets right and to get rid of the debts we have. Germany already showed the evidence a few years ago, now the Commonwealth must follow!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

April 15, 2015 · 18:33

When you BS the customer

I have had three issues on that matter, all in one week, so I reckon that I am slightly agitated in regards to projected presenters of misinformation with intent (also known as recruiters). If that was not enough, in the tech sector Verizon added to this with the article in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/14/mobile-malware-report-verizon-smartphone-adnoyance). The article is interesting for more than one reason, so let’s get to it.

The title is a valid question as it states ‘Is mobile malware a lot of fuss over nothing?’, some will say yes, a lot more will say no. Yet, how much of an issue is mobile malware? That is in the end a valid question. Verizon, a telecom provider goes for the ‘adnoyance’ key. They are depending on people relying on a provider as without it there is no phone, but is malware just the annoyance of advertisement? Many, including me are not convinced.

One source http://securityxploded.com/demystifying-android-malware.php, gave us clear goods. The article is very ‘techie’, but also very clear, showing step by step the issue in play.

At step 8, we get the part where we see what is going on: “The application sends an SMS to the premium number 1066185829 with the text 921X1. In the background, it blocks any incoming delivery report from this number so that the victim does not get any response regarding the SMS that the application sends in the background. Also, the SMS is sent only once and never again so that the victim has no suspicion of what caused the SMS charges to be sent to him“, premium numbers are a lot more expensive, which could be around $0.75 for one SMS. Now many will not care, thinking it happened once. So what is the deal? Well, see what it amounts to when it is done a million times. We all funded one criminal $750,000 for being clever. When we go back to the beginning of the article we get “McAfee’s first quarter threat report [Reference 1] stated that with 6 million unique samples of recorded malware, Q1 2011 was the most active first quarter in malware history“. Now, not all of them were about money, advertisement annoyance is a chunk here, but the casual air of Verizon becomes slightly offensive, or so it should be when we consider that dozens of creative souls are trying to spike their bank account in this way.

Yet, the one-time loss of $0.75 is not really an issue for the consumers at large, but what is?

Now, I get back at the issue I illustrated a long time ago, when we suddenly got those issues with Facebook messenger. Where you were giving it the right to record Audio. Before I continue, I must be fair to Facebook to and add an article here (at http://www.androidcentral.com/facebook-messenger-permissions-not-scary-stories-might-have-you-believe), it goes over many rights and it does try to suss a few issues (in a good way). There were however a few other issues, mainly connected to Facebook messenger draining the battery in massive ways. My issue here is that if it drains the battery, what is it using the energy for? Just to keep the mobile out of a sleep state?

Gizmodo (at http://gizmodo.com/facebooks-messenger-app-logs-way-more-data-than-you-rea-1633441673) gave us this: “Ever since Facebook first started pushing users over to its standalone messaging app (whether they liked it or not), there have been cries of outrage over what’s seemed like an inordinately large amount of required permissions. And while there’s still no indication that Facebook has any sort of bad intent, the company is collecting a startling cache of data, according to security researcher Jonathan Zdziarski“.

In addition we get “In an email, Zdziarski said that Messenger is logging practically everything a user might do within the app, from what and where they tap, to how often a device is held in portrait versus landscape orientation; even time spent in the Messenger app, versus the time it spends running in the background. …”[Facebook is] using some private APIs I didn’t even know were available inside the sandbox to be able to pull out your WiFi SSID (which could be used to snoop on which WiFi networks you’re connected to) and are even tapping the process list for various information on the device,” he wrote in an email.

Now, like Jonathan Zdziarski, I feel compelled to believe that Facebook is not doing anything wrong or illegal, but they are collecting huge amounts of data, by the way, when this is transmitted, will that be taken of your monthly data allowance? Seems to me that Verizon is downplaying the pressure on the monthly data allowance bill.

Now we get back to Brightcloud, who is giving us ‘Android Malware Exposed‘ (at http://www.brightcloud.com/pdf/Android-Malware-Exposed.pdf). The paper has a part on Spyware. On page 12, they state “Other types of threats are those that spy on you or steal your data. There are a number of apps that are the equivalent to commercial keyloggers found on PCs. These apps offer their services to ‘track’ your kids, spouse or employees. These behaviors are easy to incorporate into an app and this begins with the easy task of requesting the necessary permissions. For example, requesting ACCESS_COARSE_LOCATION, ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION, and READ_SMS will grant you access to SMS messages and GPS location“. This is the issue. It was not the $0.75, but the massive amounts of data that mobiles are working with nowadays. How long until these malware solutions get access to some of the larger collectors like Facebook? It is not that far a leap of suspicion is it?

In addition on that same page we see: “Threats which have used these spying techniques are NickySpy, Spitmo, GGTracker and GoldenEagle. NickySpy is interesting in that it utilizes the MediaRecorder() class to turn on the microphone and discretely record and save conversations to the SD Card. It is also able to send captured data to a remote server, although this functionality is not hard wired in. Below is a snippet of the function responsible for voice recording“. Now we get to the good part. The malware can be capturing events on audio without your consent and stream it. So, it was not just about the rights, it is about the ability that is unlocked to use. We focus on the big player like Facebook and Google, but we forget that data collecting is on the minds of governments, big corporations as well as organised crime and those into identity theft.

There are millions of examples, and Verizon trivialised it as ‘adnoyance’. The truth (as I see it) is that there is an entire echelon of dangers that people remain (intentional or not) oblivious to. One of the conclusions given in the article is “Trojans will continue to be bundled in repackaged APK’s and disguised as legitimate applications. With 900,000 daily Android activations worldwide, social-engineering tactics will continue to be used to trick users into installing malware“, so that friend you know that gave you the location of that free game, might in the end not be that good a friend. Unknown to him or not, that little freebee could be the start of your data going somewhere else.

Verizon might light of an issue, as it does not harm them, but it harms their customers. Instead of heralding Common Smartphone Sense, by making sure that people only download from reputable sources only (like Google Play Store), we see trivialisation. The added sentence ‘it’s unlikely to be the source of disastrous data breaches such as the Sony hack any time soon‘ adds to the failing of this article.

Malware is an issue, malware will continue to be an issue with added dangers over time and Yes, Android (as an open platform) has a larger issue to deal with. Yet, Common Smartphone Sense could reduce the dangers by 80% which is a huge diminishment of the risk the user has. In addition ‘the company estimates that just 0.03% of mobile devices are infected with “higher grade” malicious code each week’, sounds like a small number, but that implies that it is well over 600.000 phones each week. This makes it a clear issue, not a minute part. In the end, we are at 2,000,000,000 smartphones on the planet, and as that group grows, then so will the desire from some to infect that realm with higher grade malware.

In addition, two days ago, the Business Insider (at http://www.businessinsider.com.au/thousands-of-people-can-do-sony-hack-2015-4) stated ““There are probably a couple thousand, three, four, five-thousand people that could do [the Sony] attack today,” Miller told “60 Minutes.” He went on to explain that the technology used by the perpetrators of the Sony hack isn’t a custom-made program. Instead, Miller says it can be purchased online from Russian hackers for around $US30,000“, so if that is a fact, then how is North Korea still seen as the Cyber Boogieman? This issue is a lot bigger and the Smartphone is just adding to a Cyber world that is lacking security all over the place. Telecom operators will have to change the way they play the game, the moment that they are no longer seen as simple data provider through innocent dissemination. When the telecom companies are held to account, we will see a shift, one that will be a costly one for those who allowed massive amounts of data theft to remain unmonitored.

