November 20, 2015 · 00:52

Forced Discomfort

It is a term you might not know, but this term is central in the current Xbox One debacle. You see the Windows 10 update came with a massive setback, you now have to be online to validate your profile and to play games. The first of a few steps that Microsoft is undertaking, undoing the events of 2013 and to get back on track. Now if you look at Xbox support, you will find that the Xbox now has an ‘offline mode’.

The page (at http://support.xbox.com/en-AU/xbox-one/networking/using-xbox-one-offline), shows several parts, let me show just two that matter:

You need to be online to experience everything Xbox One has to offer, but when you’re offline, you can still:

  • Sign in to your profile, but only if you’ve signed in online before. This includes the Kinect automatic sign-in mode, if you set that up while you were online.
  • Play games, if you have a disk or you’re on your home console (see About My home Xbox to learn more).

Now the second part, a side that was NEVER an issue before:

There are some capabilities that you need to be online to use, such as:

Playing games that require online sign-in, even for a single player.

Now, this has happened with games that came from the Microsoft Store that is not a secret, but is that the only occasion?

As for the steps to do this:

How to go offline

  • Scroll left on the ‘Home‘ screen to open the guide.
  • Select ‘Settings‘.
  • Select ‘All Settings‘.
  • Select ‘Network‘.
  • Select ‘Network settings‘, and then select ‘Go offline‘.

Your network status will change to offline. To go back online, follow the previous steps, but in ‘Network settings‘ select ‘Go online‘.

Here is the massive issue as I see it. With computers and laptops this was never an issue. You go home, you either connect the network cable or the router could be automatically found. No interaction required. The Xbox360 had exactly the same parts. If I wanted to be inline, I connected the network cable for the time that it was needed. It was never an issue. In my case I had one network cable and one free connection and two consoles, this is why I did that. Even today I am faced with this on the PS4 and the Xbox One. In addition, I see no reason to be ‘connected’ all the time. So why is this now such an issue?

As I see it, this mandatory online is not really mandatory, but as I see it Microsoft is forcing us online, or to be connected and by changing the premise by having to set the network offline and online, we will eventually tire and be connected all the time. We do not win here, only Microsoft does!

This is called ‘forced discomfort‘. Which comes from the Forced Choice Scale of Discomfort. This we get from the 1987 work of J. H. Bernardin in the Academy of Management Journal, 30, 162-173. Development and Validation of a Forced Choice Scale to Measure Job-Related Discomfort Among Customer Service Representatives. This is only one approach to it all, but it is the foundation of what we often face today. The man is a decently brilliant Psychologist and has worked on many projects. In this specific case we use a force choice scale, which was developed to measure discomfort based on characteristics of a specific job. You get to choose 2 scenarios, which causes the most discomfort. For example:

  1. Having to listen to someone’s point of view with which you disagree (perhaps this blog).
  2. Your work is closely monitored (loads of examples).

Now knowing the forced scale will influence our reaction to the situation and Microsoft was entirely unpleased with our desire to remain offline when we prefer it. They prefer a steady stream of data. Now take the previous setting and consider the following statements

  1. Having to patch a game regularly.
    b. constantly adjusting your network settings.
    c. Having to synch save games.
    d. Having to change the disc of a game whilst playing.
    e. Switching the batteries in your controller.

Which two would be your most discomfortable ones? Now, in all fairness I should have added 15 more items, but the chances are really great that network settings would score high, which is what we face now on the Xbox One. There was no need for any of this on the Xbox 360, the PS3 and the PS4, so why is this an Xbox One issue?

Because Microsoft wants to return to the 2013 issue that they need data of many kinds. Even if they are not privacy driven. For them to know exactly how many gamers are online playing, the amounts of hours connected is all data they would love to have. None of it goes back to your identity, so there is no privacy issue, but that level of data details one that they can charge game makers for, and they could end up charging a lot.

This is why I am so angry with Microsoft, because as a consumer I feel betrayed! Now consider your desktop and laptop (if you have them), do you need to switch your settings to offline? No you don’t! So if Microsoft can figure this out on those systems as well as the Xbox 360, why make us go through these events?

As I see it, the only conclusion I get is that they have ulterior motives, motives that are not for the consumers that they should be serving as the consumer paid for the device. In this regard we could consider another paper by John Bernardin, namely ‘Conscientiousness and agreeableness as predictors of rating leniency’, you can probably guess the next part. Why should we show leniency towards Microsoft in any way, shape or form? Was their act of backwards compatibility a way to create agreeableness?

And as Microsoft stated on the 12th ‘we put fans at the centre of everything we do and wanted to make some big changes‘ (at http://news.xbox.com/2015/11/12/new-xbox-one-experience-begins-today/), then why do you keep on pushing for mandatory login through forced discomfort? It seems that you never had any ‘fan’ in the centre, only your own greedy need for a stable stream of connection data! The fact that the press remains oblivious to all this makes me wonder what else we might be forced to face and a third test will be done next week to ascertain a few more items. I do not know what the effect will be but I will explain that fully in the next (and perhaps final part) of all this.

I have no idea whether people will catch on before thanksgiving and Christmas in the US. Even purely Windows 10 has a few issues. Forbes reported: “While the option to disable is nice, ‘Windows Update Delivery Optimization’ (WUDO) is another example of where Microsoft should be more transparent with Windows 10 and let them know upfront what their devices will be doing behind their backs by default” (at http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2015/08/02/windows-10-vs-windows-8-vs-windows-7-whats-the-difference/), so what else does the new Xbox OS push for and Microsoft has not been upfront about it?

I still have an issue with non-stop online. This might be my own paranoia, yet as we see computers getting hacked into (often due to stupidity of the user), having a power core at your disposal as they turn your console into a botnet. Is that such a stretch? No!

Consider the following data: “the slides from Frank Savage’s presentation at Build 2014 along with the audio of the same. We noticed the fact that Xbox One runs Windows 8” Now this will be Windows 10, so having an app that becomes a remote botnet is not a stretch and by the time people start to consider that their console is doing a lot more than walk ‘the wasteland’, we are confronted with a few hundred thousand consoles, all playing ‘spam the neighbour’. Now I am not stating that Microsoft is not taking precautions, but so far every windows version has been breached multiple times. Soon consoles will be also forced to consider additional apps to protect against such intrusions, it is the price of being always online!

Is it an immediate danger? No it is not! I am not stating, suggesting or implying this, but we know that EVERY Windows system has had its flaws and so will the Xbox One. Often not dangerously, but when a console is always reachable that danger just increases. This is my personal issue with always being connected. It is why I am sparingly connected (and because I have one wire for more than one console).

But I diverged from the initial issue of forced discomfort, I did so intentionally so that you realise that consoles have many sides, they often have more options and powers than the average gamer realises. This is not a bad thing, but in all this that realisation is also linked to the sequence of events as they are now playing.

When you realise that your system can do more than you realise, it will give on the other side of the coin the statement: ‘you can lose more than you think because you never realised that you could have lost it’.

That requires a little explaining. Consider ‘you cannot lose what you never knew you had’ and ‘things can be removed from you when you realise that it was an implied gift, not an actual one’. The first one is often shaped into: “you knew what you had, you just never thought you’d lose it“, a statement that might be true, but I do not agree with it. You see in my view, when you lose you never knew you had, you stop your own evolution. The realisation of new is at the core of growth, which takes me to the second part. An implied gift is still a gift, having it taken away is not wrong of debatably criminal, it is merely an act that stops your evolution. For as you lost elements of growth, your actions become empty. This is why I am so against the entire situation. For the most, I was never a multiplayer man, so I never missed multiplayer, yet I learned that Mass Effect 3 came with plenty of grudges and complaints, yet it also came with the best multiplayer experience ever! Mass Effect 3 was the founding father of me remaining a Gold Live member. Even if I no longer play that game in any way shape or form, that game put Gold on the map for me and as such I evolved due to a part I never knew I had. In that same instance, the implied ownership is still an issue, because even though I no longer play it, the Mass Effect 3 Cerberus system is an implied gift, not an actual one. At some point Mass Effect 3 will no longer be multiplayer, no longer work online. At that point our multiplayer evolution stops (until the next game comes along). Even as I ‘demand’ that my single player game will forever play on the intended console, I will never expect a service like multiplayer to remain active. In that same light I expect a game or preowned game to always unreservedly work on the console version it was made for, but in that same light I see multiplayer as a service, which means that a separate multiplayer is not transferable. This is my personal handle on the things that play, so in that same light, being able to play offline without forced discomfort is a given right, not a managed service. As Microsoft is pushing us to be all online (in the approach given to us in 2013), we should all lash out against Microsoft for leaving us betrayed.

