November 19, 2014 · 22:39

As we trusted games

There is an interesting article in the Guardian I had an issue with to some degree. There is nothing wrong with the article itself, Keith Stuart made a good piece and it reads well (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/13/games-reviews-are-changing-from-product-assessments-to-tourist-guides), so it came out last week and I only saw it just now.

First paragraph: “A decade ago, a games publisher would send out early copies of its latest release to magazines and websites. It would arrive with some sort of embargo restricting the date of any subsequent review coverage. Then, before the game hit the shelves, there would be range of critical responses to read through. That’s how games reviewing worked for 30 years“, well apart from the embargo, which I was never got. That is pretty much how it went. I started my reviewing in 1988. The age of CBM-64,  Atari ST, CBM Amiga and the IBM PC, which had something graphically ‘state of the art’ called ‘EGA’, the enhanced graphic adapter, which added up to the 15” resolution roughly the same of the average low level smart phone today. Games were in CGA and even though the quality of graphics was low, the quality of gaming was exceptionally high (for what we knew in those days). Roberta Williams (Sierra-on-Line), Peter Molyneux (Bullfrog), Richard Garriott (Origin) and Sid Meijer (Microprose) were the titans of gaming; they are the most profound, but not the only ones from those days.

The second part is the first part I disagree with “Now, it’s so much more complicated. Publishers don’t like releasing code early. It’s not just about protecting sales of mediocre titles (though that happens): they worry about piracy; they worry about major spoilers that could put players off purchasing a game that is highly narrative driven“, I personally believe that it is about mediocre titles. The worry of piracy is less an issue, for the reasons that consoles don’t really allow for piracy any more (compared to the days of Atari ST and Amiga), PC Games need more and more internet authentication (like 99.99% of them), and there is a truth in narrative driven games. When a $50 MGS Zero can be played in less than 30 minutes (according to Gamespot), you know that there is an issue. I go for the mediocre side, because in case of Ubisoft, we saw Watchdogs, AC Unity and now Far Cry 4, Far Cry 4 might have gotten themselves a 85% rating (only 70% on Gamespot), yet this is below par (for such a triple-A title), it means that Ubisoft failed to deliver a main title with a 90% plus game review this year, which is a really bad thing. In addition, Destiny didn’t make the high numbers and on the PlayStation 4, the only titles that truly showed the rating was ‘The last of us’ an amazing game originally released on PS3. From my point of view, it is one of the worst release years in a long while. No matter how new Nextgen consoles are, there is a level of competency lacking more and more.

This links directly to the next part of the article “With triple-A releases now costing $30-50m a pop, no wonder the companies responsible want to control the dissemination of their data and messaging. As in movies, everything is geared toward that opening week – millions of dollars of marketing, the acres of shelf space bought at key retailers – everything has to work just right“, if everything has to work just right, it made me wonder why quality assurance was not managed in better ways. If we see the failing that Assassins Creed Unity shows, gaming is overdue for an overhaul, especially considering the cost of such a triple-A game.

It saddens me to say, as a Sony fan, it did hurt me to see that PS4 gamers have not met the high octane game quality I had expected, I was personally more impressed with several titles exclusive on the Xbox One.

The next part is one I do completely agree with “And then the games themselves have changed. Most new titles have intricate and extensive online multiplayer elements – or they require you to be online just to download updates and/or because publishers want to keep an eye on you“, even though in several regards online play is less and less appealing, or just plainly inferior, the updates are more and more an issue. GTA-V, which is regarded as a good game ended up having a day one 1 Gb+ update need. Which is not the worst, but it shows a level of pressure to market deadlines and not quality. Our broadband internet connections seem to have removed the need of quality testing and fixing before release.

Then we get the part that is indeed an issue “The industry is always telling us that games aren’t products anymore, they are services. You get the initial release, but after that, you get updates, downloadable content, new modes, missions and experiences … So what are you reviewing when a game comes out? It’s potential? It’s raw functionality? You are not reviewing the complete experience anymore” Keith is nailing the nail on the head with a massive hammer, we are now getting a service, not software, but if we see the option that a bought game is nothing more than a service or a potential, how can we be treated fairly as a consumer, when we do not know the full article we are buying? It is a dangerous development when we buy not a game, but a concept. We are not there yet, but the danger is slowly creeping towards the installation drive of the computer we use for gaming, and with that approach is a larger and larger danger that the PC/console will get invaded in a hostile way and how can we be protected when not the system, but the game becomes the backdoor into our private lives, because that is a danger that several parties are not yet looking at (as far as I know).

The rest of the article, you should just read on the Guardian site. I do not completely agree, but Keith gives a good view of his reasoning and it is sound and well worth reading. The question becomes where will we go next? There is more and more indication that people (gamers), are less and less interested in the MMO/multiplayer experience and more into a quality solo play game. There is also a feeling from many that Multiplayer is more and more about micro transactions and less about quality fun. Most will accept micro transactions in free multiplayer games like ‘Blacklight’ and ‘War frame’, we can accept micro transactions to get the weapons that really pack a punch, yet with $90 games, people are not interested in additional charges. Even though in the situation of Black Flag, the additional $4 to get the weapons or technology advantage is nice, and the option clearly states that the upgrades can be gotten in the game whilst playing it. It is left to the person to choose. There is nothing bad about it, but when we see AC: Unity, where micro transactions can get up to $100, questions should be asked, even if those parts can be unlocked through playing. Now, I am not judging the $100 micro transactions, but there is a worry why such a purchase is even offered, how much can be leaped through? The worry is not with Ubisoft’s Assassins Creed: Unity, but after the ‘lessons’ many players were taught through Forza 5 how unsettling micro transactions were. Yet, in all honesty (as I am not an Xbox one user), can they be normally unlocked? If so, the issue is not really there, yet the value of high end cars, when we consider that in Forza 5 you get driver payouts of 35,000. However, some cars go into the millions, you need 285 level updates to be able to afford the 1964 Ferrari 250 GTO and that is only one of many cars, which seems to be an unacceptable way to push people towards micro transactions, it left many players with a bad taste in their mouths. If we look at the issues we see, no matter how we feel about a game, there are sides we’d not agree with and there are sides we are truly against. This varies per player, and as such we need to balance view and feelings, because there is no denying that gaming and games are all about emotions. We go for the games that drive our passion. I myself have been a massive RPG fan, yet when I look at the Elder Scrolls Online (ESO) game, I see little interest to continue this path, yet when I look at Mass Effect 3 and Diablo 3, I see and I experienced the best multi-player ever. To illuminate, ME3 has micro transactions, yet the boxes can be gotten by playing multi-player games, each round gets you credits and the higher leveled you played, the more coins you would get, and then you buy a box with random stuff, some good, some amazing and some average. Diablo has no micro transactions; multi-player there is just great and makes the bosses harder, which gives you better loot. There are not the only good games, there are more, and there are many games are nowhere near this good.

In the end it is about good gaming and plenty of games have it, but my issue is as mentioned earlier, overall quality is down, more often not properly tested, whilst as Keith Stuart states it, newer games seem to be about buying the concept, not the finished product. How games get higher in graphical quality, yet not in gaming quality. Is it just about the new systems, or are we faced with a new level of designers, that cannot stand up to the older titans, the actual visionaries. Titles like System Shock (1+2) can, when graphically updated, compete with the RPG games that were released almost 20 years later. If you want to consider First Person Shooters, then in my mind, Metroid Prime 1+2 are top notch achievements that have not been equaled. They were released on a system inferior to the PS3 and Xbox 360, so why are there no games of that calibre? Well, that would not be honest, they have games of that calibre, but they are equals at best, two games, and the first one 12 years old.