Verizon should be ashamed of itself!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Science

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

April 14, 2015 · 17:49

What’s wrong with Americans?

I got drawn in into a graphic video, which came from a dashcam. One source is http://ktla.com/2015/04/11/christian-family-band-members-in-deadly-parking-lot-brawl-police-say/, the other one is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEnuSVQe8E4.

The two sources, especially the second one, which shows a very disturbing event.

The event starts at 00:29. The officer states ‘We need to separate these folks and talk to them’, the emphases was very very clear, namely ‘talk to them’. At this point there are around 5 police officers and 8 civilians. Within three seconds the civilians start a fight. What is wrong with these Americans? As far as I could see, there was an issue, the police wants to clear up and learn what exactly the issue is. Within 20 seconds we have civilians fighting each other, two civilians jumping a police officer. This goes on for a little while. At 1:20 there is clear view that police officers are still trying to break up the fight as best as they can. At 1:30 if I see it correct, one Taser has been discharged. It is a scuffle and one voice starts screaming: “Stop being Nazi’s!” As I see it, there are no Nazi’s, just police officers in a bad situation, trying to stop the escalation as much as they can. At 1:55 we hear “You’re hitting children“. Well that is not quite correct was it? These civilians had a beef and would not restrain themselves to talking and violence erupted. Violence against the police who are up to this point showing restraint as far as possible. At 3:00 the police has had enough, now the threatening command ‘get down’ is issued. One policeman is on the floor dealing with (not really clear) two civilians. At 3:20 a shot is fired. Now the screaming starts ‘oh my god’, ‘oh my god’. The police continues the command ‘everybody down’. It is almost like they are dealing with a group of severely mentally unhinged individuals. They refuse clear directives that were given by police officers.

Now, when we consider the title that KTLA gives us, ‘Christian Family Band Members in Deadly Arizona Parking Lot Brawl, Police Say‘, many might wonder what came over the police initially, but the KTLA news as well as the dashcam gives us another picture, one that gives pause to the question, how come there are so little instances of police escalations. KTLA reported in addition the part that the videos would not have shown: “Officers wanted to question them about the alleged assault of a Walmart employee who was going into the store bathroom“, so there was a response to violence, the civilians escalated it even further and ‘Enoch Gaver, 21, was killed in the fight‘.

A death that his family members could have prevented from the very beginning by listening to the clear instructions. Ignoring them caused a fatality 170 seconds later. A fatality they themselves instigated.

So what is wrong with Americans?

Now, this generalisation sounds extremely unfair to the rest of the Americans, but there is a larger issue that goes beyond Ferguson. When we see clear biased filming and we see sources like http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/police-reasonable-force-brutality-race-research-review-statistics, many non-Americans wonder just how bad the police there is, yet this video clearly showed restraint by the police (as much as possible) and the danger the police faces (as one officer was injured in the process).

The linked article shows something a lot more important and more unsettling. The view comes from FBI Director James B. Comey. As he sees it there is no reliable grasp of the problem. This view is supported with the following statement: “Not long after riots broke out in Ferguson late last summer, I asked my staff to tell me how many people shot by police were African-American in this country. I wanted to see trends. I wanted to see information. They couldn’t give it to me, and it wasn’t their fault. Demographic data regarding officer-involved shootings is not consistently reported to us through our Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Because reporting is voluntary, our data is incomplete and therefore, in the aggregate, unreliable“, which ponders the question, why? In my view the voluntary nature of the UCRP data is centre in all this. I cannot go into that reasoning because I do not have insight in the system and infrastructure that relates to all this, but one of the oldest credence’s we know in regards to statistics is ‘to measure is to know‘, which cannot be maintained from a voluntary point of view. “I recently listened to a thoughtful big city police chief express his frustration with that lack of reliable data. He said he didn’t know whether the Ferguson police shot one person a week, one a year, or one a century, and that in the absence of good data, “all we get are ideological thunderbolts, when what we need are ideological agnostics who use information to try to solve problems.” He’s right“. The statement can be accepted as valid, but in my view it is not entirely correct. My reasoning here is that several parties in all this are frustrated, but the voluntary nature of reporting has not (at present) changed, why not? Is the first solution to an unknown to gather the data that illuminates a road to solutions? Why is the infrastructure and nature of the UCRP not addressed? There might be a valid reason for this, but as stated, I know too little regarding the UCRP, its mandate and its responsibilities. We can however agree that reporting is centre in finding or managing a road to a solution, or to a better situation, which is a path not trodden at present.

My question gains additional weight as we see “Without a doubt, training for police has become more standardized and professionalized in recent decades. A 2008 paper in the Northwestern University Law Review provides useful background on the evolving legal and policy history relating to the use of force by police and the “reasonableness” standard by which officers are judged. Related jurisprudence is still being defined, most recently in the 2007 Scott v. Harris decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. But inadequate data and reporting — and the challenge of uniformly defining excessive versus justified force — make objective understanding of trends difficult”

You see Scott v. Harris is well over half a decade old and that case shows the need for clarity, not just in data, but in insight. It is not just the dissenting voice of Justice Stevens in this matter. His view “Justice Stevens’s lone dissent argued that the videotape was not as definitive as the majority made it out to be and that a jury should make the determination on the justifiability of deadly force“, but if the judgment comes from a jury of peers, who would be the peer? A jury of police officers who know and almost daily see the consequences of hazardous driving, or a jury of civilians who could feel that the police should never have intervened with the criminal act of speeding? Like Enoch Gaver, Victor Harris learned the hard way what the consequences are of not obeying a clear directive from a police officer. A directive that was given in response to a crime that was being committed at that time. The cases have similarities in cause and effect.

What I personally see to be a factor is one that is not mentioned and might be ignored by many players, including FBI Director James B. Comey. The escalation that come from the disobedience from the alleged criminals. As the situation could not be diffused, the alleged factor is diminished into multiple criminal acts that were direct, instantly and almost undeniable. That part is clearly seen in the Walmart case. So if we consider the factor ‘escalation through disobedience‘, which is a lot more likely to evolve into acts of “justifiable homicide” by law enforcement officers, then the shifted statistics could show that certain events require a different mentality, not by the police, but by the population at large. For if we see evidence that clearly implies that certain statistics might no longer be valid (read: correct). That is seen in the quote “an estimated 1.7% of all contacts result in police threats or use of force, while 20% of arrests do“. The mere act of disobedience, or better stated ‘intentionally resisting arrest’, which is not just a crime, it is also a clear factor that results in fatalities. If that can somehow be addressed then a possible move towards clarity and less fatalities could become a reality. The question becomes, how to best go about it. I reckon it requires a person more intelligent than me to resolve or address it.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law

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

April 12, 2015 · 21:29

Bazynga!