There is also an additional issue when we consider ‘section 7b’ of Microsoft’s Services EULA where we see “may automatically check your version of the software and download software update or configuration changes, including those that prevent you from accessing the Services, playing counterfeit games, or using unauthorised hardware peripheral devices“, I do not have an issue with that. I buy my games, all my games! Yet these changes also allow for hunting those who ‘alter’ their Xbox so that they can do something that is called jailbreaking on iOS. These people (to the larger extent) are not interested in pirated games. These people want to play the latest games the moment they are released in Tokyo or the US. They do not want to wait a year for the ‘altered’ edition, they want to full Japanese experience. I get that and I am partially on their side too!

But these changes will not only make those acts no longer possible (which is debatable whether it should be allowed or not), but the second hand gaming world could in equal measure be blocked soon thereafter. Whether this will come true cannot be predicted, yet as Microsoft broke its word on not online gaming, what else will they regard as ‘flexible’?

The fact that the press is still not regarding the online login push as a fact is also a worry, because this was at the heart of the 2013 slump in pre-orders for the Xbox One. So why is no one else picking this up? One friend of mine did state that most people are always online and they do not care. Which is fair enough, yet those people chose this, so why force the others? Is that not a valid question too?

This all links to the premise behind this all. Microsoft marketing might state: “Microsoft will do what is best for you”, but from my evolutionary mind, the premise should be “I know what is best for me“, Microsoft has no clue what my needs are and they will never realise what they are when they push me for setting I am unsettled with, how can that lead to a good experience? I came from DOS, VMS and MVS and I grew into Windows 95 (and Mac OS), we all grew from one system into another one, yet if you allow yourself to be pushed into a system you do not understand, at that point we can only harm ourselves or what we represent (our data and our actions). So as we get pushed into a new system with new rules and changing terms of service we must start to realise that remaining agreeable and lenient is no longer an option, especially as the press is extremely willing to side with whomever advertises the most. Now it is time to address my own implied issues. You see, from my point of view this is not a mere issue, how come that the press is not all over it? I can’t be the only one who saw this element, I am not the only one confronted with the issues as presented with the latest OS update on the Xbox One. So why is no one seeing this? It could all just be me, but if that is the case, we could play online and offline by merely switching off a router and be able to play again without having to login, but that is not the reality I see. What I see is forced discomfort, is it just me or are you realising that switching off your Xbox router comes with setbacks and why is that?

We all need to start asking questions and Microsoft should give us some straight answers.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Media

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

November 17, 2015 · 23:03

Without even thinking

As I see it, Microsoft did not learn from the massive act of idiocy that Don Mattrick bestowed upon the Xbox One, when the quote “Microsoft’s Don Mattrick has addressed concerns about the compulsory connectivity requirements of Xbox One. ‘Fortunately we have a product for people who aren’t able to get some form of connectivity; it’s called Xbox 360,’ said Mattrick. ‘If you have zero access to the Internet, that is an offline device’”, the blowback in 2013 was massive and as such Microsoft had to take a few steps back, mainly because Microsoft had lost the trust of the people through the mere lust of data.

And now, without even thinking, Microsoft now does exactly that same thing as they rolled out Windows 10 on Xbox One. Once you have updated, you cannot play any games unless you have signed in online. A mandatory sign in! I reckon that Microsoft has now moved beyond a certain point, it is called betraying your customer base, so fuck you very much Microsoft!

Thank god there is Sony!

Without even thinking they pushed it out, forcing mandatory internet connectivity, the threat that made people jump towards Sony due to ‘the Mattrick equation’ will now assist to soar Sony’s PlayStation 4 even further. So if Phil Spencer gets a lovely bouquet from Andrew House we will all know the reason. So as this mistake was made just in time for the people of America just before Thanksgiving and for all other people before Christmas to cancel their Xbox One order and change their order to a PlayStation 4.

There will still be an issue for me; you see to keep the PlayStation competitive it needs a nemesis. If we accept that the Xbox will run dry another solution needs to be found. Perhaps Google will father a sibling next to their console and make one for true high level gaming. Perhaps it will be an upgraded Steam based reality, perhaps something truly new. They might be the only one who can replace Microsoft. I reckon that is not the only field where Microsoft will lose. As it has ‘mesmerised’ the media with a massively overpriced tabled with a soft keyboard (the Surface 3) at almost twice the price of the most powerful iPad, being at almost 400% of a Chromebook that can be stronger from the word go by inserting an $80 CF card you get the 32Gb storage the surface has (they have bigger models too), yet these CF cards can be switched in mere seconds. This is not me becoming anti-Microsoft, this is me informing the consumer that they should not take any ‘easy’ path but they should consider that alternatives should be considered. The fact that Microsoft becks out on their earlier promise, how long until they break other promises? What options will they have AFTER they paid $2293 for a Microsoft Surface Pro 3?

Yes, we cannot deny that there is still a market for Microsoft, but they are now pricing themselves out of a market by no longer being reliable, because how long until every device is forced onto the land of THEIR cloud systems and how private will your data be? Part of that was addressed by ZDNet today, the rest (the press at large) seemed to have ignored the Xbox issues. Perhaps they decided to hold out for advertiser’s funds like hungry debutants! Yes, the press is not the reliable force of true information it ones was.

ZDNET gives us another part that connects to this (at http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-updates-privacy-statement-addressing-concerns-from-critics/), stating “Microsoft recently revised its global Privacy Statement, with a few minor changes and some significant additions aimed at cooling overheated privacy concerns“. The article is for the most about the user’s privacy and it goes into lengths to do that, so if you fear your ‘privacy’ then read the article and fear no more. The article addresses it quite clearly but then stops short of dealing with the mandatory login (which was not part of the article in all fairness), which is now one step away from ending preowned gaming. An entire economy now in direct possible threat.

But back to the consoles!

The fact that this escalation has happened is also a blessing now, because as people realise before Thanksgiving that whatever Microsoft device is gifted at thanksgiving, it will be the thanksgiving present for Microsoft, not for the intended person that would be the recipient of the console, so How crazy is that?

Thank god we have Sony!

Between now and late 2016, the PS4 will have 15 titles on its sleeve that are PS4 only, some of them have been jaw dropping, as such PS4 remains the compatible system that does not demand you to be online, yet until the Achievements remain offline, that part is not too realistic. Sony has in addition kept its word throughout the PS2, PS3 and PS4 era, something that cannot be said for Microsoft as the promised backward compatibility on the 360 was not delivered on and now that it has some backwards compatibility, the issue of being forced online is a massive setback to gamers all over the world.

Thank god we have Sony!

Sony is not without flaws either, yet this level of backstabbing has never been ‘offered’ by Sony, which gives Microsoft now a massive disadvantage with Thanksgiving and Christmas just around the corner, so the gap between Sony and Microsoft could widen even further. When we consider that Sony has a 2:1 growing lead and even as the Microsoft Marketing engine is trying to flog statements like “Sony PlayStation 4 sells 22 million, but Microsoft has backward compatibility“, whilst not revealing that online presence on a daily basis is now mandatory gives food for thought and the served meal is no longer that appealing.