This shows the issue I have with the statements some make. ‘A new game each year’, now we must allow for the fact that marketeers will make wild statements at any given place to keep the press at bay and well fed, so we should not overly ‘analyse’ that part. An example can be found when we look at the Tomb raider series, a series that has seen highs and less so. The series also illuminates a flaw in the gaming industry, when we consider the earlier games we see an amount of gaming that is unparalleled, especially when we consider the first two games. No matter the graphic levels, the games were truly large in comparison and some of the levels were amazing in design. The cistern in the first one and the ship in the second one show a level of design the last one cannot even compete with. What took days in the first two games, took a mere 15 hours in the last game. I will agree that the graphics were amazingly unreal in that game, the game looks large but the levels are in the end small. I saw it as opportunities missed on several levels, but not for the quality of graphics. the interesting side is that Tomb Raider shows the gaming industry as it moved from storyline and innovation towards graphics and narration, which is not that big a mystery. Yet in that shift we have lost levels and game time. Which is why the appeal of RPG is vastly growing, the option to play long times, to visit places and go it your own way and speed, not hindered by narration, scripted events and scripting is more and more appealing to the gamers at large.

Even though many are focusing on the next generation of systems, the next level of gaming is not ready. As I see it, 2015 will show a large rise in quality of gaming, but the true gems will not come until 2016. Mass Effect 4 could be such a game, but will we see true innovation, or will we see a sliding line as the Assassins Creed series have shown. This thought also has a drawback. Good gaming is based on vision, a franchise is about evolutions and forward momentum, but visionary is not a given, but for good gaming an essential need. This is where the wheels tend to come off the wagon. God of War 3 brought that, the AC series did not, it brought iteration. Mass Effect might, and so far, the hype of No man’s sky is likely to bring new boundaries in gaming, but the reality is not always a given and as such, we can only wait and keep faith with the developers, which is why their change and their approach to gaming is so essential to us. There are of course issues with other approaches too. Even though the title ‘Whore of the Orient‘ sounds appealingly original, but will it be so? Time will tell! The danger isn’t what will be good and what won’t be. The issue is that we know how rare visionaries in gaming are. The last proven one was Markus Persson (maker of Minecraft) and Microsoft bought his idea for a mere 2 billion (it’s not that much when you say it fast), which is the highest amount paid for a gaming IP EVER! Consider Microsoft paying that much for one title and you know how rare visionaries in this field are, which is exactly why games are not set in one year increments, and why franchises seem to be key for gaming, but there is a new iteration that some forgot. The upcoming release of Elite, a revamp from the original game decades old, shows that good games are rare and will stand the test of time. The initial interest for Elite could be regarded as proof for that.

So is this about trusted games, trusted developers or new endeavours?

I have one thought, but I keep it to myself, it is important that you the reading gamer make up your own mind. I have given my thoughts on that what I experienced and what I value. I ignored some parts as they are not my cup of gaming, which we all have, out there are leagues of GTA lovers; I am not one of them. I do not debate the 90%+ score, gaming is for gamers and there is space for all of us, no matter which part we run to, from Silent Hills to Mario land. there is space for all of us, some will slaughter in the world of Unity, some crush in the lands of Diablo, we have our preferred places, yet the overall issue is not where we play or who we play as, but the quality of what we play is now in question, it has been in question for some time now and it seems to be getting more and more visible as the industry is pushing for revenue on 5 systems. My direct worry is that we end up with a product based on a 60% effort, which is something none of us had signed on for.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, Media

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

November 19, 2014 · 11:04

Si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more

It is an old saying that still applies today. It reflects on two events, two that show that the events we see escalating have a profound impact on choices, those in the past and in the future. When we consider the events (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/18/synagogue-murders-binyamin-netanyahu-despicable-murderers) of slaughter, we see two sides of the same equation, on one side can we hold a group accountable for the action of a few people. Can Palestine be held accountable for the events of two Palestinians? The UN is so eager to add Palestine and give them loads of options, yet the massive amount of events going on form 1946 gives clear way that many have been on track and remain on track to eradicate the Jewish population. There is something entirely wrong about that, yet we must accept that Palestine has genuine grievances; however these are completely ignorable towards the fact that genocide should not be condoned, the Israeli state, which seemingly became the quick solution for governments after the WW2 massacre. As I personally see it, the powers that be who were in charge in 1945 required a solution for giving the Jewish population a solution and made their dream come true of the start of the state of Israel. Was this wrong? I am not wise enough to have the answer to this, yet what is a certainty is that, if it had not happened, Europe would have been confronted with a population bend on revenge after what was done to them. Consider the danger of death squads getting even with the Dutch, German and French population for what was done to them. Even if we consider legal events (at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/jewish-family-in-restitution-standoff-with-german-city-of-teltow-a-939659.html), ‘A German-American lawyer and his family have been fighting for over two decades to reclaim lucrative properties lost under the Nazi regime‘ is only one of millions. Consider when massive chunks of Amsterdam, Berlin, Munich, Koln, Leiden, Utrecht, Paris, Reims, and that list goes on. Creating the state of Israel was the easy way out. Even though Historically, that part would have been even larger than what it is now. Yet, the issue does not stop here.

When we look at the second news story we see that the US has been kind enough to leave some hardware for Isis (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/18/un-report-isis-enough-weapons-carry-on-fighting-two-years). The four bullet points are:

  • Arsenal is sufficient enough to threaten region ‘even without territory’
  • Much of Isis’s weapon stocks were stolen from US-backed Iraqi military
  • Report recommends sanctions including seizing Isis oil tanker trucks
  • Foreign jihadis flocking to Iraq and Syria on ‘unprecedented scale’

The first issue shows that ISIS has enough power to be a clear threat, this leaves the indication that the initial US strategy of bombing was never a true option. I never believed it to be and several deeper into military knowledge and strategy had the same idea on this. The term ‘no boots on the ground’ was not realistic from day one. To be honest, it would be realistic if other nations had stepped up to the plate for this, which would not be a unacceptable idea, as America is both financially and economically in a state slightly lower than the average basement. It is not unrealistic to let other nations step up to the plate, but that would leave it all in the hands of politicians, which gives the reader an idea of how much is unlikely to happen.

The second issue is twofold, either the Iraqi military is strategically inapt to deal with the situation, in the second it is not impossible that part of the Iraqi military is on the side of ISIS and they military is to some extent the eyes and ears of ISIS. The last part is clear speculation by me, but overall is that such a stretch? ISIS is making massive stride all over the middle east, there is additional clear indication that ISIS has reached Gaza and moreover, Hamas is losing more and more control of the west bank. These escalating issues are now becoming a worry on several fields. West Bank, Sinai and they are gaining visibility in Jordan.

The third issue is about recommendations. It sounds nice in theory, but what will be done when they only deal with Islamic partners like Pakistan, Morocco, Tunisia, Palestine, Senegal and others, how much confiscation will there be? More important, the recommendation ignores the biggest danger. What if ISIS locks down on the oil, they got by without it easy enough, but when the lock down starts, how long until most nations go into a lock down? Consider the barricading of oil transport to US and Europe for two weeks, how long until that powder keg paralyses nations and economies? Frank Herbert wrote it about it in his book Dune: ‘He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing‘, that is a truth we ignored. The tactic (seen as ‘scorched Earth‘) has been employed by Stalin during WW2, Sherman in the American civil war, Lord Kitchener in South Africa and by the Russians against Napoleon. The tactic was to some extent banned under Article 54 of Protocol I of the 1977 Geneva Conventions, which is only nice if ISIS would respect that, but we can definitely rule out that chance.

The fourth one is the nightmare many government face, not as they go there to fight, but what happens when these people return, which allows ISIS to place lone wolf terrorists, with massive amounts of options to damage the nations that gave them a life and future in the first place. Now we get to the title!

si fueris alibi, vivito sicut ibi

If you are elsewhere, live as them there (rough translation), yet the second part is not exactly happening, yes they start like that, then they take over and others convert or die. This is at the core of the issue, and as we speak, there is intelligence out there that is confirming (actually they are not denying, which is not the same) that ISIS is growing its numbers from the refugee camps, camps with over 2 million people. If only 1% joins, they will have enough troops to change the face of the Middle East.