There are many thoughts and phrases we can use, most of us will use the term ‘told you so’ in regards to a certain former Microsoft person. I am not like that, reasoning in this case is that I do not really know Don Mattrick. Many gamers saw the acts and choices voiced by Don Mattrick before the Xbox One was released and these acts almost drowned the console long before it was released. Now, I asked myself more than once, why he went this way, and I am not convinced that a few members of the Microsoft board pushed him into that direction. The problem was that these members have absolutely ZERO concept on what a gamer is, moreover, I feel certain that the mere concept of the dimension of a gamer is a pure alien concept to these BI Based Excel readers, so it all seemed like Don got fed to the sharks and after that got thrown into the Piranha pool and ended up in a bad situation, when the board members realised the error of their thoughtlessness, he got ‘promoted’ to CEO of Zynga. Now, all this is pure conjecture on my side, but I feel decently certain that I am not that far of the mark.

It must be said that I remained loyal to my Sony consoles (although I will never stop loving my Xbox 360). The Xbox One has a few flaws, mainly short-sighted ones. I will not bore you with resolution, although that could be regarded as a factor. My issue was twofold. One, the mandatory push to online acts (Sony has a similar flaw as your achievements can ONLY be seen when you are online). The system has a few additional glitches Sony does not have, but my biggest issue was the short-sightedness of the drive. You see, Sony offers the same drive size, but they let you upgrade if need be, so the ‘real’ gamers upgraded their systems on zero hour, so they start the system with a 1-2Tb system, which means as long there is no crash, the system will always have space for whatever you need. Many are willing to pay the additional $125 to get that maximisation. Microsoft failed because for $15 (yes, fifteen dollars) the system could have been a 1Tb system from day one. The difference between a 500 Gb and a 1Tb drive is a mere 15 dollars. What a silly level of short-sightedness, it would have satisfied 90% of the gamers. This is part of the message Don Mattrick ended up delivering and the fact that drives cannot be upgraded was not a good thing.

The games were another matter. The initial game release was as shallow as it gets, Ryse showed promise, but if you watch the YouTube movie (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-e1MQnh3V0) you will get three clear impressions.

  1. The movies look really good, the storyline is an excellent one
  2. Too much of the game is repetitive, slamming your shield and diving out of the way
  3. ‘Second wind’ rejuvenation in boss fights

This does NOT make for a good game.

So what had all the possibilities of legendary status, became a below average game. Delays form games like Watchdogs did not help either. The big issues that makes a console were all substandard, so Don Mattrick got the short end of the stick.

In this setting he got placed as CEO of Zynga. Now Mark Pincus is back. It is the subtitle of the article that makes for the issue in play. “Farmville and Words with Friends publisher still trying to recapture past glories, with new (old) boss saying ‘we need to get back to being the leader in mobile data and analytics’“. I do not disagree, but Zynga already had issues as Pincus went on a nice sabbatical. That part is given in the quote: “Zynga reported revenues of $690.4m (£467m) in 2014, compared to Candy Crush maker King’s $2.26bn (£1.5bn) and Clash of Clans publisher Supercell’s $1.67bn (£1.13bn)“.

 

The part not shown is that Farmville was a really fun game to play, but Zynga became all about harassment, harassment of friends and mails to get your friends to send you stuff. That is not the best way to remain on friendly terms with your friends, especially as they might not be into gaming. So those who play a lost hour on games like Farmville, Fishville, Mafia Wars, Cityville, Cafe World and Hidden Chronicles (to name but a few) resulted in people ‘losing’ friends and the aggravation of waiting forever for the parts, or spending way too much to skip of to ‘purchase’ those parts was for many reason to call it a day and to move to other grounds (perhaps the loss of 60% of the gamers that Zynga had, was exactly for this reason). Candy Crush and likeminded titles work on other principles and they have been very successful. I saw through that ploy too and I am not willing to spend on it (in the way King wanted us to). I would have been willing to purchase the game for $20 on my mobile. Providing that the special candy would reset with a decent counter, so that the challenge could remain. I reckon that most of those games would be excellent games on a Nintendo, so instead of ‘harassing’ others, the Nintendo street pass solution could be used. In that case the game could be an instant hit and Zynga ends up catching 30-50 per player (but only once). I still believe that this could be a path Zynga could walk with those games. 40 million users could amount to well over 100 million dollars in revenue for one game, which is not that bad.

The quote “Pincus added that he intends to make Zynga’s famous focus on data and analytics a key part of its continued comeback strategy” might be a possibility, but in which direction? Truly new games, added challenges for all games or another ploy in marketing growth? Because growth in players would imply growth of revenue, but that only happens when people fell relaxed spending a few extra dollars. It is often not the dollars spend, it is the value for money that pulls players across. I personally feel that spending a few dollars, not when I have to, but when the tactical advantage, or the long term benefit is shown. That part was clearly shown in games like Castle age, where I spend like $10 in 2009, which gave me some powerful items which changed the curve completely (in my favour), meaning that the strength going from level 4 to level 15 in one moment had long term benefits. The same can be said for Elemental Kingdoms. The fact that both games are completely different has no bearing. Elemental Kingdoms is a truly innovative Customisable card game, which can be played on a tablet. However, unlike Magic, these cards, as they are virtual can actually ‘evolve’ in more powerful cards. By spending ‘coins’ you get from winning games. The artwork is excellent and the game is a decent challenge. A last example is Book of Heroes (Android/IOS) where a mere $5 doubles the power of the game. Those approaches makes many dash out the dollars for the pleasure. Consider again those 40 million players, that $5 could constitute 200 million, an amount that is almost guaranteed to work. It is when the power and the fun of the game hits us that many players would be eager to add a few more dollars to the counter. That part had been absent in Zynga games.

So, will Zynga be able to turn the tables around? There is no real way to say. What looks nice, still needs to be playable. If there is one lesson that has been pounded on these developers is shown by games like Minecraft and Blockheads (IOS). These sandbox games are the type of games that players find more entertaining and they are enjoyed a lot longer. The question becomes where could Zynga go then?

I reckon that the past (CBM Amiga) shows several games (and possible directions for Zynga), 20 years old but every bit as playable and could be a new iteration of gaming. RPG and Sandbox games have a future and no one seems to be tapping into that source. Consider some of the games from Amiga (and in one case CBM-64) where we get value for gaming and where Zynga could still make money too. Those are options for the future. Now you wonder why I mentioned those two platforms. Well, simple. Many of these games were excellent in addiction, challenge and fun. The tablet and Mobile phone is more powerful than those systems ever were, so they are likely to be easily implemented in new technology that beside the fact that most of these games can be found on what is called ‘abandonware’. I am on one side in favour of this happening, on the other side do not want to trespass on someone’s copyrights. But when we consider that today’s generation could be equally excited to play Dungeon Master, 7 cities of gold, System Shock, Populous, Lemmings and a league of other games is just a good thing. Some of these games should never be forgotten.

So how does this hit back on Zynga? I think that they can look at these achievements and look at new ways to appease the coin of the mobile player. I do not think that the vision of Mark Pincus is wrong, I just think that Zynga needs to cast a wider net, because it is partially about: ‘he intends to make Zynga’s famous focus on data and analytics a key part of its continued comeback strategy’, but for a much larger part it is to make the game about gaming and gamers, not just about the maximised profit of a business plan, because when the player catches that scent, they’ll permanently move away quite quickly (but that might be just my view on the matter).