In all this if Xbox takes another massive hit, so much the better, they need a little humbling experience, because even though the gamers tend to be online, to be forced there is not what they signed up for and if Microsoft is breaking its word, what else will it break its word on? Pre-owned games perhaps? Because if this is where gamers are going, they will be happy to switch trains any way they can. Microsoft just didn’t realise the impact of that move, the worse for them I say!

In the end, what are the fact of life? The people do not mind being online, they mind being forced there, no matter how we feel about some marketed stream of ‘media’ like the Sydney Morning Herald (at http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/xbox-one-finally-finds-its-feet-with-backwards-compatibility-gamesfocused-dashboard-20151115-gkzq7p.html). Is it not interesting how Tim Biggs remained unaware how people MUST be online now so that they can sign in?

Thank god we have Sony!

Yet in all this, we have ignored an alternative player, perhaps they will come with a new console called ‘the Black Hole’, a device that equals the next ‘PS4+’ allows for gaming, internet and streaming. That has an interchangeable drive and can be the centre of your devices to you can synch your mobile and tablet. All things the gamer does, all this whilst he/she plays a game, by themselves or with/against friends. Connected was never the issue, it was the non-consensual part that had everyone miffed, so if you do something you truly want, yet you get there without consent, does that not equal getting screwed over?

They did that to you without even thinking and the press stayed silent how lame is that?

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

November 15, 2015 · 03:28

With a little bit of Ruffalo

Paris is in turmoil, before we go out in rage and aggression, we need to realise that sometimes a spark comes from another direction, in this article realise the following from the beginning to the end of it. Mark Ruffalo who is regarded as a great actor and a nice guy should today be remembered as a great humanitarian and an excellent actor. 9 hours ago he stated on Twitter (@MarkRuffalo) “Don’t allow this horrific act allow you to be drawn into the loss of your humanity or tolerance. That is the intended outcome. #ParisAttacks“, which is very much to the point. Whether the word ‘intended’ or ‘expected’ or ‘feared’ should be used here is beside the point. It is not mere semantics and Mark hit the nail on the head.

Yet, what was this foolish act, to go after the one nation where liberalism is at the centre of life, ah, that might have been the reason all along, I am merely speculating!

I have never been about ‘mere speculating’ so let’s take a look at what we have (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/14/paris-terror-attacks-attackers-dead-mass-killing-live-updates).

These were the attacks:

  1. The Bataclan, which is a theatre located at 50 boulevard Voltaire in the 11th arrondissement of Paris.
  2. Stade de France, the national stadium of France, situated just north of Paris in the commune of Saint-Denis.
  3. La Belle Equipe, a cafe on Rue de Charonne.
  4. Le Carillon, a bar-cafe at the junction of Rue Bichat and Rue Alibert.
  5. Le Petit Cambodge, a restaurant at the junction of Rue Bichat and Rue Alibert.
  6. Rue Fontaine au Roi

The other side of this coin (which is linked to all this) is that we see how certain Humanitarian groups are reduced to the jokes they should be. This shows exactly how Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was correct. The flotilla’s are stopped to slow down the massive intake of explosives and weapons into Gaza. The 2010 Gaza Freedom Flotilla attack was nothing more than some marketing ploy (as I see it). You see the direct reality is that goods are not stopped by Israel, goods are inspected by Israel before they go into Gaza. What makes this all such a bad joke is because:

  1. The blockade of the Gaza Strip imposed by Israel and Egypt

So BOTH Egypt and Israel are enforcing the blockade!

  1. As per May 2010, the list of imported items included 2 million litres of diesel fuel and gasoline, fruits, vegetables, wheat, sugar, meat, chicken and fish products, dairy products, animal feed, hygiene products, fabrics, clothing and shoes. You see, if that flotilla had nothing to hide, and if there were non-weaponisable articles in there they would have been inspected and the materials would have been delivered. This is what made the Humanitarian joke to say the least. They wanted to play a pissing game with a nation that had been under terrorist attack for decades. Now relate all that to what we saw that happened this weekend!

These seven attacks if we include Charlie Hedbo shows the issue, it shows terrorism. This is what Israel faced and those well intentional kids with their propaganda minds are now pushed onto a page of reality. Now they are all in disbelief, it is all about non-comprehension and blaming outside sources. Blaming it on a ‘few’ desperate minds.

Reality gives us a very different picture. It shows that many of you are not ready to face. It is a similar reason why I personally at time regard some members of the court to be ideological cowards (if it pleases the court). Yet, time is on my side, what people pushed for when they considered me to be overinflating the ‘risk’. Now we see the articles with issues I elaborated on for over 2 years. Now we see the Guardian with ‘Can international law meet the challenges of today’s lawless conflicts?’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/nov/14/international-law-yemen-syria-isis-conflict). I will elaborate my view of the courts later, but for now it is time to make one more step before we get back to Paris.

So, let’s get back to the political puppets, because they have a role to play in all of this. Perhaps you would like to remember March 9th 2015, where Greece’s defence minister Panos Kammenos threatened to ‘flood Europe with migrants, including Syrian jihadists’. So if any of the 8 cadavers are Syrian, will we see a request for the head of Panos Kammenos on a brass platter (the man is not worthy of silver)? Will we suddenly see more ‘apologies’ regarding poorly chosen words? As per 5 minutes ago, Sky News reported via Twitter that one of the bombers had a Syrian passport.

All these issues matter and they are all connected. We will see so many responses flooded on emotions and not enough on the cold light that logic brings. Logic must be ground to all this, no matter what kind of logic, but the unconditional need to eradicate all ISIS life. In this I do not oppose Mark Ruffalo and his need for humanity (as well as the need to instil it). I do not oppose or attack his values. He is a man of peace, or a man from peaceful times. There is nothing negative about it, I come from times of chaos and strife. I know what needs to be done. I might not be in any decent shape, but I was a crack shot, which means that up to 800 meters I can, I would and I am willing to cull the ISIS population as per immediate. In that I reckon the French must now realise that their brethren in Légion Etrangère, can and should now do what needs to be done, take the war to ISIS, wherever they are. This is what needs to be done and politicians on a global scale need to wake up and need to wake up fast.

If you doubt these words, then consider the following facts: 6 attacks required some planning, acquisition of goods (explosives, weapons and ammunition), they required transport and these elements needed to time the events, which implies support, funding and training. This is not some lone wolf club, this is clear evidence of orchestration and a larger support network that is now proven to be in France and possibly in additional EEC nations.

In this I will not oppose the call by Mark Ruffalo, but I will oppose the call by British broadcaster Rufus Hound who responded with a call for a peaceful response, You see, the theory of peaceful negotiations is partially valid when you deal with any established party that adheres to certain values (like not bombing civilians), in the case of a barbarian collective (people abstaining from evolution) the clear path is eradication. You might shy from this word, but the definite reality is that this world no longer has any place for certain extremism. The disavowed of any extremism is almost essential (yes, ironically that includes my view, which is currently based on realism).

Here we see the irony where realism is based on values we can no longer support, which is partially why Humanitarian values more and more stop being part of the reality of life. Greed got us part of the way and the rest was created through the intolerance of the enactors. So basically they heralded their own extreme eradication.

Is my view to extreme?

You might think that, but consider the costs of these events, not what is lost, but the funds these people needed to get the weapons and explosives. Getting into France, all those took time and money, places to store and places to collect all of this. Cars to move what is needed and to leave a false trail. All that supports the evidence of orchestration and intent. Even with the decent paying job I have, it would take 2-3 years to get all the funds required, so someone funded this. Which takes me back to the words of Panos Kammenos, given in utter stupidity so that he got some limelight, this is part of the realisation that there is more support and more funds. This needs to be halted, we must hunt and eradicate ISIS and their support engine. In my mind ANY bank executive who made short cuts to make their bonus, if they are found to be in support, strip their rights after which they get a fatal accident. I feel 99% certain that after the third ‘accident’, these greed driven idiots will suddenly grow morality (a fear of mortality does tend to do that).

How does all this get us back to Paris?