We can debate on legitimacy of Iraq all we want, but in the end does it truly matter? The events that changed the map are now at the centre of the moments that shape the new Middle East. The question becomes who wins? It is clear that the winner will have a foundation of support all over the Middle East, yet where will that leave Israel and America? Soon they will be forced down a path of war that none considered to the extent that anyone envisioned. It will be the first war that might have the blessing of the Arabian states, as it seems decently clear that they have enough worry from ISIS as well. If ISIS grows beyond a certain point, we will see a change in Jordan and Syria first, after that the tinderbox will truly light up, with threats to Egypt and the nations surrounding the UAE and Saudi Arabia, then what will we do? Consider ISIS not just with troops and arms, but with access to the oil wells and they decide who gets delivery. Then we end up with the nightmare scenario, just because it was left to the politicians.

So as we now consider the fullness of the text: “si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more; si fueris alibi, vivito sicut ibi“, those in charge need to consider who they are dealing with and throw out the play book they used for too long a time without ANY results, consider who these Romans are and deal with them, because if we don’t they will hand out the dealings of portions of grief none will survive, which will be extremely uncomfortable for all of us.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Military, Politics

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

November 17, 2014 · 01:59

Rated into immorality

Can anyone explain something weird to me? The news is given (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/14/twitter-given-junk-credit-rating) to impress upon us a combination of values and steps that are beyond immoral. Consider the tweet, tweet twitter engine. I use it almost every day, it is the one unbiased part where we can follow events, people and companies so that we keep up to date, small messages that bring the actual information. A company that had a massive idea, is making money, when we see the quote “Jim Prosser, a spokesman for Twitter, pointed to S&P’s own words as comment: “Twitter will continue to experience very strong growth and not encounter a significant increase in competitive pressure.”“, we see issues, but is anyone seeing the question behind it? Then we see the one little gem hidden in all the text “The rating is unsolicited“, is this part of the issue? You see, as we look at companies, their revenue, their profit and some might consider their contribution, so as we look at it why is S&P suddenly decided ‘Twitter given junk credit rating‘? It seems to me that there is an economic shift going on. As companies are doing well, they are now getting downgraded for not meeting the expectations of some analysts.

Yet, where is this world going to?

Consider the application of morale (a word not found in a financiers dictionary) and reasoning for my thought train at present is the following: ‘Forex-rigging investigation: George Osborne gives full backing to SFO‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/14/forex-rigging-investigation-george-osborne-sfo). Libor, Forex, Tesco and there is absolutely ZERO indication that this is just it. At the edge of reason we see the quote ‘Because I don’t want you to see any of my wobbly bits‘, which sounds ample and applicable as the financial district of happily ‘screw everyone over‘, it is all about the wobbly bits, according to Bridget Jones!

Consider the Forex articles. The second one is http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/14/us-banks-forex-crime-idUSKCN0IY0LV20141114. The issue is not just the events, the quote “Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Bank of America Corp and UBS were hit with penalties. Barclays is still in talks with authorities over a settlement“, which not just how far the issue has overstepped, but the issue is where banking laws are falling short, short to the extent that we have in access of half a decade. The issues continued after the banking collapse as the financial population continued to be nothing more than an eager courtesan to the bonus they so crave. The end result is a malignant decay of morals, standards and all this now (as I personally see it) on the standards as the poor are left with less than none, so Standards & Poor it is!

We now get back to what I regard to be a new level of exploited levelling. Consider the hidden simplicity that Libor held; now consider that debt ratings Moody’s, S&P, Fitch and the relative newbie Egan-Jones decide on ratings. Combine ‘how to lie with statistics‘ (a famous book by Darrell Huff) and the need to manipulate the market for 23 billionaires and we see the light of junk status made Twitter in a whole new light. Consider the basic state of an economy. A company sells, makes profit and pays taxes, a nation flourishes! This is a naive (remember my non-economic degree?) approach towards the worlds cloud of business. Investors, shareholders, analysts and raters are a cog within a machine of cogs. Yet this inner circular machine is different. It inflates, malleably changes and coaches towards a change that seems to be intent on syphoning and draining virtual cash flows into a different premise of profit, which is then turned to actual money. In an age of debts that go beyond the total of all treasuries, virtual numbers that have little to no foundation. The foundations and the levels they have been compromised towards are of a dimension we never imagined possible. Consider that the big banks have been fined in excess of 2.3 billion (at http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2013/12/04/big-banks-fined-2-3b-over-illegal-libor-cartels-more-fines-on-the-way/), I wrote about it in ‘60% confiscated and counting in Cyprus!‘, on April 1st 2013, yet do not think this article to be a joke. I stated “If this is what frightens the US, then consider the consequences of a system like LIBOR being manipulated through the total value of trade. If that would have been off by 11.2%. Out of $1000T (UK and US combined) then that difference would be $112T“, several people laughed out loud then, yet now consider not just Libor, but the audited events of Tesco, the $5.3 trillion market of Forex and the fact that morality might be found in a church, but as we see the evidence, morality is not found in banks and financial institutions, where will it end?

With the Twitter events that question becomes more debatable and the impact that rating companies now impress upon profit turning companies have. Is it just about profit, or about the stated ‘anticipated statement of profit’? As certain ‘analysts’ claim that events are not exceeded, stock becomes junk, waves are created and as such, the welfare of companies are tweaked into a state of artificially changed state, some are inflated, some deflated, but always towards the claim of raters and analysts. The bottom line set towards an algorithm. Consider these states as we have seen not just the change of Tesco, but the events as they also gave way of downgraded profits with Sainsbury, which was not so vocally seen before that day in September. Interactions on many levels, based upon foundations that no one seems to question. Consider how the expectations were set by ‘analysts’ based upon data given to them and data available to them, now consider how Tesco had a quarter of a billion inflated and how the Pricewaterhouse Cooper auditors were ignorant of the inflated condition, now consider how Analysts used that element in predicting waves, the raters predicted and set the value and they are now setting the anticipation of investors and shareholders, an artificial pool with tidal wave creating capacity, and the two elements that have the ability to set the power and size of the waves. So how is your view of financial morality now? Consider the final part in this story. When we consider a story on Fortune titled ‘Twitter is junk, while Alibaba is class, ratings agencies say‘ (at http://fortune.com/2014/11/14/twitter-is-junk-while-alibaba-is-class-ratings-agencies-say/), why is that? Twitter is still holding its own, is it perhaps that the waves of Alibaba can be more easily influenced? Companies valued at the ability where the waves can be decided by the financial cogs, the stability of Twitter is less interesting to them, so they make way for whoever can aid in creating the waves these financial people want. (The last part you read is all speculation on my side), yet speculation or not, when we see the waves of Libor and Forex, are my thoughts so far out of bounds? How Twitter making millions is downgraded, how Tesco, beyond the inflated profits, still made a billion, it’s downgrade of 90% seems excessive beyond punishment, but Tesco is not a good example (because of their own internal manipulation), Consider the Fortune quote “And the fact that Alibaba is 90% dependent on a home market that is slowing, while acknowledged as a risk, doesn’t seem to scare the agencies“, it does not scare them, or it appeals the dependency of Alibaba to make certain decisions down the line? There is a side that seems ignored by all, I personally still have a hard time believing that (as my calculation went in ‘Price Waterfall Blooper‘ on October 25th) the price for 199 auditors could not find two events of inflation of each well over 100 million. Are my suspicions in regards to manipulations that far-fetched?