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT

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

April 11, 2015 · 09:53

Liber Calvariam

Of all the techie things we know, many, even most non-techies, they all have their view on Facebook. I am no different in that case. I have made in the past several cases where I question the actions of Facebook, the choices they made and the things their users agree upon. I have in the past always tempered that to some extent because, I think that there is no such thing as a ‘free service’, there is always a price to pay and that price is not always ‘expressed’ in coin or currency.

The first article in this was in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/31/facebook-tracks-all-visitors-breaching-eu-law-report), it was published on March 31st and the title is of course pretty upsetting, namely “Facebook ‘tracks all visitors, breaching EU law’“, now the title is already reason for debate, but I will get to that shortly. The quote that is part in this is: “People without Facebook accounts, logged out users, and EU users who have explicitly opted out of tracking are all being tracked, report says“. This links to a story that was published on February 23rd. That link is important, as that story links to two articles. The first one (at http://www.law.kuleuven.be/icri/en/news/item/icri-cir-advises-belgian-privacy-commission-in-facebook-investigation), has links to full reports and states: “Facebook’s default settings related to behavioural profiling or Social Ads, for example, are particularly problematic. Moreover, users are offered no choice whatsoever with regard to their appearance in “Sponsored Stories” or the sharing of location data“, I have experienced part of this myself, even now, at times, it still takes a moment to figure out what settings are where and I am very tech savvy. More important, the second link to the full Facebook PDF article was not found, a little sloppy I must say. There is no way to tell whether this flaw was because of actions from the University of Leuven, or from the Guardian.

My issue follows from “EU privacy law states that prior consent must be given before issuing a cookie or performing tracking, unless it is necessary for either the networking required to connect to the service (“criterion A”) or to deliver a service specifically requested by the user (“criterion B”)” as well as “A cookie is a small file placed on a user’s computer by a website that stores settings, previous activities and other small amounts of information needed by the site. They are sent to the site on each visit and can therefore be used to identify a user’s computer and track their movements across the web“, by themselves they seem innocent enough, but when we consider the implications, we get ‘identify a user’s computer‘ and ‘track their movements across the web‘, now we get the issue, so how deep goes this identification and how much tracking is done, just your actions whilst on Facebook or EVERYTHING you do on the web and where you do it? That last part becomes an issue when we consider that we use Facebook on our mobiles. There is an issue that is implied, but not correctly and completely addressed by the Guardian (as well as many other papers).

Yet, the information the article gives as brought by ‘Article 29‘ gives us: “The Article 29 working party has also said that cookies set for “security purposes” can only fall under the consent exemptions if they are essential for a service explicitly requested by the user – not general security of the service“. I do not completely agree with that statement. Their statement is not wrong, but consider the mobile user, the user is a device in motion, whilst at the same time could be engaging with data in motion, two very different concepts, and whilst the cookie is not meant to be for both, it will include both, which could be regarded as an exemption. You see, when you move, from tower X to tower Y, either as Pede Strian, or as the Vehicular Mover, we will need explicit security, not just general security. Their statement has merit from a desktop, but it now becomes a question, whether the mobile or the desktop user is now the majority here. In addition, I have not even adjusted this view for those connected through ‘free Wi-Fi‘ a dubious concept for sure, one where security needs to be a lot more defining. In my personal view there is a clear need for an exemption, which I would quote as “the consent exemption, essential for the secure use of a service explicitly required for the mobile user“. That does not take away the need to address issues involving the advertised purpose of sponsored visibility, which is a fair enough issue, but let’s face it, Facebook is offered for ‘free’, those sponsored moments are the ‘price’ we get to pay and I for one agree with the not like, but I understand that the cost of running Facebook hardware is not that cheap in the end.

Now we get to the ‘actual issue’. The one that was brought on April 10th (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/10/facebook-admits-it-tracks-non-users-but-denies-claims-it-breaches-eu-privacy-law). The issue is not just the quote “Facebook has admitted that it tracked users who do not have an account with the social network, but says that the tracking only happened because of a bug that is now being fixed“, because, as I see it, this issue has been around at least 8 weeks, and if we accept that the issue was already in play before the University of Leuven came with the (unread) paper and their version of evidence, than we can postulate that this issue had been going on for months. In this Facebook is not innocent, because, if Facebook is set up properly by its administrators, then the system had been collecting parsed data which should have been linked to certain flags. The fact that data was collected ‘unchecked’ gives us pause to question the system as designed, or we accept that Facebook exploited a bug to their own ends. Neither could be seen as illegal, for the mere reason that the evidence linking it all to ‘intent’ could not be proven as I see it. Even if a legal party had access to the entire system, the premise of intent might not ever be proven.

A bigger issue is the quote from Richard Allan “The researchers did find a bug that may have sent cookies to some people when they weren’t on Facebook. This was not our intention – a fix for this is already under way“, you see, a cookie is sent (under normal conditions) when a user action warrants it. They log in, they go to a certain page or they use an app, or location, where they are linked to a Facebook account (for example, we place a comment on the Guardian page (to just mention an option) and we sign in using our Facebook account. In those cases the cookie seems valid to me, yet is that part of the ‘when they weren’t on Facebook‘ part? If not, then it is not just a bug, it seems to me that there is an unchecked balance of server based flags that are triggered by any instance whilst the user is not connected, which is not just a bug, it is a systematic flaw of the Facebook system, but is that the actual case here?

Another issue I have is with the quote from Brendan Van Alsenoy, a researcher at ICRI. Here we see: “European legislation is really quite clear on this point. To be legally valid, an individual’s consent towards online behavioural advertising must be opt-in” that quote might be correct, but is that not part of the user agreement from Facebook, they by creating the account are opting in? In addition, we get a truckload of these opting in moments as we accept the usage of an app within Facebook. So are these not explicit opt-in moments?

I still have issues with something that was on the Wall Street Journal in August 2014 (at http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/08/08/facebook-messenger-privacy-fears-heres-what-you-need-to-know/). You see, I had similar issues, but guess what, suddenly within days all news on this issue just stopped and no one followed up or gave a clear picture on why certain rights were there. I think it would be distressing to people when they agree to “call phone numbers without your intervention,” and “use the camera at any time without your permission”, two of at least half a dozen questionable rights we signed over. My issue was with the part ‘without your permission‘, which is an issue to say the least. Yes, I agree that it could be just an android phrase, but none of these rights or messages ever popped up on Google plus or any other Google option I use, so is it just me?

In the end we love bashing a big boy like IBM, Microsoft or Facebook, but let’s be fair about it all and that is only possible if we get a clear article on the subject, it seems to me that the articles of late do not paint a clear picture, it just sketches events and acting on these partial sketches is not a good thing, or fair towards Facebook.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

April 10, 2015 · 22:09

An exceptional pound of flesh

Two articles hit my eyes as I took a small break from my midterm exam. When you dig into the: who, what, when, where how and why of Patent Systems, your sanity prevails if you take a small break every 2-3 hours. It is just the only sane and safe way to avoid getting stuck on the same page.

The two articles were ‘Cuba seeks foreign investment as it shores up increased diplomatic ties‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/10/cuba-seeks-foreign-investment-as-it-shores-up-increased-diplomatic-ties) and ‘Pound volatile amid general election uncertainty‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/10/pound-volatile-amid-general-election-uncertainty), there is no real relationship in these matters, or is there?