In part it is the European consequence to these attacks. Any refugee trail is likely to be halted completed. They were halted in British to some extent, but now we will see a massive change in movement and in addition we will see a massive rise in intolerance, which is to be expected but should not be allowed for. We will now face the humanitarian dangers America faced from 1941 onwards with their Japanese and Japanese-American heritage. The camps are a black blight on American society and even though it partially was able to get past that, Europe could face a similar stigma and Paris will be at the centre of all this. Two days ago, we saw the news stating ‘French political elites panic as Marine Le Pen Gains Ground‘, well if they were afraid 2 days ago, how will they react coming Monday morning? The most powerful quote in that article was “Ms. Le Pen can sense the feeling of distress across the nation as voters feel they have been abandoned to their fate by legacy parties allowing that influx – without consultation. They feel no affinity for the ‘multi-cultural’ France they believe is being foisted on them“, that feeling will escalate next week as the blame game starts, some of it might go towards Panos Kammenos, which implies that Tsipras might request the resignation of his slightly too outspoken National Defence Minister, my reasoning here is that if any evidence is found that the Syrian bomber came from Greece, the gloves come off completely and Greece will face ridicule they have never faced before.

Yet, Paris is only the beginning, having a history for being the cultural centre of Europe also means that an efficient transport system has been the foundation of France for some time (ignoring train delays at present). €132 gets me to Amsterdam in 3 hours, €23 gets me to Orleans in an hour. So as people are currently looking at the emotion, the chaos and the damage, there is little evidence that only 8 people would have been part of all this, as these people started their event, the rest of those teams could have moved onto ‘new’ targets. It will be up to DGSE and DGSI, both relying on BRGE to get to the core of some of this. Once military elements get involved it will become another matter entirely, in all this my initial advice is to Panos Kammenos to shut up and do whatever the French require of you. Now there is no evidence that these people went via Greece, but the words of Panos Kammenos will hang heavy in the air after these events in Paris. More important, how will Hungary and others react now? This now all heads back to Paris.

A Europe that needs to alter their view and legalities regarding extremism, the law was nowhere near ready to deal with this. The new French bill (at http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/projets/pl2110.asp), seems to have a few issues, as per (https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/09/france-counterterrorism-bill-threatens-rights).

The quote “Under article 1, the interior minister could bar people from leaving France if there are “serious reasons to believe” they are planning to go abroad with the aim of “participating in terrorist activities, war crimes or crimes against humanity” or if authorities suspect they are traveling to a place where terrorist groups operate and in conditions conducive to their posing a threat to public safety upon their return to France. Once a decision is made, the person’s passport would be withdrawn and the person would be prevented from leaving the country“, So as we see Human Rights are complaining more and more regarding the fact that ‘the Bill Would Breach Free Movement and Expression‘, gives us in this day the reason for not taking Human Rights too serious. Some Human Rights organisations only have themselves to blame. The issues on Israel are one of the lighter examples. The fact that Human rights go against this (one of many objections) whilst we see objections towards ‘participating in terrorist activities‘ and the consequential ‘restriction of movement‘, we cannot take certain elements serious. Of course I am in this case also guilty of trivialising parts as there are a few more serious matters that might lead to questions to reflect upon. What we all forget that it is up to France to decide what is best for France. That realisation is part of the issue, where we see that Strasbourg is also all about rapers getting a chance for a family life with the child begotten through rape (a way to get a British Passport), now we see (in exaggerated terms) that terrorists should not be hindered in movement. That part is at the heart of the matter where both England and France are close to reject this Human Rights Act and it will further fuel both Brexit and Frexit.

Part of this is seen (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/14/french-intelligence-under-scrutiny-paris-attacks) where we see that French intelligence is now under scrutiny. The intelligence network has no resources to deal with the amount of data required to even possibly find any clue that something could be amiss. In all this we see the first responses from France. The most visible is Marine Le Pen, who only 13 minutes ago stated “For the sixth time in 2015, Islamist terrorism has struck our country. France mourns her dead and I mourn with her. I pay tribute to the dedication of our armed forces. France must determine who its friends are and who its enemies are. France’s enemies are those who maintain links with Islamism. Once and for all, France must recapture control of its borders. Islamist fundamentalism must be destroyed, radical mosques must be closed and radical clerics must be expelled. French terrorists must be stripped of their citizenship and banned from this country“. The ‘PROJET DE LOI, renforçant les dispositions relatives à la lutte contre le terrorisme‘ is only a first step, the question becomes, how will the surrounding nations react? The UK might be an island, but that benefit does not befall Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Germany and Belgium. Where will this go for them? And the real true refugees, what will become of them? Questions that have no easy answer, yet at present, none seem to have any clear answers, which should worry the residents and citizens of many nations, including those that are not part of the EEC.

In the end Mark Ruffalo is completely correct with his statement, which is not corrected for the one part we forget, which is that ISIS has pronounced war on France, so what will you do? Hope for some kind of empty peace, or will you accept that this is a war and it must be answered with the military force it deserves and the lack of rules and rights that this opponent is not worthy of. Time will tell what will be their next act, yet I have a clear idea of what their opponents will do. They will express condolences, they will meet, talk and I expect that they will lack in actions, in resolve and in clear operational steps, which makes for a worry, because the lack of operational actions is not something that ISIS has. I will let you consider the events that were and how it will affect the times that come and feel free not to ignore the words of Mark Ruffalo.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military

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

November 12, 2015 · 21:30

Seeking the next stage

As we move towards the end of an era, exams, some move towards a new life and towards other challenges and new games. Tonight the start of Fallout 4 begins, too busy to make a real dent in it, but I will take a peak. I did take a peek at Assassins Creed in another way. I did not buy the game for the reason that Ubisoft has disappointed twice now, thrice including the latest one. As far as shown it does not have the massive issues that Unity had, but overall it ends up being more of the same. The finale is completely over the top, but at times one must allow for that. Like all previous AC games, the graphics are beyond unreal, but that is it. The AI of the opponents is still out there, the control, or better the consequence of assumption by the game engine is also still out there, just like in Unity. In all fairness those who want more of the same will like it, partially I want it too but too many irritating moments where Assassins Creed is controlled by the Prince of Persia team and I hate that part. In some instances loading took forever, but that was a PC edition so there are a few elements in play. Even after the introduction when you arrive in London will you get into a squirm who lifts your pocket, you chase and then you need to fight someone (2 persons in this case) Assassins Creed 2, AC Brotherhood, 3 and Unity anyone?

Of course there is more ‘synchronisation location’ here, but that is the one repetitive element I do not object to that much. It shows up the graphics (which has always been awesome) and it is one way to upgrade the map, but that is it, upgrading the map, not buying what you must seek, but upgrading what any synchronisation offers. Did no one at Ubisoft consider that? Oh and again chests all over the place, in the age of Queen Victoria, do you really think that a chest only you will reach has silk money and other things waiting? I can go on for hours, but if you like the game, you will get it, if you don’t you will not bother reading this (which is fair enough), so after that part it is time to get onto the next game. It will not be Fallout 4 as that game is 3 hours away. At the end of the month the GOTY edition of Bloodborne will arrive. Now, this game is not for the weak, it is near impossible to play and I have not been able to finish this game. Yet, I will not give up because it is graphically one of the most beautiful games I ever beheld. All this whilst I see another part of AC Syndicate passes my eyes with particular view on the bad scripted AI and the glitched civilian reaction to you the player. The reason for both games is that both have awesome graphics, but as Bloodborne is unplayable because of the high challenge level, AC becomes almost unplayable due to the faulty approach. If AC had no glitches but remains unplayable because the challenge is massive I would end up revering the game as I did in the time of AC 2 and AC Brotherhood.

Yet here is the kicker, is it all me?

I have always shied away from racing games as it was never my cup of tea, RPG and stealth games were. This is why I have had massive issues with the AC range, but is that fair? I believe that my view matters here, but it is for you the reader to decide how my view adheres to YOUR view of the game, because it is about you the gamer! I can only offer my view and hope that your view is enhanced, nothing more. Whatever you truly enjoy is what you enjoy, so keep that in mind. Another game to keep in mind in November is the nextgen release for Deadpool. Now consider the next paragraph.