I wonder how long it will take for the law to catch up, for the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or Crown Prosecuting Services (CPS) to get a handle on these events and deter these actions to such a degree. There should be additional questions as the raters are all American, in light of their shortfall that approaches 18 trillion at present. It seems that the US has no options, no solution and no resolution strategy, yet we see that the big four give ratings are all American. The last part is not an accusation in any way, yet the fact that the Auditors need new oversight, especially in the light of American auditing firm Pricewaterhouse Cooper as they will face questions regarding Tesco. As the 4 largest auditors include UK and Netherlands, why are there only American raters (of the proportions of the large 4)? With the risk of manipulation, should there not be a British and even a French or a Dutch rating service? Let’s not forget that PwC faces possible investigation, not because they are more likely than not guilty, but because their innocence needs to be proven beyond any doubt, especially in light of the amount of companies audited by them as well as the issue of 199 auditors (as I calculated them) not finding anything. When we consider the length of time that PwC has had Tesco as a customer, yet, these are two separate issues, there is no inkling of suspicion that auditors are part of any manipulation, yet the auditor’s data is essential to such steps.

Where is the solution?

Not sure if I know of one, laws can be made draconian to give much harsher sentence to the transgressors, but the issue is not the transgressors, the issue is that these ‘manipulators’ have by definition of law not broken any rules. Yes, we see the fines of Libor and soon Forex, these transgressions are seemingly clear, but what of the raters and the analysts? The issues of data are at the foundation here. That what is raw data and how it becomes processed data is now at the centre of it all. That what is construed to be the creator of waves through analysts, raters and auditors; Auditors collecting the data, analysts to manipulate (which is what they might see as a simple application of personal preference and weighting) and raters to set the pace for investors and shareholders.

So tell me, how wrong is MY view and why have these influential cogs not been dealt with through legislation?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

November 16, 2014 · 00:14

How the mighty can fall

You see, I’ve have had a few issues with Ubi-Soft (or you be soft) in the past. After 5 iterations of glitches and increasingly less reliable accounting of that what they claim, we can see that the floodgates are opening. I wonder if anyone ever explained to Yves Guillemot that relying on marketing and shareholders equals screwing your company value over, those who push for short term gains, will long term destroy a company, in that view the danger of the existence of Ubisoft grows. They are in sizeable company IBM, Microsoft, Electronic Arts, WordPerfect and that list goes on. The first part you see can be found here http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/11/14/ubisoft-responds-inadequately-to-assassins-creed-unity-embargo-and-performance-issues/ “Obviously, they can handle this situation however they want, but there has been close to zero diplomacy throughout this launch. This statement simply reads as “we are fixing the things you are yelling about.”“, but there is insincerity in that past. It reminds me of a Beta version that was launched, just to keep with dividend expectations. Unity as I personally expect it to be is nowhere near ready. The glitches seen should be caught by a decent QA team, so either it was skipped, or this was about setting shareholder expectations. It is short-sighted and dumbfounded as I see it.

The second term is one I really have a problem with “It’s now a significant, highly uncommon event to have a major game launch without issue“, how about doing your job right? How about proper game testing, how about not being the bitch of marketing (for the shareholders)? These issues are central in the entire debate on quality software. I wonder why a billion plus company did not figure that out, or is this the bad side of the image they accepted?

There are even criminal charges to consider at present “To say that this one aspect of the game mandated a 12-hour-post-launch review embargo time is nonsensical” is more dangerous than people realise. You see, for that time, people buy a product which the company knows to be faulty, that by itself constitutes fraud, which might be seen as ‘an act commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage‘, is that not the case here? The fact that it was shipped broken seems to be enough of an indication.

I will take it one step further: ‘A party who has lost something due to fraud is entitled to file a lawsuit for damages against the party acting fraudulently, and the damages may include punitive damages as a punishment or public example due to the malicious nature of the fraud‘, now let’s take a look at this. Consider that the gamer lost time, which is a given, now consider that many gamers can only afford one game until thanksgiving, now they bought Assassins Creed, whilst they might have bought Sunset Overdrive of the Evil within. So it might be considered that they defrauded the others whilst keeping knowingly the lid on faulty merchandise.

I foresaw this coming roughly three years ago, when we heard about a new Assassins Creed ‘every year’. Good gaming does not come on command and innovation takes time, which means that the gamer gets sold short right of the bat!

Forbes brings a good tone, but they remain soft on Ubisoft. Looking at YouTube and searching “Unity sucks” will get you a massive list of rants, which is only in the second day of release. Can we agree to some extent that Yves Guillemot needs to get a grip on his company unless he ends up being found liable on a near global scale (this game is apparently not played in North Korea)?

Gamespot seemed a little ‘softer’ on the makers as they are their primary sponsor, but likely they will claim that it had nothing to do with that, yet the fact that Gamespot gave the game 7 out of 10, should be indicative that the game has massive issues beyond the glitches and bugs as well. Yet Gamespot had good things to say as well “I had that roof approach licked, jumping into the building through an open window and blending into a crowd of bourgeois loyalists before sneaking up on my target and making the kill. With multiple options of attack available, the replay ability factor here is huge, giving you more of an incentive to go back and nail those bonus conditions for completing a mission“, this truly sounds like the old Assassins Creed many loved, yet then they state “These excellent sandbox-style assassinations make up the bulk of Unity’s missions” followed by a few negative notes. You see, the only true sandbox style I have seen is with Bethesda and both Elder scrolls and Fallout. The rest are often scripted to force you in a direction in the main story (for a larger part). Unity does take additional leaps when we consider the quote “I’m all for giving people the option to extend the experience onto mobiles and tablets, or on the web, but those things should offer standalone extra content; locking stuff out of a game you’ve just dropped $60 on is infuriating“, this I felt in the past as well with other games, so seeing it here is not a good thing. I personally think that this is about the data collection side of it all, as they get the information of the player, added with PC and Console information, we become targets in a very real sense. A view I do not treasure.

So as I had decided to let AC Unity slip by (a lack of funds will do that), I feel happy to miss out on the bugs and the glitches. There is one issue in hindsight of this, this is definitely strike two for Ubisoft, I reckon that Far Cry 4 will be their Waterloo in a very real sense. Gamers are more than just a little angry and their end might come harsher then they think. If we consider the quote by Play4Real (at http://www.p4rgaming.com/ubisoft-to-release-eight-assassins-creed-titles-in-2015/) stating “With the release of both Assassin’s Creed Unity for the PS4, Xbox One and PC plus Assassin’s Creed Rogue for the PS3 and Xbox 360 this year, Ubisoft knows that the demand for Assassin’s Creed will never die“, if we believe Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot, then they have 8 releases planned from now until 2016. I reckon he needs to revisit quality before even attempting one next one. When we see “but will wait for reviews as AC unity was a bug fest” in regards to Far Cry 4, which was supposed to be the big thing for Ubisoft, we see that gamers are about done with Ubisoft

  1. Watchdogs fell short of expectations (rated 8 out of 10)
  2. Bug fest (we mean Assassins Creed Unity) launched on all major platforms. (7 out of 10)
  3. ? (X out of Y)

Strike three might come next week, so we will hold out fairly for Far Cry 4, especially as number 3 was a decently good game.

This is the first true indication of the sliding levels of quality in gaming. As developers (likely more precise would be marketing and shareholders) are pushing deadlines, we see a lowering standard of gaming. The approach, ‘we’ll patch it on day one’ is more and more the standard, whilst this tends to lower the joyous gaming we all anticipated, it also sets a dangerous precedent, because as proper QA is more and more ignored, the overall quality of the game tends to falter too. I do not ignore, that with size comes glitches, yet when we see an overall lack of care, then it is something entirely different and stringing gaming fans along seems almost too criminal. It might be regarded as criminal as people bought a finished game, which is not what this game seems to be, not by a long shot!