First, let’s take the last part first as to get it all out of the way. The end gives us: “Investors were also positive on Greece’s payment of a €450m (£325m) debt to the International Monetary Fund on Thursday“. Why? Let’s not forget, this payment is nothing more than 1/3rd of a billion against outstanding HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS, so why are investors relieved? Greece has not presented any decent acceptable plan and the visit from Tsipras to Moscow to rattle some cages will count against him sooner rather than later. In addition I would like to call attention to the ‘altered’ view from Christine Lagarde as she mentioned “developed and emerging economies still suffering the after-effects of the 2008 crash must collaborate better to avoid an era of low growth”, which reads like a detour, an extra train stop on the track where the distance between recession of true growth seems to be increasing, not decreasing or remain stable. Apart from the fact that Greece only has 5 days left to present their plan (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32229793), the one part everyone simply ignores is that after they get the money, then what? If these newly elected officials will not push through and re-debate the issue again, the Eurozone is down another seven billion euro plus, then what? Will Greece become a vulture funds target? Will we see newly created carefully phrased denials on what will never be? That one part can be found in the quote “Without new money it will struggle to renew €2.4bn in treasury bonds due to mature in the middle of April, or pay back another €0.8B to the IMF on 12 May“, so consider that Greece might be unable to pay back 770 Million Euro on May 12th (decently likely scenario), what else can they no longer pay? Let’s not forget that the 12th of May payment makes up for 0.25% of the debt, the interest would be is a lot more than that, so how will any ‘investor’ choice pay out? Are you people awake now? So, I dealt with Greece! Now to the linked other parts!

You see, the link to England will become apparent soon enough, when we consider the quote “Analysts have warned that the pound could have further to fall as financial markets react to uncertainty created by the closest general election for more than 20 years” l, we have to wonder how reserved these analysts truly are, a stable growing economy is scaring them? I agree that the plans from Ed Miliband are decently ludicrous, bus in the end, if elected, he must do what is best for the nation (which means that he would have to vote for David Cameron, hawk! Hawk! Hawk!). In all seriousness though, a close call or not, there is something wrong with the statement Michael Hewson makes: “The pound has started to come under some pressure in recent days as the prospect of political gridlock“, whilst the market is positive as Greece pays back less than a percent of its debt, this whilst it is clear that Greece has no funds left. How is that dimensionality rational in any way, shape or form? That is, unless you take into account the part that the Guardian is not mentioning. If the market is truly worried on what happens when Nigel Farage comes out on top, or ends up with too much of a gain, then the united front that Farage and Le Penn would show, would truly be a concern to investors, because those two have had enough of the entire Eurozone issue on several levels and Greece only worsened their resolve (meaning that both are more eager to pursue the end of their EEC membership. a nightmare scenario for markets on a near global base.

Now, the markets also made the following ‘claim’: “Currency traders have also been unsettled by signs of weakness in Britain’s manufacturing sector. Production figures are due out on Friday morning“, this is fair enough, you see, manufacturing is an issue and it is not that strong in the UK or in many other places for that matter. Yet, two hours ago, the following was reported: “UK industrial output is weaker than expected: it edged up 0.1% in February, vs expectations of a 0.4% gain, while manufacturing met City forecasts with a 0.4% rise. Industrial production is the wider measure, which comprises manufacturing, mining and utilities“, so manufacturing met the expectations, so why the hesitation? I am not making any assumptions here, but I am wondering on how much certain markets assume that met expectations were supposed to be exceeded. Especially in a European mess that is still all over the place. It is almost like the markets will not tolerate any bad news, is this linked to some views on US bubbles (housing for one) that could burst before June 30th? This is a question, not an assumption or an implied issue. but the question should be asked in a very clear way and certain parties should answer it in very clear ways too, because at present, when you see some journalists report on economy, they quickly move all over the field, pretending to draw a picture, whilst the sketch we end up seeing is that of something we did not ask and it leaves many with too many questions. Did I oversimplify the matter again?

So now we get to the true path in all this, the link between the Pound and Cuba. Some might know them, some do not, but I remember the Cuban Fleet Freight Services (Cuflet). I reckon that looking into options with Cuba via Cuflet could spell good times for several players, if manufacturing options are found in emerging markets, why not see what offers could be made and found there. The Dutch could gain a headway by looking into the Bicycle market, engineering projects, the issue is clarity. When we consider the article ‘Navigating Complexity in foresight: Lessons from the UK future of Manufacturing Project‘ (at https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/fta2014-t1practice_52.pdf), I personally am willing to get a few giggles from the futility that figure one shows (2008, Popper’s foresight Diamond). I do not disagree with the image of with the elements of creativity, interaction, evidence and expertise brings, but in the end Manufacturing is about what one has and the other one needs. So elements like Viability, opportunity, economy and shipping brings us the need for what can be manufactured, what could be sold and what is to be delivered. So when I read the conclusion on page 11, where we see “The high level of complexity of manufacturing systems and the diversity of forces acting on them make anticipating future configurations , challenges and opportunities particularly difficult. Manufacturing foresight needs to deal with multiple units of analyses, assimilate a variety of evidence at different levels of disaggregation from a variety of sources and integrate diverse stakeholder’s perspectives“. A view from academics from Cambridge as well the government office for science.

So let’s break that down in something we all can understand.

  1. Good business is where you find it. (Robocop, 1987), which gives us opportunity
  2. Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction (Ernst F. Schumacher), which gives us a handle on complexity in regards to manufacturing systems (the reason to avoid complexity whenever possible).
  3. We have to choose between a global market driven only by calculations of short-term profit, and one which has a human face (Kofi Annan), which gets us to the economic side.

We have been so blinded looking at those who only seek short term maximised personal gain, that we forget the satisfaction that can be gotten from a long term goal where both sides make gains and interact with their economy in a profitable way, without denying the other party their goals. Here we see the option for both the UK and Cuba. It is not a given, it is not a guarantee, but an option, an opportunity to consider. It is the one side of Warren Buffett I do (partially) admire, he thinks long term (in case of Tesco, not long term enough), but overall the long term side will always pay off, which is the path we should walk, which is of course not the path that the bulk of hedge funds operators want us to consider and as too many listen to those people, we end up having a problem. So as we look at the pound of flesh that could give us a sterling reward, we tend to ignore that part for the fake glory of short term boosts. Yet, if we see Lidl and Aldi where we clearly see exactly that this longer term approach will keep them afloat, unlike their competitors, which is the issue at hand!

Because in the end, the conclusion quote from the academic article gives us the massive anchor that they did not properly dimensionalise ‘assimilate a variety of evidence at different levels of disaggregation from a variety of sources and integrate diverse stakeholders perspectives‘, too often the data presented from the view of the stakeholder cannot be trusted. Whether it is the weight applied to the source, the way the question was formulated and set into the data collective, or the methodology of analytics that was pursued afterwards. It was a painted view from a person with a goal and a presented image, that ‘presented’ image tends to colour all connected evidence, which gives us a view of many games as they are played, but in all this, we all make the same mistake, we compare presented results and statistical results, whilst the individual sources are often too unknown, which is truly a bad an unexceptional path to walk.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

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

April 8, 2015 · 11:20

Is it illogical?