In the first I was never a fan of that comic, never followed the character and never played the console editions. There are a few things on this game. It is one of the most politically incorrect games you will find at present. It looks nice graphically. It is smooth, the graphics have a nice comic book look to all of it. So as the doorbell goes and the narrative goes ‘let’s forget about the boobs and go for pecs and biceps’ you know that this gamer is decently over the top. So as you learn how to control Deadpool in original new ways.

So even as you are reading this now, this part was written after midnight. Yes, Fallout 4 is here. I will not bore you with the intro, the explanation that you will read everywhere or the codes. Let’s get to basics. Graphically the game is awesome, I had a go at the PS4 version and the intro that you will likely have seen in many places shows the intro in a decent way. Controls are very much like the previous versions of Fallout, so if you played those, you are well on your way. If this is new then realise a few little things. The interaction is about freedom, in this version it is a lot more about freedom and a little less about carrying all kinds of things and not knowing whether you need them yes or no. the development is also as YOU see fit, so if you are a slugger (slam bam fisticuffs), ‘tchk tchk bang’ (gun nut), or squeak squeak slice (stealth), you have a freedom of choice to go your own way. For the non-initiate I still feel that a first need is intelligence and repair skills (do not decide now, finish reading the article). You see, whatever direction you take, intelligence gives you skills faster and repair gives you better weapons and in addition more revenue from selling them. So we might consider there is a small flaw in the game, but that is not entirely true, it is the way of the world the game is set in. So what should you do? That is the beauty of Fallout 4, you decide and whatever you decide, there is no wrong here, there is just your choice and unlike in real life, you must live with the consequences of the choices you make. In real life you just blame someone else.

Now for the truth, after AC Syndicate (or Unity for that matter), does the game have bugs. Well, I can tell you that this is a fair certainty. So far I have not crossed any, but that will be a mere matter of time. Skyrim had bugs, Fallout New Vegas had its share of bugs and this one will have them, yet in this case we must also consider two parts. Fallout 4 is completely open, so in many cases you can go around such an issue, in the past patches did come out and they resolved many (not all) issues. Will this be the same? It is too soon to tell, but when I learn, I will inform. For now realise that a good game remains a good game and that some things (like open worlds) tend to come at a price, but is that what you wanted to hear?

That is not the main issue, is the game worth it all? So far as I see it, with Rise of the Tombraider the answer is no, with Fallout 4 the answer is yes. Is there another game you seek? Than look for it, perhaps read the review and if you do, always read more than one and decide after you get the goods from a reliable source. You see I do not side with the IGN review, but I stop short form disagreeing with it, because a gaming review tends to be a personal one. In this case Lucy O’Brien writes “Although I could have done with a few more puzzles and fewer firefights“, which was a given in previous versions, but as I saw it to the part I saw, it was massively repetitive form the previous game, so I had an issue there. Another part is what Lucy experienced, which is fair enough “She’s such a potent fighter that I didn’t find any real incentive to avoid combat altogether“, that is in truth the formula that Lara relied upon in the path, yet the steal options we got introduced to in earlier games were very enticing, too often there was a trigger forcing a fight, but the idea of taking a decent part out in stealth is too appealing to ignore, it is one addition I truly enjoyed. In addition, the quote “For true completionists, there are plenty of relics, documents, murals and caves to discover, which can take an average play through from 15 hours to around 30 or 40” implies much improvements above the previous version, yet the initial issue remains that 15 hours (likely just the main game) is not good enough. It is slightly less than the very first game which required 10% of the power we see nowadays, and the game was contained on a disc holding less than 2% of what a Blu-ray can store, so the question becomes, is it value for money, which is something I will let you decide.

Now it is time to take a look at fallout 4. I went in with the experience of the previous games, so I made my character on the Xbox One and I went off to the races (oops, I almost forgot, the installation takes a little over half an hour, so feel free to start the installation and prepare the room with snacks and drinks so that you do not look at that super slow installation progress counter. The game began and here I made an interesting ‘mistake’ Fallout 4 plays in the same way the previous versions did, but that turned out to be an oops moment. This is not something I regret. You see, the play is the same, but the game is also vastly different. An important issue here is the fact that guns no longer degrade! It has changed into upgrading weapons. It does so more versatile than you see in the Bioshock games. Now it will be about finding junk, scrapping it and use those parts to upgrade the weapons you have. In addition perks now have several levels, which means that certain perks will receive additional options. I will not go into this any deeper, because exploration of what you find and what you could be is part of the massive fun that Fallout 4 is delivering in this game.

As for the rest?

Well, building your settlement is a fun addition and that fact is not giving away anything (shown in many demos), but you will soon learn that this part is a lot more important and it shows a new side to the fallout 4 games and it just shows why Bethesda still rules the RPG land. So far, the game is showing me everything I wanted to see, including a decent level of surprises. For me gaming will now stop for a week as exams are about to start. I am still uncertain how bad my exam scores will be in the end, but that will not stop me from fighting for every point I did not get (I am an incurable optimist).

Whatever you do, make sure you enjoy what you do! (I am referring to gaming and not the equally rewarding horizontal lambada)

See you all next week!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

November 8, 2015 · 23:12

Looking for the rocket man

Yes, there is an issue in the Sinai, Sharm Al Sheik no less. It is not news, I have known about it for a while as has most people. It is in the news, it is in the pages, there is gossip and there is much speculation. In the end another plane went down, this time it is the Russians who get to deal with this. Now, I am not a man to hold a grudge, but has anyone barred their access? It is not like MH17, yet still to give the Russians direct access after they did all; they could to stop the Dutch from getting access to evidence and the victims is a bit of a no no, nothing personal Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin!

The news from the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/07/new-era-airport-security-sinai-terror) gives us “Fears focus on screening of baggage handlers as aviation experts demand new global response“, you see that could also be seen as “Fears focus on screening of baggage handlers as aviation experts, demands for new global response“. What a difference a comma makes eh?

This calls a few issues into question. Let’s face it, after someone got rid of those two slightly less appealing buildings roughly 5163 days ago, we still need to see issues with quotes like: “A fundamental overhaul of global aviation security is required“, how bloody moronically stupid does a community get to be? From what I can tell, the overall ‘security’ at the slot machines in Vegas are a lot better than in well over 40% of the airfields, so what gives?

In addition, we now see: ‘British Sharm Al Sheikh flight in ‘missile’ incident‘ (at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34754577). The response there is “A spokesman said the incident had involved ground-to-ground firing at a military base a few miles from Sharm-el Sheikh airport, and that no plane had been in danger” what ground to ground firing and who was firing? By the way, a flare is not ground to ground and it is not a flare either.

I am not opposing the article or the response, yet overall the BBC article is decently less then clear whilst the Egyptian response might not be reliable as they have a few more ‘presentational issues’ to deal with. Yet if it was all about ‘routine military activity and was not a targeted attack‘, why did the flight deviate? There must have been a decent level of perceived danger for the pilot to do this. I will readily accept any pilot stating ‘better be safe than sorry‘, which means that he/she saw a possible danger. And even though this was in August, it gives clear evidence in connection to what is about to follow.

So is this a mere trivial event? Not that downing a Russian flight is trivial, but is this a possible escalation for Saudi Arabia? You see, the airport has resorts to the north and the south, so there should be no threat there (we hope), yet to the west of the Ring road what is there? There seems to be a military compound with blue rectangles (possibly water purification) but there is no way to tell for certain), from there it is a mere 8 Km to the airstrip, so was the pilot jumpy or are events downplayed? I am happy if it was a mere jumpy pilot, who I would instantly support for any choice he made to keep his passengers safe, but can we agree that if ground to ground fire is visible to the pilot that the explosions were really big, or that the events were a lot closer to the airport? My issue here is not that the event took place, but that it gets reiterated to hell at this point 7 weeks later. The mention “A missile that came within 300 metres of a plane carrying British tourists to Sharm el-Sheikh was “probably a flare”, found investigators“, should remain an issue, because why fire flares at a commercial plane? Also, those buggers are not that fast, or do not tend to go so high, which means that there is a little more to the story. In addition, we get “Another Thomson plane was also flying into [Sharm el-Sheikh] at the same time and saw the rocket” as well as the fact that flares tend to really light up in a way similar to ‘here comes the sun’, so what gives? In addition the final fact, if both planes saw the ‘light’ and both remain consistent about a ‘rocket’, in my view the issue remains. Yet the final quote here is “Thomson said there was “no cause for concern” for further flights“, which means that it could be a flare, but in all this better visibility and more open response, especially in ‘light’ of what blew up afterwards would have been better (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/07/missile-thomson-airplane-flare).