1 Comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law, Media

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

November 14, 2014 · 16:23

Sacking the editor?

That is the question that is currently on my mind. What to do about Martin Ivens, should he be sacked, should he be allowed vindication, should he be prosecuted? You see, it is time that the editors are held responsible for what they do, that they are being held up into the light for what was said, exploited and then forgotten, just so that these people can prostitute events for circulation. What do you think?

Why Martin Ivens? That is of course the question that needs answering. It all started with the news on March 19th when I wrote ‘Any sport implies corruption! In this I looked at the events when the Guardian (one of several papers) reported on allegations against Qatar. As stated before it is about evidence and ‘more likely than not’, I also personally speculated on the chance that it was more likely that several advertisement players wanted change as Qatar was just inconvenient. And let’s face it, the press catering to advertisement dollars is not that far-fetched, if you doubt that, then consider the Sony events from November 2013.

The big issue becomes July 28th when we see the issues explode a little further when even Reuters stated “Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper reported that some of the “millions of documents” it had seen linked payments by former FIFA executive committee member Mohamed Bin Hammam to officials to win backing for Qatar’s World Cup bid“, so here we have it. I think that if Martin Ivens wants to keep his job, he needs to publish these ‘millions of documents‘, if he cannot, or does not, then we should consider prosecuting Martin Ivens for slander and he should be held accountable for serious breaches of journalistic integrity, which should be done by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), but in light of what we have seen, they will not be up to the task, unwilling to do anything and in the end, they will become the joke that Hacked-off proclaimed them to be from day one.

Yet, can we attack Martin Ivens like that? Yes, we can! However, Martin Ivens has every right to vindicate himself by publishing the data (millions of records) that they saw. What are the chances that we get just a lame excuse? Time will tell, but as we have looked at the events in the last two years, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will be held to account.

But should it be Martin Ivens? If we see the CNN article that I used in the July article, we see “Sarah Baxter, deputy editor of the Sunday Times, told CNN in an interview. Qatar commits to labour reforms the impact of changing World Cup dates ‘We’ve seen millions of documents that prove without a shadow of doubt that corruption was involved. There is clear evidence linking payments to people who have influence over the decision of who hosted the World Cup’“, in my mind it should be both, but in the end, as Martin Ivens did not go against this, it seems to make him an accessory to the event, guilty by omission. In the end this all might remain academic if IPSO does not act, because a complaint needs to be filed, yet consider how soccer is dragged through the mud here, without the evidence that the Sunday Times claims to have, the scope of events regarding FIFA will change to the larger degree.

This is however not the end, there are additional issues with the investigation as we saw delay upon delay and now the ‘verdict’ also calls issues into question. A more reliable source (at http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/30044791), asks some of these question: “But Garcia’s statement, issued less than four hours after the report was published, has reopened the debate about the validity of the bidding process for both the 2018 and 2022 competitions“, a second statement “‘Fifa has no choice but to publish Michael Garcia’s report in full if it expects anyone to believe their claims that there has been no cover-up over allegations of corruption in the World Cup bidding process,’ said British MP Clive Efford, Labour’s Shadow Minister for Sport.”

That part is spot on in my mind, let’s not forget that in my mind, the jobs of both Martin Ivens and Sarah Baxter are on the line as I see it, especially in a time when the bulk of all journalism is regarded by many to have no integrity left.

The final statement that opens the barn is: “In view of the fact Michael Garcia has now stated he is not happy with the findings and is to appeal, I await with interest to see what further disclosures will be made,” said Boyce“, which beckons a few more issues. Why report on something that is not satisfactory? What findings? Which evidence? It seems interesting that the 430 page report is set into a 42 page summary, when we see the Guardian we see the implied event that someone else wrote the summary. Why? Why did both reports not come from Michael Garcia (at http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/nov/13/farce-fifa-michael-garcia-erroneous-ethics-report), why do we see the following quote “Garcia’s dramatic intervention came just hours after Eckert had confirmed the Guardian’s revelation that Russia and Qatar would be cleared of substantive wrongdoing and would not be stripped of the tournaments despite a whirlwind of speculation“, so are some people now spinning in regards to possible advertisers missing out on big business dollars for media? Because, as I see it, the issues remains, was all this about inconvenience or actual corruption, and if the second, why does the summary not bear out the full report if corruption has been proven? Yet overall there are valid questions too, when I see the quote “Russian bid executives claimed that all their emails were wiped from their rented computers. Alexei Sorokin, who runs Russia’s 2018 organising committee, denied a deliberate cover-up“, I do wonder how such incompetence is even allowed in such a prestigious environment. Where were the back-ups? Would the achievement of success not warrant back-ups for a job well done and these documents would have been kept as evidence that a job was well done? Would these documents not show the value of Alexei Sorokin to his government?

So even as the guilt is not proven, the ‘claim‘ of ‘millions of documents‘ still requires scrutiny, because if this is not adhered to, we are confronted with more than one level of corruption, possible corruption of ethics by the press, possible corruption of standards by FIFA and possible corruption from bidders unproven due to incompetence.

I hope that the true investigators will speak out on evidence, for the simple consequence of inaction could be the beginning of a wave of mistrust into sports. The one place where acts of corruption could have a long term effect, who wants to watch a sport series, where a foundation of trust can no longer be relied upon, if that happens what would we end up watching?

 

2 Comments

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law, Media, Politics

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

November 14, 2014 · 15:01

Who is guilty?

This is a question we all seem to know, when we hear the words MH-117 and Ukraine. However, is that position a given fact? You see, we all seem to blame and to some extent I also blamed, but it seems to me that I am the only one who is asking the questions that need answering.

Let’s take a look at the events and the sides.

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 crashed on July 17th 2014. The first fact given and already it is an incorrect one. MH-117 was shot out of the sky. Let’s not beat around the bush, it was shot down with advanced technology. No shoulder held equipment could have done this; it required serious hardware to achieve this. It happened over Donetsk, an area under control of pro-Russian separatists. The only information that seems correct is that this was done by pro-Russian separatists. After this, the press takes a gander and accusations are flying all over the place, several of them pretty wild ones.

The first issue is found here: Evidence from open sources indicated that separatists in Ukraine were in control of a BUK missile launcher on 17 July and transported it from Donetsk to Snizhne (at http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/journalists-find-solid-russian-ties-to-missile-that-hit-mh17-371161.html). I have a few issues with the Bellingcat report! It can be found (at https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Origin-of-the-Separatists-Buk-A-Bellingcat-Investigation1.pdf).

I think the reader will need to make up their own minds, but let me elaborate on my reasoning. My issue here is that there is no clear confirmation on the photos. Faking social media events is too easy, some pictures are too grainy, the chances and danger of photo editing is too high. The report should have listed all the particulars of EVERY photo, where it was found, when downloaded and then we have other issues, data on a JPG can be manipulated, who took the photo and when.

These events give one clear view in my mind, the Russians are not proven guilty and the separatists are not innocent.

The second issue I have with all this are the Americans. They claim to have evidence, but will not release it. In my mind, if you held the Dutch and Australians in actual high regard, you would have released all footage and data. The next part is pure speculation on my part (just warning you ahead of it all). I think that the Americans have clear evidence and that evidence is that the BUK never came from Russia. I will elaborate on this a little later on in this article. In addition, I am amazed that both UK (GCHQ) and France (DGSE) have not stepped forward with satellite data either. Do you actually believe that in an area, so important for the near future would not keep their eyes on this all? Let us not forget that the Iraq debacle with these satellite pictures, not revealing WMD’s is the reason why most Europeans, actually most non-Americans do not trust America at present. To restore some credibility, they should have released this data, especially as this was a civilian aircraft, shot down by unlawful combatants, meaning non-combatants who directly engage in armed conflict. They are non-combatants as the pro-Russian separatists are members, not part of any recognised national army. So, they are unlawful combatants at best, terrorists at worst (shooting down a civilian plane is regarded as a terrorist act).