Today the news is all about Greece, not because they are getting it done, but because they are now less than 24 hours away from a 450 million euro invoice and whilst Prime Minister Tsipras stated that they have the cash to make the next payment (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-04/greece-has-cash-to-make-imf-payment-next-week-minister-says), of course, that statement is now an issue as we wonder why Tsipras took the fast plane to Moscow.

In other news (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/06/varoufakis-extends-washington-charm-offensive-after-talks-with-lagarde), where ‘rock star’ Varoufakis is smiling all over the place. the quote “The hope is he will gain the support of Treasury officials in persuading lenders to cut Greece some slack” seems highly misplaced as the Greek elected officials have been sitting on their hands in feigned acts of ‘activity’. Yet the article shows two interesting quotes. The first one is “it has been openly critical of a German-dominated Europe pushing the country too hard on austerity and fearful of the effects that might have on European unity. A Grexit would spin the markets out of control. It is the last thing Washington wants“. It seems that the US might have issues with the German approach of reducing debt. You see, that hits the bottom dollar, the US can only partially recover if THEIR banks get the slice of the multi trillion dollar debt Europe has, once the debt goes down, their income slows down by a large margin.

The second part here is the market response to Grexit. Yes, the US has a fair point trying to limit that event, but this implies the following:

  1. I had been correct for well over a year in my statements that a tumble of the Euro would massively hit the Dollar and the market.
  2. The fact that the Greek exit, with 500 billion in debt has SUCH an impact, whilst the Greek economy makes up for less than 2% of the European economy implies that the European nations at large are borrowed up to the max and this first stone falling, gives us a domino effect that will wound the market for a longer time, which means the US holier-than-thou DOW will also feel the massive impact one way or another.

If economies at large are THIS dependent on that Dow Jones Index, then what failures are we going to see in addition to Greece?

The second quote that is interesting is: “Varoufakis, was scheduled to meet Nathan Sheets, US Treasury undersecretary for international affairs, two days before Tsipras heads to Moscow for talks with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, on Wednesday“. This is interesting for the simple reason which is found in the question: Why?

You see, when we look at Nathan Sheets, the treasury page (at http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl2640.aspx) gives us: “Sheets will lead Treasury’s Office of International Affairs, which protects and supports U.S. economic prosperity by strengthening the external environment for U.S. growth, preventing and mitigating global financial instability, and managing key global challenges“, so why was Varoufakis meeting Nathan Sheets? Is he not all up in arms to protect Greece from collapsing? Which might be the same goal both have, but that gives extra weight to second implication I mentioned, the Greek debt has far fetching consequences, so why would a flight to Russia have any positive result for Greece, it would suit Russia just fine to see the DOW tumble. So unless Greece is making a deal that includes the option of a Russian base on Greek grounds, we should consider the possibility of watching a linked smoke screen we see here.

That conclusion (the smoke screen) is given weight by the following quote we see in another Guardian article: “Mrs Lagarde … stressed that, in Greece’s case, the Fund is willing to show utmost flexibility in the way in which the government’s reforms and fiscal proposals will be evaluated“, as well as “It added that in separate meetings, US Treasury officials who also met Varoufakis expressed the willingness of the US government to play the role of an ‘honest broker’ in helping Greece to strike a deal with its lenders“.

The question becomes, flexibility in which direction? That question follows the ‘honest broker‘ offer from US treasury officials. If this was (very likely), the Nathan Sheets meeting, then we get a new issue, not just who gets the brokered deal and at which percentage, we now see a second instance where IMF and US needs meet hand in hand. Did we not see a similar evolution with Argentina? If that is so, then who is catering whom and how much will it cost the Greeks, when the actual full invoice is revealed after a massive black out through smoke screens, miscommunications and incomplete data. Yes, those are presumptions on my side, but when you recall the Argentinian debacle, where they were pushed towards vulture funds, after IMF help was denied through a request by the US, many press members did not properly follow up that part and no clear information was ever published, so are my assumptions that far out of bounds?

Now we get to the interesting part. You see, he Guardian has another piece by Phillip Inman titled ‘IMF needs to see the bigger picture – that debt can choke off growth‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/07/imf-needs-to-see-the-bigger-picture-that-debt-can-choke-off-growth). Here we see the following parts that are a decent chunk of sizzling debate that we can charcoal grill in an instant. “Yet the remedies outlined by the IMF to counter the threat of persistent low growth in Britain and other developed world economies, as documented in that report, show that debt influences growth and in extremis can choke it off” as well as “the IMF says the world’s major economies risk a long period of low growth unless governments do more to overcome the after-effects of the financial crisis and the longer-term problem of ageing populations“.

I do not deny the correctness of the statements, but the statements are all extremely short sighted, especially when you consider that the people making the statements are on high 6-7 figure incomes. Let us not forget that these governments decided to get themselves in debt and that for well over a decade, no proper budget has been pushed through. It was Germany and Germany alone, that tightened their own belt by a lot and as such they have been enjoying lessened interest payments, which is now saving them billions each year. The second part is that ‘overcome the after-effects of the financial crisis’ is all about proper budgeting, which has gone amiss all over Europe (not just in Greece), in addition ‘longer-term problem of ageing populations‘ is not completely a valid concern as this had been known for well over a decade, which means that plans should have been in place for a long time.

Now we get to the interesting part. As governments on a global scale were so eager to be the bitch of large corporations, the involved governments painted themselves in a corner. Yet, the IMF is not innocent here either, I had a go on their numbers in 2013, when they had published ‘World Economic Outlook April 2013‘ (at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/pdf/text.pdf), where they stated that advanced economies would be performing at 1.2% in 2013 and 2.2% in 2014. I pretty much labelled the group behind that piece of ….paper ‘bonkers’, now we see “Looking forward, the IMF said potential growth in advanced economies was expected to increase slightly from an average of about 1.3% a year in the last six years to 1.6% until 2020, but not reach the 2.25% average seen between 2001 and 2007“, So this means I was right, my simple use of an abacus got me numbers more precise than they did with their ‘economists’ that they bunched like grapes in an analytics department. I did expect numbers to be a lot better in 2016, but that was based on the limited information I had, irresponsible elected officials did skew my numbers more in a negative way, silly me for having hope that elected officials would keep a level head in all this. Serves me right!

Yet, behind all this is a little more. It is the quote “But growth is not the only way to diminish or pay back debts. Cancelling them is another. Banks do it with their worst performing customers. Unfortunately for Greece, the IMF refuses to use the same criteria as Lloyds or RBS would when confronted by a failed business” that gets to me. As an assumed speculation this path is not a bad option, and any Journalist has my blessing to entertain such a thought in the proper context. But this article does not do that, it is left in the air at the end of an opinion piece, without proper merit. This makes me wonder why Phillip Inman economics correspondent added this. Just to give visibility to his book? I seriously doubt that, the statement in the air is the issue in this, perhaps like me he is postulating that the ‘forgiving’ of debts is what certain banks are hoping for, because it puts them in the clear and leaves the debt with the underwriting governments, a step Germany is opposing rigorously (and rightly so).