You see, this is all speculation on my part (yet I try to be as cold and as logically as possible) something you will not likely find in the Daily Mail or some Murdoch publications. They will all be about fear and about emotional speculation. In equal measure of worry, the MFO South Camp should be no more than 35 Km to the South of the airport, so if there was ground to ground action was the MFO informed, were any activities spotted by them? More info that did not make the papers or the Tabloids. This is all nice and speculative, but in the end, this is all an escalation of what happened to Russian flight 9268, yet there is no overall evidence at this point. Some of the photos show that shrapnel holes are from the inside out, which gives weight to the UK claim that it was a bomb on board of the plane. That evidence comes with the support that the cone of firing a Stinger, or even a stinger alternative like the Igla-S seems unlikely. Only a more modern version like the Starstreak or an alternative would then be the consideration, but for ISIS to get something like that is even less likely, make that extremely unlikely. If it was a Stinger or alike it had to be fired either from the sea, or from the Sinai itself, but that requires the terrorist to be too close to the Sharm Al Sheik – Dahab ring road. This might give more weight to the ground to ground firing, but also gives weight to the UK pilot to take a very quick gander somewhere else. All this remains speculation!

If the bomb was on board, we get back to my initial issue ‘how bloody moronically stupid does a community get to be’, you see, Egypt requires tourism to go on, to go on successfully. So why is there not more stringent security? With roughly 10 million tourists bringing 6 billion in revenue, security should have been on the forefront of the minds of the Egyptian ministers of both tourism and Intelligence. Which impacts me as I laughingly read the headline ‘Egyptian foreign minister claims allies not sharing intelligence on possible Isis bomb plot’. Yet there is one other alternative. It is shown by the Independent (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/sinai-plane-crash-egyptian-foreign-minister-claims-allies-not-sharing-intelligence-on-possible-isis-a6725236.html). The alternative is that mechanical malfunction from the tail is still not impossible, however, in another article we see ‘Black box data ‘reveals Metrojet A321 was brought down over Egypt by explosion’’, which is also from the independent. The quote “tests carried out on the cockpit voice recorder show the tragedy could not have been caused by either a technical fault or an error by the crew” could be regarded as significant here.

So as I go back to my moment of hilarious laughter (I do sound like a Hyena at such moments), the first one is “Sameh Shoukry said no other countries had given the Egyptian government access to their information” My thoughts on that can be seen in a number of ways. Sameh Hassan Shoukry must and does realise that Egypt still has a corruption problem. One side is lighted by Georges Fahmi in the Carnegie Middle East Center. Here we find the quote from a statement from Mahmoud Hussein, the former secretary general of the Brotherhood that said: “The Brotherhood operates with its apparatuses and institutions in accordance with the regulations and with the members of the Guidance Bureau. It has supported its work with a number of assistants in accordance with these regulations and the decisions of its institutions; its deputy leader accordingly acts as a general guide [head of the organization] until the general guide is released [from prison] God willing, and the Guidance Bureau is the one that manages the work of the organization” (at: http://carnegie-mec.org/2015/07/14/struggle-for-leadership-of-egypt-s-muslim-brotherhood/idbr).

It is ‘with the members of the Guidance Bureau‘ that gives pause. I have no evidence in support, but I believe that they are either still partially part of the police apparatus, or they are getting support from sympathetic people in official offices giving them the heads up when to relocate. I think that in their desperation to survive a few of the Brotherhood sheep are actually ISIS wolves. If they are all over Sharm Al Sheik, than they could be some friendly tourist officials, is that such a stretch?

In support I give that tactically ISIS needs direct access to Sharm Al Sheik should they ever truly decide to attack Saudi Arabia in a more direct way! An airstrip with planes is too tempting a target to ignore and a place devoid of tourists might make a better target.

The previous picture I placed, partially in speculation for the part that now follows. In the first the intended insincere response by Sameh Hassan Shoukry, who as a diplomat should have known better (he probably did), yet the second group of persons are another matter. Sedki Sobhi Sayyid Ahmed, minister of Defence is actually the smallest target here. In all this, the seemingly failed security at Sharm Al Sheik airport poses questions for the positions for Mohamed Hossam Kamal, minister of Civil aviation, as the Airport at Sharm Al Sheik is the foundation of 6 billion in revenue, so more diligence would have been expected, in that same light questions should be asked from Ashraf Salman, minister of investment as these events are never ever good for continued investments. Yet by far the biggest issue might be with Egyptian Military Intelligence and Reconnaissance Administration (DMI), which at present should be Director Salah Al-Badri. Yes we get that Alexandria and Cairo are more juicy targets, but with ISIS in the Sinai, having a better presence in Sharm Al Sheik would have been essential and whomever was there seems to have blown their job away (one Russian plane at a time).

You see for Director Salah Al-Badri the issue is a lot more pressing, if ISIS is actually tactically active in Sharm Al Sheik, than in equal measure they could be active in El Tor, which means that they are within striking distance of both Ras Gharib and Ras Shokeir having any quality presence in Sharm Al Sheik was not that much of a stretch.

Beside the point of how the Egyptians perform maintenance on their house, a certain event 5163 days ago should have been adamant in overhauling security at their immediate airports and Sharm Al Sheik definitely qualifies here. Yet in here lies the speculation, if we accept a bomb, when was it added? If it was from a tourist it is one thing, if it got added to the load from another source we have a massive problem to consider, because if it happens there what other airports are considered dangerous? You see if this was a small flight to Eilat (which is currently not possible). What other options are there? You see the one event that does count is that any attack from ISIS in Sinai is also a direct danger towards Israel. Southern Israel has been under fire from ISIS last July, so the stretch that Sharm Al Sheik is a tactical point for attacks on Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia seems not that large. A place loaded with fuel, tourists (read propaganda lessons), possible planes (that could not get away) and moral visibility. So even if my speculation is really farfetched, is the needed for quality security and intelligence perhaps less of a stretch? That support can be found with CNN (at http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/04/middleeast/russian-plane-crash-airport-security/index.html), the quote “In May, a mentally disturbed man slipped through a hole in a wall and tampered with a plane, the Cairo Post reported, citing Egyptian newspaper Youm7. The man approached a plane sitting on the runway and tried to open a door to the aircraft, the article said. He was arrested after moving a block in front of the plane’s wheel, the article said” should be self-evident.

As we get to the end we need to ask: should we look for the rocket man? If the airport security outside the airport is so lacks, we must worry on the first premise that flights are in danger when we consider that security stops 100 meters from the fence and a Stinger, a 28 year old technology has an 8000 meter range. What else can they throw at the tourists there and as such, perhaps the evading UK pilot was in the end, the brightest person of the lot. If it turns out to be a bomb, than there are even more issues because that means that ‘wolves’ were on the compound and none of the sheep woke up, at which a stinger would be the least of their problems.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

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

November 7, 2015 · 21:31

What was the right question?

There is an article in the Guardian called ‘Which laptop should we buy for our child?‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/nov/05/which-laptop-should-we-buy-for-our-child), you might think that I have an issue with the article, and I do, but not perse with the article. The article is quite decent, however the article is about a ‘solution’. I learned recently that solutions are vague, they are transient and they fade the moment you give them. You see, as a great teacher not too long ago taught me, it is about trust and about answering needs.