It is my personal believe, (again, an assumption, but a likely one) that the fault lies DIRECTLY with the Ukrainian government. Let me explain my reasoning. We know that the Ukraine has BUK units; there is additional information (non-reliable) that former Ukrainian soldiers are part of the pro-Russian separatists. One statement (again non-reliable) is “one militant told reporters that they originated ‘from a military warehouse'”. Yet is this such a stretch?

A linked quote is “The Minister of Interior Affairs Arsen Avakov gave orders to blow up the warehouse with arms and ammunition of military unit 3037 of the National Guard of Ukraine in Donetsk, to prevent the capture of remaining stock of arms and ammunition by separatists” (at http://igcp.eu/hronika-prestupleniy/military-warehouse-burned-down-donetsk?language=en).

Now it is time for my theory (again it is an assumption based upon information I found).

Russian separatists got hold of hardware (weapons, ammunition and vehicles) when they sprang into action. One of the vehicles (a set of three) was a BUK. Now this is not the full answer. You see, to properly operate a BUK you need a trained team, if not then there are a dozen things that will go wrong and as such MH-117 would never have been shot down with one missile, perhaps not even with 4 missiles. Here are my thoughts on the guilt of Ukraine.

The moment this was known, or even suspected that warehouses were raided, the Ukrainian government would have needed to alert all people, especially airlines. This was not done (as far as I know). When the BUK did its job, those in the Ukrainian government went into a blame game mode. More concerning is the chance that America has conformation of my theory, but they desperately need to do business with the Ukraine and this issue would make Ukraine not happy. So there we have it, because ego prevented people from ringing the alarm bell, a plane was shot down. If those power-hungry ‘commanders’ had rung the alarm bell, it is almost certain that MH-117 would have taken another path and these people would be alive today. Ego was the biggest killer, not the missile.

Again, this is based on a theory with limited data, now consider the facts. Do you think that Russia would hand over a BUK with a firing team to separatists? A situation that could escalate so fast, more important, do you think that these soldiers would shoot down a civilian airliner? All answers as I see them are a clear ‘NO!’ in my mind.

However, there were apparently ‘phone calls’ and as far as I saw, only the Daily Mail had them, which means that the ‘evidence’ is worthless, especially considering claims they made regarding FIFA in the past.

Another part comes from the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/mh17-crash-kerry-evidence-pro-russia-separatists-responsibility) “‘we have enormous input about this that points fingers’ Kerry told CNN’s State of the Union, ‘it is pretty clear that this was a system from Russia, transferred to separatists. We know with confidence that the Ukrainians did not have such a system anywhere near the vicinity at that point of time’” something that was published on July 20th.

It is the last part “We know with confidence that the Ukrainians did not have such a system anywhere near the vicinity at that point of time”. This MIGHT have been true, but where were they all? where is the list of tally for ALL the BUK systems Ukraine has, because the Ukraine does have them. Where are ALL the missiles? you see, i think that pro-Russian separatists did make plans and they needed hardware to create a win. With Crimea there was a bottleneck and pretty much all Crimean’s seem to have wanted to be returned to Russia, Donetsk is another matter, not all seem to prefer Russian return and as such it required military actions. Now, it is definitely possible (more likely than not is the legal term) that Russia would like to ‘assist’ to some extent with the separatists, because they look good if this happens, the idea that some people feel uneasy to join the EU and America is not everybody’s joyous idea. So if Donetsk becomes independent, it would be a good blow for Russia, yet I feel unable to believe that the Kremlin is so moronic (no other word fits the bill), to give access and control of Russian BUK systems to separatists, the backlash would be too hard.

So here we are, America might have evidence and refuses to release it, and we know for certain that separatists are guilty, but Russian guilt at present is not proven. There are too many issues and America keeping ‘evidence’ away is just too unreliable. Where lies the truth?

I have no clear answer, my assumptions are based on logic and factual interpretation of events, but I will admit firstly that I could be wrong too. It is up to you the reader to consider why three large players either have no satellite data or are unwilling to release it. Why?

The other path open now is that Russia could release all their satellite data, but are they willing to do this? Such evidence could exonerate the Russians, but they also have a stake in the fire, for as they give out the separatists, that connection would also be under fire, but would it be to the same extent? Consider that the units responsible are handed over to The Hague and that Donetsk would become a separate state, what would be the dynamic then? This is not a part that needs answering, but it should be looked at.

It will take a lot of time to figure out where the BUK exactly came from, but the louder some shout over the origin of the missile, whilst not handing over the evidence is a worry all by itself.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Military, Politics

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

November 9, 2014 · 10:52

A buffet called Buffett

It is the independent that comes with the goods this morning (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/warren-buffett-tesco-losses-take-millions-off-berkshire-hathaway-earnings-9848441.html), and even though Tesco is at the centre, this is not about Tesco; it is about all of us!

The article refers to a view given a few weeks ago when we saw ‘Mr Buffett, who has called his investment in Tesco a “huge mistake”‘, this is all good, and we saw this before, but how does this amount to Warren Buffett being the ‘Sage of Omaha‘ go from a brand name to a person in a public area where the others can snack on him, like food for Hyena’s and so on.

Well, this is all about us in the end and about image and ego. You see, there is something massively wrong with those who WERE (past tense) with Tesco and as the quarter of a billion hole was found, instead of calling for restraint and standing by the ethical high ground Dave Lewis was standing. People like Mike Ashley who did bet on Tesco bouncing back, as they should and I hope that Mike Ashley makes a bundle on this. Yet, the centre piece actually not one but two of them are all ignored. The first one is that Tesco still made a billion, so as we see people running away in ‘fear’ and all other sorts of reasons, the value of Tesco went down. I reckon that those screaming in misconceived ‘horror’ are now paying for the speedy speaking, I am not impressed with their anguish and I am not convinced that it was genuine.

You see, if the financial backers had stood firm with Lewis, the hurt might have been there, but the structural repair would have been basic structural repairs and the pain to the financial backers would have been slightly more than superficial in the end.

The second part of this stake is Pricewaterhouse Coopers. There are too many questions, no answers coming in and no solutions directly in sight, other than those that would continue Tesco at a massively reduced size. I am still not impressed, you see, we all did this to ourselves. I oppose certain practices, not just because the stakes are high, but because as we ‘cater’ to profit, especially unnatural high percentages, we only cater to fatal self-inflicted wounding. So how does this link to Mr Warren Buffet (oops, intentional typo). You see we get that from the following two quotes ‘A week after Mr Buffett significantly reduced his shares in the retailer he saw $1bn (£160mn) wiped off the value of his stake in IBM, after the tech giant recorded a 17 per cent drop in its third quarter profits‘ and ‘Just days later, Coca-Cola caused Mr Buffett’s investment losses to climb to $2bn (£1.26mn) after the soft-drinks giant’s shares plummeted six per cent following flat sales and a lowered guidance for the year‘. So how does this affect us? Well consider the lives we have, the things we buy and the corners we cut. Are the two drops even a surprise and more important is the Tesco example strong enough for others not to play that dangerous game? I am not implying that certain ‘errors’ are currently being instigated, but consider the news on how America is now so much on a better track with people having jobs (which is true), yet consider when people like you and me spend money on a laptop, software and on cheaper food and no fuzzy drinks. I can say ‘YAY!’ to all three. My laptop (not an IBM Lenovo) is failing me, it is 4 years old and I have no budget for at least a year to replace it. Can you afford a new laptop, just like that? I have not bought software, still using Office 2010 (and happy to use it) and to keep my likes budgeted, my last can of coke was about 2 weeks ago. Many are turning their dimes to make ends meet and the market forgot about the people like you and me! In the end the concept requires people to buy and the juggling of numbers is no longer an option, we all depend on the cheaper places like Aldi to get a good deal. So how can Coca Cola remain so high? Will 6% be just the start of the plummeting for now? Yes, we tend to buy a little extra during Christmas and America has an upcoming thanksgiving in less than 3 weeks and Christmas 4 weeks after that, yet what happens 6 weeks after that? Will jobs suddenly get lost again, with unemployment numbers to go up? I am not sure, but it is not unlikely. People like financial analyst Charles Nenner have been speaking in regards to a crashing Dollar; he stated ‘The government has loans outstanding that are very short term.  If interest rates only go up a half a percent, they are already in trouble.  Also, the United States doesn’t have the power to force a lot (of Treasury bonds) on other countries because the United States has decided not to be a power anymore‘, which is kind of funny, because I saw that danger scenario coming for well over a year ago. Yes, I have seen some of the abuse of people stating that I am so wrong, which is a view that is fair enough, yet what happens when visible analysts in the economic market, not just like Charles Nenner, but heaps of others all making predictions in the same direction, then what will you do? Disagree a little more, or just until the dollar becomes Junk (or on equal footing with the Yen), then who will YOU blame?