What is in my view decently clear is the prediction I made earlier, that Greece is playing Possum in the 11th hour is coming to fruition, my issue becomes, why is the Greek population accepting this and why is there no proper investigations in lighting up all the sides on how previous Greek administrations accepted tons of debt without any decent exit plan. In my view, Antonis Samaras was sailing the only path that had the option of keeping the Greek population independent and proud, a plan that is certainly becoming less and less a reality under Tsipras, because no matter what happens next, whether it is feigned forgiven debt or any Russian deal, there will be consequences for the Greek population at large, an issue ignored by most players involved, especially their elected officials.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

April 7, 2015 · 02:01

A console surprise

There was an interesting surprise in the Guardian last Friday, on the day of good Friday, a religious day of doom, where someone got crucified almost 2000 years ago, Keith Stuart has his own anti-crucifixion on the games you should own, more precisely, the 14 games you should own! (At http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/03/14-xbox-one-and-playstation-4-ps4-games-you-should-own). Now, I have had more than one issue with his articles, but overall, they are a good read and his view is a valid one. The first issue I had here is that the 14 titles are only achievable if you have both consoles. I know, just a minor issue, but a critical one. What I immensely liked is that NONE of the Assassins Creed games made the cut, which has to suck for Ubisoft. Even Black flag, which was not a true AC game, but a decent game none the less was absent.

So, is his view, or his list wrong? Nah! It is just a view, a valid view and I refuse to attack a person on any valid given view, even if I do not agree with it, I just thought it was lacking a few titles, a mere issue of calculus. So let’s take a look at some of the titles.

The first one is Bloodborne, which is immensely frustrating to play. It is relatively easy to get killed and then it is all back to square one. I lost two dozen lives, still in the beginning. You see, you get to kill, it goes smoothly and then you get just the tiniest moment overconfident and THAT gets you killed real fast. This game is about agility, tactical planning and slaughter in the most amazing graphical environment you are ever likely to see. The game is sublime in look and movement, but a better key location save point system (or a lot more of them) would have been really nice, in addition, clarity on equipping stuff and upgrading yourself would have been a decent help too. But let these words not fool you, the game is truly a challenge, whomever passes this game can call himself or herself a true gamer. The game is a challenge, you will love it or you will hate it, there is no grey area in this game, other than the grey of the streets. The game is an earth shattering experience, there is no denying it.

Minecraft made the list and the Last of Us remastered made the list, these are two essential games as I see it, but what was missing?

Well, this much remains a personal view, but as the list of 14 is not pure, let’s add a few titles. I personally think that Diablo 3 is also an essential game to have. Available for both, this game is the latest version of a legendary game that has haunted the minds of gamers for almost 20 years. Graphically the game is sublime and the added multiplayer mode is just unreal! It forces true teamwork if one wants to stay alive on higher levels in addition, the hardcore mode is more than just a small challenge, Diablo has always pushed forward and this third one is no exception with a good and captivating storyline. The makers have done whatever they could to make this game highly replayable. Thy pulled it off nicely.

There is one on the list that should get a mention. Life is Strange is one I have not played and know little about, but the part Keith Stuart wrote makes me want to check out this title sooner rather than later, which gives additional weight to his article. It is nice to see an article where you know all the player, it becomes a lot more when the article informs you on a game you missed out on, which is a reality we all face, so getting the nudge to check it out is always a nice thing.

So, his list gives us 11 PS4 and 10 Xbox 1 titles. Diablo 3 makes it 12, 11. In addition the mention of Evolve, one of the most ground breaking shooters I have ever see is also a must to have, be part of 4 or be the monster and kill as you go. The graphics, the scenery and the challenge. Evolve is more than just a new player. This game is upping the ante for shooters, which in this day and age and with the new consoles is quite the achievement. If you love shooters it is a must, if not, see if you can borrow it and try it, it will be worth the experience.

The next title in my view is Alien Isolation. It is horror survival, more importantly the game taps into the original fear that the movie Alien gave us. It is also one game that makes the oculus rift a serious consideration. I only saw that part online vie YouTube, but the idea that you look into the space, and in one direction makes you jittery like nothing you ever experienced, which is the feeling any good horror game should give you. It should push borders, Alien Isolation delivers in that regard. Together with The Enemy within, the horror survival genre is up for new life and the graphics and power of next generation consoles add to that experience, giving you my reasoning for adding this title.

Now it is time to add an Xbox One game. In my view the only title to add is Sunset Overdrive. I played it on the Game Show and the game is beyond amazing! I’ll go one step further. This game is so good that it is worth buying an Xbox One for. I chose the PS4 and this game is the only one that made me reconsider my choice. The graphics, the look and the gameplay makes Sunset Overdrive an absolute must if you have the Xbox One.

There we have the 14 games that are a must, but this year will show us a nice change as we get the Witcher 3 (May), Metal Gear Solid 5 (September) and No Man’s Sky (August). In addition, there will be the remastered Mass Effect (1, 2 and 3) in December (latest info) which will be a consideration too. The fact that both will get it only makes us desire Mass Effect 4 more. That title is still long away and replaying the trilogy will help us to overcome the sad delay. I only hope that they will give us the Multiplayer option of Mass Effect 3. That has been the most wonderful multiplayer experience of all Xbox 360 games (personal view), which is quite the achievement.

So, up to now there will be at least half a dozen games that tap into the gaming soul of the current players, with plenty of good games on route, for both consoles.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, Media

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

April 5, 2015 · 20:29

The Labour Manifesto

Ed Miliband presented his Manifesto Res Rei. In light of what we here in Australia laughingly refer to as ‘the Labour party’, it seemed like a good idea to take a closer look at the speech. The full speech can be seen here http://labourlist.org/2015/03/miliband-launches-labours-business-manifesto-full-speech-text/.

So let’s take a dip into the claims pool.

‘Playing by the rules and paying the taxes that support our public services’, Really Mr. Miliband? So how will you solve the issues involving Apple, Google, Amazon et al? What measures are currently in play, what measures did Labour in its previous governing term put into play. I say naught!

The second part is found soon thereafter ‘With a government that balances the books, invests in infrastructure and works with you to improve skills and open up more competitive markets‘. The Tories are trying to get the books balanced, which means austerity. Labour had a massive hand in giving the UK that debt, so we can offer that Labour has no ability to balance books and the investment that they talk about will drive the UK into deeper debt.

Then the story changes a little and Ed Miliband goes into waffle mode. We see ‘despite the odds‘, ‘too many obstacles‘, ‘the lack of certainty about the long term‘ and my favourite: ‘Our productivity gap is at its highest level for nearly a quarter of a century‘. That last one is full of fun, because what is it based on? Weighted numbers, a lack of insight or the added anchor of virtual corporations?

Now he gets to the promise: “So we’ll balance the books and cut the deficit every year“, yes, how will you do that by investing and balancing the books at the same time? The current debt spring is loaded, because the UK has to come up 23 billion every year to pay the interest of the current deficit, so good luck with that statement, you do remember that your predecessor was cause to a massive slide in debt Mr. Miliband?

‘The struggle to find the workforce they need‘, which sounds nice in theory, but many corporations hire young unexperienced people to get away with what some want to slide under that table, when we see the issue where Ross Etherson, who admitted 21 counts of making or supplying articles for use in fraud, cost the NHS more than £37,000, Isleworth Crown Court heard, we clearly see that there are other issues at play, when we take the info from the BBC at http://www.bbc.com/news/10604117, we see that unemployment has steadily dropped under the Tory government. Now, I will in all fairness state that labour was confronted with the 2008 problems, but that mess was not properly dealt with under labour either. The mess left from their debacle 1997-2010 is still getting cleaned up half a decade later.