I understand what Jack writes, he gives good advice and I would have given a similar advice, yet at some point I learned something new (we all do, trust me). What are the needs of the child? Now, the child might not understand it has needs here (other than cool games, and we can see that in schools laptops, or better stated ‘fat’ mobile devices are going to be the trend. Whether this is an Airbook like the Mac has, a Chromebook like ASUS has or another device in a similar capacity, the child will need to move forward.

Yet, am I not in a mode where the answer is given? No, let me explain. Jack mentions the Windows 2-in-1 “detachables”, which sounds nice Mr. Schofield, but that trend is now, it is 2015, what about 2016 or 2017? What happens when those trends shift? By the way the sentence “we can’t afford to spend lots of money“, so as such Apple will not become a solution any day soon. Interesting the Chromebook solution that many carry are on average of $250 cheaper (Australian comparison), a part not mentioned anywhere, that optional solution did not make it to the table.

For me, do I think it is a solution? I am not at all certain, you see, the needs of the child are unknown. So why spend money? To give the kid some skills? Well that is all good and fine, so why is the possible solution for a tablet; a mere Android based tablet at one third of the cost of a Chromebook not decently investigated? The mention of the tablets (all 6 mentions was regarding the push to the 2015 trend of a ‘detachable’. You see, the object of usage is a small person about to celebrate the moment of his ninth birthday. Kids have accidents, they break things (unintentional), your youngling drinks lemonade and other liquids. So you want to put a laptop there? With his excited friends that is an accident waiting to happen. So, how will you afford the second laptop?

The simplest tablet with a decent casing costs less than a hundred quid. For £49.99 you get a very basic one. The best thing is that the skills will transfer to a laptop or a larger tablet when your child is ready, more important, there is no way of knowing what the needs will be when he gets to a decent school level, when he gets to year 10, what will he need? Perhaps the school provides? Also, the pricing would have gone down to such an extent, that the one device you cannot afford now, could be really affordable in 2016.

So many people so many options, why answer them at all? Why not give the device that at least lets your little one to grow skills and answer the call to the device your young one needs when the moment is there?

So yes, Jack Schofield gives advice, it is sound advice but in all this, he failed to mention that some devices are limited and to get a better return, a much higher cost comes into view. You see a mere simple version from Asus might be £195.64, yet when you consider how fast 32GB is gone you will need something bigger, that will take you to £289.99 very fast. In my situation, I do not offer a solution, for £49.99 you get a very simple device that allows the little one to grow skills, and in 2-3 years when his skills have really outgrown the 8GB device, he might get that same device not for £289.99, but for £179.99, perhaps even less, so the little tablet paid for itself.

Part of me understands that the next generations needs to be clued in, logged in and online earlier in life, I will not stop it, oppose it or question it. Yet in all this we must also answer what is the best to make your child grow. Perhaps it is the 2 in one that Jack Schofield mentioned, but I am not convinced. You see with the quote: “there are several ways to run Android apps on Windows PCs, such as BlueStacks and AmiDuOS” is all about getting someone to windows. Why? I do not oppose Windows as I use it myself. After the blunders Windows 8 had, I am not willing to trust Windows 10 at this point, yet Microsoft is willing to mandatory push it to its user base regardless of what the consumer thinks. A methodology I do not support. This was shown in another Guardian article by Samuel Gibbs where we see: “Consumer users of Windows 10 will have no choice but to accept the installation of automatic updates, even if they break software for them” (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/17/windows-10-updates-mandatory-home-users), what happens when our choice of software breaks? Are we forced to a Microsoft solution? How is that not an instilled dictatorship? The final quote from that article was “Automatic updates may also create a situation where an update breaks something on a computer system, perhaps a legacy program“, which is what many will face over the next decade. Microsoft is starting a cleaning operation and the user is losing their rights. I might have had to pay $199 for my Windows 7, but at present trusting my system on the net is not an option, that trust was destroyed by Microsoft in a way 10,000 viruses could not. Regardless of that choice, Jack should have remained a lot more neutral than he did. I believe for the bulk of all needs Android fills the requirement of a user, this does not take away to prospect of Microsoft, but last time you looked, which software was free? Weirdly enough, for the normal student, the software like writing, calculating and presenting is free on android and Linux. Apple and Microsoft charges for that.

Yet in all this, where are the needs of the user? When he gets to the setting up of things he is addressing fear in my humble opinion. Now let me add one too. The text: “Windows 8.1 and 10 will email you a weekly record of your son’s activities: how many hours he’s used his PC, the websites he’s visited, and how long he spent in his favourite apps“, so are you the only one who gets this, or will Microsoft have this data too? There is validity in keeping your child safe, but that starts with the need for strong passwords and knowing what to do and what not to do. Your child will make mistakes and even today many adults still make these blunders and larger ones too!

So in my view, spending little is not a shame and your child should be safe, but consider the options hackers and malware have nowadays, it is close to impossible to stop, in that case let it be a device that when it happens will not infer heavy losses. In that part, let me end with another quote the article has “I don’t think it’s worth buying or installing the full desktop programs for a 9-year-old“, which is true, so how large are the hands of a nine year old. Can they not hold onto a 7” tablet easier? More important, when he gets soaked in the rain and his backpack got drenched, my money will be on a skinned tablet not any laptop or ‘2 in one’ solution to survive that ordeal.

In the end it is as I expect growing skills with your child. I get that, and I applaud that approach, yet let it be skills, playful skills and artistic skills. Let the child enjoy their life until year 6 when the skills will be tested, let them grow into the savvy programmer they can be and get them the system they can handle and let them grow into a stronger system, the needs of any child will grow stronger when ingenuity is required, factual evidence that has been known for decades. Yet how they grow will usually be up to them, not you or me, or their teachers for that matter, we can only hope to guide them in a decent direction, let’s not forget if you as a parent do not have the skills to guide them, where will they get their example? What happens when they follow the wrong example?

In the end, what was the right question? Which device allows your child to grow in all directions a device offers growth? On which device are their drawing skills challenged? Anyone can type a text, anyone can do ‘math’ with a spreadsheet, yet the art of drawing (a skill I never mastered) is getting lost more and more in this world of laptops, is that not a shame too?

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Science

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

November 3, 2015 · 23:51

Fail it until you nail it

Another day another moment I roll my eyes. You see the Guardian came with an interesting article, interesting and kind of useless (OK, useless is a bit of a stretch). Let’s explain that part. The title is interesting enough. When we see ‘World’s biggest tech companies get failing grade on data-privacy rights‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/03/data-protection-failure-google-facebook-ranking-digital-rights), many of us, me included get to be a little curious.

The first part is shown here: “Given a percentage grade on privacy, freedom of expression and their commitment to those value based on an exhaustive analysis of their user agreements, no single company scored an aggregate grade above 65%“, the quote by Rebecca MacKinnon might sound nice, but she should know better in more than one way.

In the first, some of these companies are so global that many rights tend to be an upper level aggregation of the nation with the least rights. If America wasn’t so Prudishly Hypocritical a lot less would be ‘censored’. In addition, a global internet sounds nice, but it is crossing borders with national legislation, the internet does not get to have rights above national legislation, even in nations that are as liberal as it gets, issues will rise and the largest tech companies are trying to surf those waves as Rebecca MacKinnon very well knows. I am even more worried when a company like Vodafone (aka Vodafail in Australia) scores better than Twitter.

As for the grades, the beginning of the methodology (at https://rankingdigitalrights.org/project-documents/2015-indicators/#TOTAL) rears its ugly head in an interesting way when we look at question C3.

Here we see:

C3. Internal implementation

Does the company have mechanisms in place to implement its commitment to freedom of expression and privacy?

Checklist elements (select all that apply):

The company provides employee training on freedom of expression and privacy issues.

The company maintains an employee whistle-blower program.

 

The items here are the fun part:

The company provides employee training on freedom of expression and privacy issues.