Those who have no debt at that point will just lose mobility, those in debt will feel that drowning feeling sooner then they think. In the end we all did this to ourselves (to some degree). So as warren seems to lose 2 billion out of the 70 he had. I think that these ‘investors’ draining on the 10%-15% they expect, will soon need to refocus on the options where it is not about how quick you make a buck, but how you can slowly make some dollars and not lose your investments. That will be centre to all future deliberations, those who do will hold on to the farm, those who don’t will hand their farms over to those who did and now there is no actual option to recover for those who lost it. That is at the centre, as the economy is not restoring to the public and the consumers we see a push towards Aldi and other budget minded places like Aldi.

These ‘investors’ should start to realise that getting a 3% return is not that bad, it beats praying for profit in excess of 10%, which is less and less realistic, whilst they end up writing off the virtual money pool they thought they had. It all starts with the consumer, investors forgot about that, no matter what profit you expect or what is ‘balanced’ on paper, if people do not have the money to buy, it pretty much ends and that part was ignored by too many for too long a time.

The other part in all this remains PwC, let’s just accept that not all is well when we see ‘cover my back‘ statements and signing off on well over 100 million in inflated numbers, especially with a 10 million pound auditing bill, can we agree to the small fact that a clear statement after a thorough investigation at PwC could have prevented a massive loss of value for Tesco, which would have kept many investors in a lessened state of panic. By the way, did Coca Cola downgrade the profits as the stimulus is now ending? If so, what true hardships are ahead for the people as funds will need to come from other places?

For now the people are still struggling and poverty has never been higher in the US, so there will be consequences there too, but how much of it will hit the UK full on is a matter that will require time to investigate and time to protect against, time that seems to be wasted on several low yielding efforts (read: concepts that will not come to fruition). I cannot state what the best course of action is, but I feel fairly certain that the current trend will not solve anything; it will only make it harder for everyone down the track.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

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

November 6, 2014 · 21:30

In all fairness

I feel that, at times, there is a duty to speak out for the other side. Not because I like it, or because it is essential, but because it is right to do so. Now, let me be clear, I have spoken out against Rupert Murdoch and his phone issues for some time, yet when I saw this article in regards to page 3 (at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/05/sun-page-3-advert-banned-sexist), I felt it was essential to stand up in favour of page 3. So what is the big deal? I remember seeing page 3 when I was young, innocent and thought that page 3 offered newsworthy information. You find me any boy between 15-18 who thinks that it was not news worthy, then there is a 1% chance he is gay, which is fair enough and 99% chance that this boy is lying (just to coin an option).

That is pretty much the gest of it, but what is in play? The issue is not with the page 3 girl immediately, but with the text behind it “Promotion offered subscribers who recruited 10 or more players to their fantasy football league the chance to win a date with a Page 3 girl“. Is that not great?

No, it is stated “More than 1,000 complaints were received by the advertising regulator about the email promotion“, how lame is that, which I admit is my view of it.

Consider “10 lucky readers can win the ultimate Valentine’s Date with Hawkins herself“, it was a chance to win a date with Miss Universe Jennifer Hawkins. So how many letters were sent there? There was an equal complaint of zero to win a date with Brad Pitt through some gossip girls column, whilst he was already married to Angelina Jolie. Then there is the option to Win a date with FHM cover star Georgia Salpa! The list goes on, Ed Sheeran, Cody Simpson, Melanie Iglesias, none of these drew the complaints, but the Page 3 girl did. This is of course the additional weirdness, it was not Mellisa Clarke, Lucy Collett or Lacey Banghard (all former page 3 girls), but the term ‘page 3 girl‘, the label that grew the Sun, that is the part that seems to be under attack. Lucy Colette is now regarded by FHM magazine to be one of its 100 Sexiest Women in the World, so no sexism there? Some of these models have been active for PETA, some have backed a major breast cancer awareness campaign for Breakthrough Breast Cancer, and this list goes on. There is no denying that most men watch page 3 to stare at ‘the twins’, yet these women, many of them used this platform to launch awareness and activities on social levels that have lasted for years.

So, can we all agree that these are either these 1000 complaints come from men who are either jealous or moms who consider their 18 year old on a date with a page 3 girl too offensive? I know that neither is likely the case, but in my view this complaint was hypocrite at best and if we want to have a go at Rupert Murdoch then that is just fine with me, but choose something that should be attacked (like phone hacking). Not some date with a woman, likely to be in a place where she will remain all dressed (many restaurants in London tend to frown on their topless clientele, even when those clients are male).

This is the crux, page 3 is a gimmick it is advertisement, one that has been there for decades. On one side from the newspaper to the topic of sex sells and on the side of the model, to get perhaps a chance to get into modelling, to make some money, whilst they know that a photo, is merely a photo, and these women might sunbath topless and that will not bring them money and still they are likely to get photographed. There is nothing apprehensible about this. The woman does not have to pose and this extra option for a woman, perhaps a model to go out on a nice date with a guy and all is paid for from the credit card of Rupert Murdoch, possibly in a location neither could afford is just an extra bonus. Now let’s look at the other side, were these women truly demeaned, or are they strong independent women setting themselves up for another round of them marketing themselves. You see, these women are basically doing the same thing Brad Pitt and Jennifer Hawkins were doing, just because these two are making millions, no one is complaining. How hypocrite can people get?

This all takes another turn as the Advertising Standards Agency upholds the entire issue. The wordplay, which is what we are used seeing from the Murdoch machine is the same as ever, half-baked innuendo, but no added fire. The text of the ASA that “the offer of a date was sexist, demeaning, offensive and objectified women“, means that they must now ban ANY date option from so many magazines. I wonder how Rupert Murdoch will strike back, because he will in some way. So why is this, a big deal? Well, it isn’t a big deal, but it does show an amount of double standards, which I personally find offensive.

You see, there is another side to all this, as we see some actions which I consider to be lame and counterproductive, because they also defuse the actual need for action as we see the aggravated harassment of Caroline Criado-Perez, as she was able to get Jane Austen on a 10 pound note, that was important, to fight for the safety of Anita Sarkeesian as she is threatened for her right to freedom of speech, this is a massive issue. Yet the issue of some people winning a date with a woman who posed topless by her own free will is just a little too stretched. What makes a date with one of these models more objectifying then a date with former Miss Universe? It does not and I think that the women are not objectified, which makes me wonder who the 1000 complaints were from.

Let’s take one final look at the one part the ASA had upheld: ““In the context of the ad, we considered that to offer a date with a woman as a reward for success in the game was demeaning to women and objectified those offered as prizes.”“, is that so? I am not debating whether it is or it is not, but how come we see no persecution (or is it prosecution) for FHM and other magazines offering the main prize to be a date, simply because no complaints were filed?