Now we get to the fishy side of it all: ‘It is a partnership for a purpose. We will give you control of the money for apprenticeships and in exchange we will say that any firm that gets a major government contract will have to provide apprenticeships to the next generation‘. How is this even realistic? Giving control of the money means that all kinds of accounting irregularities are likely to surface, then what? And in regards to ‘major government contract‘ and ‘provide apprenticeships to the next generation‘, how is that not discrimination towards the current aging workforce? In addition, we see that there are situations where apprenticeships are not a solution in the first place, which is just the reality. Consider a new frigate that is getting build with 500 engineers and 10 apprentices on the job, how many delays and what security breaches could the new frigate face? So not apply this rule to all fields? That is just a mess waiting to explode in the faces of those proclaiming it to be a solution.

Then we get (after another wave of waffling by Ed Miliband) ‘the priority for business tax cuts‘, yes, that has always been a good idea, especially as Google and Apple seem to pay 0.1% in taxation. How about infrastructure? Ah, that is next, where we see: ‘That’s why we’ll follow the recommendation of Sir John Armitt and set up a new independent National Infrastructure Commission‘, yes, spending more money on something that will not prove to be a solution, whilst the UK is down a trillion, so at this point, after we saw tax cut and infrastructure and invest, let us remember the earlier promise “So we’ll balance the books and cut the deficit every year“, which I see as:

  1. No balancing the books
  2. Increasing, not decreasing the deficit.

Now we get to the ideological part, which Ed Miliband is of course entitled to: “There could be nothing worse for our country or for our great exporting businesses than playing political games with our membership of the EU“. that is partially true, yet as the EU is unable to muzzle Greece with their flim flam rock band approach of not dealing with their debt and whilst several players are now willing to push Greece into deeper debt, both the UK and Germany need to realise that Greece is getting their credit for nothing and their luxuries at the expense of the other EU nations. How long until it is just safer to let the rest of the EU drown in their inactions against Greece? Which by the way has every likelihood of pushing both Italy and France over their maximum debt threshold, which has massive implications for any member remaining within the EU, all because no one was willing or able to stop Greece?

Now we get back to part of the speech that is an issue ‘Two years of uncertainty in which businesses will not be able to plan for the future‘, how about the fact that most of Europe in a denied recession, due to massive debt dealing is not the way to get any level of certainty? In the Netherlands, unemployment is at 7.2%, In Belgium it is 8.5% and in France it is at 10.4%, so when we look at what business options there are in Europe, we will see a cold turkey that comes home to voluntarily roost in the oven at 190 degrees, because the crispy warmth is loads better than the cold outside, even if the turkey is about to get eaten in the process.

If there is ONE business plan, that that would be the one, where the UK gets by for now, trying to grow, but most importantly is reducing the debt it has, so it does not have to fork out +20 billion in interest to banks for money the Labour party had spent.

So as he goes on reminding us on ‘We need to be a country that rescues our NHS with more doctors and nurses‘, yes, we all remember the NHS 12 billion computer scheme, that did not go too well for all parties involved, perhaps listening to others would have helped the Labour party heaps, but that was in those days never an option, so why trust them now? so the phrase ‘Not what we have seen over the last five years where the NHS slides into crisis‘ is a little misplaced as it was Labour who did messed up 12 billion, an amount that could have kept loads of nurses into jobs and grown the NHS. It was not meant to be!

So when we see the following quote: ‘To carry on with a Conservative plan based on the idea that as long as the richest and most powerful succeed, everyone else will be OK, or a Labour plan, a better plan, that says it is only when working people succeed that Britain succeeds‘

We ought to consider another option. To cut drastically on medical services for those on drug and alcohol based events. These people only get treatment if they can pay in advance for treatment.

Let’s take on the binge drinking issue heads on!

Those who fail the first two parts are thrown into a drunk tank like in the old days. If they die, well that is just too bad, we can blame the parents, we can rejoice on a growing number of available housing (the deceased do not need them) and the nations has even more jobs available and the cost of the NHS goes down.

Now, it will be fair if you disagree with me on this and I admit that this step is hugely inhumane, but consider: these people cost the society 21 billion on an annual base, which includes the 3.5 billion to the NHS. To protect the victims of their crime and violence, they will be remanded into prisons/work houses. So, you see, production will be better off if we change that workforce too!

Yes, I agree it is inhumane, but why must the people at large suffer for those who think that the rules do not apply to them? I have no issue with these people receiving treatment, however, if you are so willing to binge yourself for £39-£69, you can either fork out the £78 for treatment, or sleep it of in a drunk tank, either way, we reduce spending on NHS, which helps towards the actual spending balance Labour is actively ignoring.

So as I ended the look at the Speech of Ed Miliband, I must conclude that it reads political and in addition, decently devoid of realism. Which is a shame, because UK Business is in dire need of realism, which means the solution will come from somewhere else.

Which now gets us to part two of this event. It seems that Nicola Sturgeon is all about getting Labour into No10. It sounds nice, but how is the Scottish National Party any help there? Now, it is fair that they feel a lot more comfortable with their future if Labour is in charge. It is a valid call to make and it is theirs to make it to begin with. Yet, we must not forget the issues that Scotland is already short 11% on their budgets and with oil prices the way they are, their independent future is a lot less certain. This is a shame and I mean that. I was all in favour of Scotland attracting all kinds of Businesses from all over the Commonwealth to grow their economic footprint. I am still reasonably certain that Indian generic medication could grow all over Europe if they have a foothold in Scotland, which allows easy access to places all over Europe. With Oil being a problem and not a solution, other fields must be tackled to grow Scottish interest and the Labour party is nowhere near able to help Scotland there. If we revisit the issue of balancing the books, it will take less than 6 months for Ed Miliband to find way to move business out of Scotland, just to make his side look better, I wonder if Nicola Sturgeon is realising the trap she is setting herself up for.

So if we look at the Guardian article, which is less than 24 hours old, we see ‘Scotland’s SNP revolution terrifies the main parties’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/05/scotland-snp-revolution-terrifies-main-parties), which is an interesting light to see after the Labour-SNP link. There is one debatable quote that caught my eyes was: “Underpinning these analyses is a barely concealed narrative of contempt, which says they will all come to their senses when they realise there will be no land of milk and honey in a Scotland under the absolute control of the SNP“, this is fair enough, but I do not think that this is due to the SNP, I firmly believe that independence too late saved Scotland, if Scotland had been independent whilst the oil prices went into the basement, the damage would have been unimaginable. I remain in faith that growing business in England and Scotland is the only solution, it will be important for both (mostly Scotland) to look at fields they had not considered before. The Indian generic medicine growth is only one branch. The open remoteness (hence securable locations) Scotland has to offer, could spell interesting times for any manufacturing option that does not require the pressure of London, with added benefit of the lower costs that Scotland brings. Consider the Ferry from Scotland to the Netherlands, opening additional paths of revenue. Scotland can grow options, it is just the question whether the Labour party is truly a solution here.

So as we all get to ponder the choices the voters face for England and Scotland, I do hope that they will all look seriously at these flimsy speeches that rattle on all sides. This applies to all parties, not just Labour!

 

1 Comment

Filed under Media, Politics

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