It seems to me that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has its work cut out for them, if we consider the 2010 ‘Cosmopolitan Win A Date with Bryann F and Fabio Ide‘, and if we consider the ASA advertising codes on consistency, then quoting the ASA “Consistency is a principle of good regulation; it helps to create clarity which leads to good practice amongst businesses. Something that is good both for industry and consumers. It also helps us to do our job better and concentrate our focus on where it is most needed. That’s why we strive to ensure that the advertising standards set by CAP and the rulings reached by the ASA have proper regard to consistency“, under that guise it will be up to them to ‘outlaw‘ any magazine to offer a date as a prize, I just wonder how the Justin Bieber fans will react when their possible dream date is off the table, not to mention all the other people who allow themselves to be the date for fattening the wallets of good causes and charities, I think that this entire page 3 issue was overexposed and many others might not like the consequence of the result.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

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

November 2, 2014 · 00:20

When we lose the plot

That is actually the first thought I had when I read the thoughts of Ed Miliband in today’s Guardian. The view ‘House of Lords not representative of much of the country’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/31/miliband-devolution-elected-second-chamber-regions), of course, as the statement is made on Halloween, or All Hallows’ Eve if we go by the old title is a moment when we see the brain dead zombies walk the street and Ed Miliband’s statement fits right alongside with it! OK, I apologise Ed that was not very nice of me. You are entitled to your view, I should not attack it, but I can disagree with it.

So why all the zombie references?

Well, you see, as we see nations being less and less about proper long term planning, we see short term stopgaps that lead nowhere and they all cost a bundle. If you are in the UK and you stare towards the setting sun, you might, if you live westwards enough you get to see the Atlantic river, on the other side is a former colony that is ALL about short term resolutions that go nowhere. They are allowed to do that of course, yet, overall it costs much for all, many will never be helped and few are around filling their pockets with cash whilst not solving anything. Let’s call that colony ‘little Britain’ (not Ireland mind you, which is another place all together). Now, if you go on towards the west as far as you can, past those hills called ‘the Rockies’ you see another river called the Pacific river, and yours truly (that would be me), is living on the other side of it on an island called Australia!

Now, we have the same issue the Americans of Little Britain have. More and more of this is getting to be about short term solutions that are not really solutions. We need a long term solution in government, like the UK has; it is called the House of Lords!

Many tried to do away with it and some just called it ‘change’, but so far the verdict is: “However, no consensus on the future of the upper chamber emerged“.

You see, the House of Lords seems to be up, up and removed, but the future of the UK is decently stable and safe because they look out for all Brits, those who pay tax and those who don’t. You see, as I see it, the basement of Parliament (also known as the House of Commons), want change, they want it quicker and quicker. But as they are planning their political agendas, as they are too eager in securing an extremely comfortable future by enabling commerce too easy, too much and too often, the House of Lords stops them when needed so that the other people, those who are in the eyes of commerce and retail revenue ‘not that valuable’, yet they too are British and deserve protection, the Lords looks after all of them.

I understand the frustration from Miliband at times too well, but many forget the expression “Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished“, life is improved in small steps, the Lords will look after all Britons.

This is at the foundation and Australia misses out, just as America does. However, for Australia there is hope and a solution, which I will address down later on.

I particularly liked the following quote: “In a speech on Saturday Miliband will highlight figures showing that the House of Lords is failing to represent large parts of Britain. “When people say that they are turned off from politics and that it doesn’t represent them, we have to do something about it”“.

Eddie, my dear fellow, please explain to me the words you had during the Scottish referendum and now, I read “The Tories want to go further on the handover of tax levying powers than Labour do“, so why are you not on board? The reasons might be very valid, but what are they? So here we see that in past referendum times, devolution seems to be not all that de-evolved, it must make them tartan fellows mighty happy that you are on the case, is it not?

You see, as I see it, Scotland remains a factor for Labour and so it should, but as certain issues move over to Scotland Miliband is set having to fight on two fronts and as such, he does not have the reserves, the energy and the battle plan, so now we see this (this is all purely conjecture on my side).

You see, all these parties are for the better part short term, one perhaps two rounds after that usually the other takes over. The House of Lords is all about long term. Anyone stating that long term is not for now is basically deceiving you, because short term is about the now, the commissions, the bonuses and so on. Like some half-baked sales person in software solutions selling now what they can as they need the revenue, the forecast and the bonus. It is never long term and whatever long term they claim to make is nothing more than the final push for the end of quarter sale, end of year sale and then the new quarter goals. It is a limiting vision that is in the end doomed to falter. It is particularly interesting how these people all need +15-20%, without ever expecting saturation, almost like the well that never dries. Go to a well increase the drain of water by +20% each year and see how long until there is no more water. Then what will you do? The house of Lords is there to see that when faced with these short sighted people, that someone will arrange for options of additional depth or extra irrigation towards the well.

And let me be frank, this is not just about Labour or Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives will have a similar short-sightedness in this regards, which is why we need a solution like the House of Lords. I rechecked the roll today, and yes, my name is not there between Lord Vallance of Tummel and Lord Verjee. My first thought was, ‘good grief’, once I am elected as an official Law lord, I will be placed between two Liberal Democrats. Well, there goes the neighbourhood! 🙂

Yes, we must keep a sense of humour about it all. Anyway, short sightedness, in the UK there is a solution, but here in Australia there is not. I do believe we need a long term option here, You see, Australians have a Senate, yet, unlike Canada who designed it to be like the House of Lords, someone here on this island thought it was a good idea to take the American model. I respectfully disagree, however the Australian model seems stronger than the American one (seems, is used as I never did an in depth study of both next to one another).

Yet, we were talking about long term plans. I believe that true long term plans might come from a Mayoral party, a group of Lord Mayors that decide on long term plans. A Mayor often needs to think long term and as such, a different course of actions might work for Australia. Now, I am not on the side of our Lord Mayor Clover-Moore, I think she overspends by a lot, there are other issues I disagree with and as such I did not vote for her, but I admit that her Sustainable Sydney 2030, is a balsy plan. Getting the roads more and more to be ready for bicycles is one way to get Sydney moving, now they are getting light-rail over George street and when the busses are a mere past tense on George street we will see true change. It is visionary, no doubt about it. It is long term and could change the life of people in Sydney for the better, I should know because as I grew up in Europe, the use of a bicycle is one I am very familiar with.

So is my idea out in never never land? Not sure, I am willing to admit that it is and perhaps the Senate does think long term, but I do not remember seeing too much of that happening, which made me think of a solution that is not at the top of a pinnacle, but at the very base of it and are our lord Mayors not at the foundation of any city and our lives?

So my advice to Ed Miliband: let it be dude! (Yes, I called him dude)

Let us all find solution together and let the future be long term, short term thinking might get us to the next crossing again and again, whilst we learn after 10 crossings that we could have saved a massive amount by turning left, right, right and left and avoid a dozen of them crossings. And in many occasions it is not about getting to the road at the end faster, but to get there without too many obstructions, the rest we will figure out in the course of the day.

Yet, I am not done yet with Mr Miliband. There are two more quotes to look at.

“And it cannot be right that those peers who do live outside London are less likely to be from great cities like Birmingham, Liverpool and Bristol than they are to be living in less-populated rural areas” and “We will make the second chamber of parliament truly a senate of the regions and nations of our whole country“. Really? How is that in any way a guarantee for a better quality of politics? When we see that not the best in this field, but the best one from Shropshire is chosen, then we will truly see how bad some choices are. As such, I cannot identify for one iota with the idea of Ed Miliband. Yet, in the end, perhaps I am the one who lost the plot. I will let the reader decide and I hope that they will vote for whatever solution is the best, not the cheapest or the most comfortable.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

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