Let’s take a look at some of these ‘great’ techies. Orange, Vodafone and Axiata. All telecom companies. In order of mention: ???,92000,20000. So let’s say 125,000 staff members, so should employee training on freedom of expression be available to all? In Addition, Orange merged in several nations. These mergers include France Télécom and T-Mobile UK, whilst in addition Orange is being phased out by its parent company EE Ltd. (aka Everything Everywhere). And for the whistle-blower part. How often was this a ‘hidden’ option to commit gross and unacceptable industrial espionage? As a Journalist it might sound like a sexy article, but did she for one moment realise that tech corporations need to hold onto their IP on several levels? Her book might be regarded as ‘amazing’ (Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom), yet when I read:  “Though the technology used for coordinating and organizing may be politically neutral, the context in which it is deployed is rarely so. Governments everywhere—whether they do business in the home government of companies or in the host government of markets—are demanding that Internet and telecommunications companies take sides, or at least stand back and avert their eyes while the government does what it needs to do, leaving the user or customer none the wiser.”, I worry!

Americans seldom comprehend that the right to be an utter idiot is not a god given right. In some places you get to be held accountable. I will go one step further, most of these self-proclaimed freedom fighters have excelled, through their train of thought, in protecting criminals and organised crime, which is some feather to put in your resume!

In addition, as people are crying for a free internet they also hold others accountable for their own stupidity.

Let’s show this with an example. If we change all global policies so that as per January 1st any hacked account who did not have a proper password will not be refunded, so the issue “Most banks will refund you your lost money after you sign some forms saying that you had nothing to do with the theft” will now include that not having proper quality passwords in place will be regarded as ‘assisted theft’. So you get no refund! I reckon it will take less than 1 day for the entire internet to go crazy regarding the injustice of that ruling. This is the issue, Rebecca MacKinnon doesn’t want a free internet; she wants an unaccountable internet. In her ‘netizenship’ she wants a free internet to hold governments to account, but in her virtual nation she has done nothing to hold those netizens accountable for Cyber bullying, harassment and assault on one’s devices. In that world there is no ‘Netfray’ (a made up crime definition), which might be freely seen as per adjusted version of the Crimes Act 1900 section 93C(2) “Netfray, a person who uses or threatens unlawful cyber violence towards another and whose conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable user skills present at the scene to fear for his or her personal data and internet safety is guilty of netfray and liable to imprisonment for 10 years“.

That part we will not see!

This is what makes that report an issue. Tech companies need to protect themselves non-stop. So, even as we agree that the cyber joke (aka Ashley Madison) is one side, the other side is Sony, which has a massively higher level of protection. In the latter case it is still speculations from many sides (including one from me), but a real timeline, and an account of events that could be decently precise was never revealed. Now I would expect that both sides of the fence prefers to keep it a secret, but in my view that hack was never clearly solved.

In that environment Rebecca MacKinnon wants an open internet, who is she kidding?

Back to that report, because the mentioned items are connected to what comes next!

F11. Identity policy (Internet companies)

Does the company require users to verify their identity with government-issued identification, or with other forms of identification connected to their offline identity?

More important, the part that follows: “This indicator is only applicable to Internet companies. We expect companies to disclose whether they might ask users to verify their identities using government-issued ID or other forms of identification that could be connected to their offline identity. Evaluation: This indicator has two possible answers. A company will receive full credit if its answer is “No,” and a company will receive no credit if its answer is “Yes.””

So as hackers use dummy accounts, trolls use fake id’s and Identity thieves use your id to have ‘fun’ and profit from what is not theirs, finding ways to stop them loses you a credit. There are places where a person’s ID is not the issue, but in this day and age those places are quickly diminishing. If you doubt this (always an option) then perhaps you remember Caroline Criado-Perez, who did something truly British by petitioning for Jane Austen to be face of the Bank of England £10 note.

By the way, the amount of death threats she got, how many of those people got arrested, how many of those got convicted? Yes, an open internet would stop all that! (That’s my sarcasm for voicing ‘no it will not’).

Another issue with her quotes is seen here: “Part of the problem is that this is a new world with the internet, and we are so dependent on these companies that we really need them to get it right. And they have a lot of work to do.”, so how about hammering on proper legislation and better issues on prosecuting some of those offenders? When the internet gets cleaned up, a lot more leeway could be given to something like the internet. In this a nice example is given by herself as she answered a question on movie piracy (September 2012), “the fact they are kids and they’re doing stuff and they don’t even realize it is illegal, or it is not that big deal“, it is only part of the answer, but she makes a decent case, yet the issue here is that it is a BIG deal, these ‘kids’ are causing harm to the rightful revenue of the maker of that movie, so you want an open internet, but the transgressions there are far too often trivialised and for the most they end up not getting prosecuted, you want accountability on one side, but not on your side, that is too uneven a scale and for the most many nations have not caught up with the quality IP laws they need to protect their innovators.

Now, it is not all bad, reading the linked ‘2015 Indicators’ of the Ranking Digital Rights is actually a lot more interesting than the article. A few of the questions were an amazing topic for discussion by themselves and the people behind them had done an interesting job, yet overall how can you compare Malayan company Axiata against Vodafone, or Orange for that matter? Axiata which was only recently rebranded (2009), whilst Vodafone has had a global one-sided (and to some extent one-sided failure) in the industry. A brand that has its fingers in the national pies of Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Places where you either adhere to the law or you get shut down. So how can they receive a fair weighted grade? If not than the article and the exercise are almost moot. Almost because there is one part of the article I wholeheartedly agree with: “MacKinnon said remained optimistic the industry would improve its privacy efforts over time. “This is the test you take at the beginning of the class where everybody fails, and then you get to work, and then everybody’s going to improve,” she said”

It is not a mere ‘Amen to that’ ending, there are several serious issues that come to light, especially when you consider players like Apple and Microsoft. In case of Apple (with whom I still have some beef), is the fact that from 1995 onwards I have had a few of their devices, the Performa 630, the MacBook Pro and the G5, all between 2100 and 3000, all affordable and all on the ‘above average’ end of the range when they were released. The iPad 1 (I still have it) at a price that is still good, because that that same price you now get the latest version with 128GB; in an open non-accountable internet that is no longer an option, the billions poured into a design will find itself cheaply reengineered making new innovations no longer an option. Microsoft has a similar part, the Xbox One now at almost 50% of what the initial Xbox360 costs and close to equal in price with the very first Xbox. Even though this sounds good, these firms have had their shares of ‘errors’ to deal with, but overall those consumers (for the most) have never received a sour deal, this is only possible with quality protection in place, protection that MacKinnon is not considering to the extent she should, in her view of ‘netizens and the open internet’ she should get an equal fail grade, both sides need to work on whatever future comes our way, McKinnon know this too!

You do not get to graduate Harvard and run CNN in Beijing and Tokyo without a clear realisation that national borders are a lot more than a mere line on a map, which is what she almost implies, almost!

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

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

November 1, 2015 · 22:13

Nubentes capitalismi

Here we see more of the Greek way, as per yesterday we see that the Greek banks need more money, billions more. So this is where I looked for the Latin word of deficit and it is ‘Repudii’ (Latin humour). The Greeks might say “Αποθήκευση έλλειμμα σε ένα θησαυροφυλάκιο της τράπεζας“, but the sad story is not the deficit or the shortage, the sad story is that many Governments, not just the Greeks relied on credit cards whilst they made sure that those spending the money would not have to pay for it, they got a large bonus for spending money they never had and the people have been suffering for far too long. This situation is not just seen in Greece, for the most nearly all EEC nations have spent way too much, a terminal amount of money I might add. If the budgets are a setting for a nation’s health than 30% of them should be pronounced dead and an additional 50% is on the edge of dying. That is the grim situation. In all this we see more and more news on how things are getting better. Better for who? The people around me have not had any rise in living for close to a decade. In addition the cost of living has exceeded the income rise for about that same time, so in all this, when have people been better off since 2004?

In all this Greece might have been hit visibly harder but life in the UK or in France or Italy is no picnic either. In all this the banks seem to go about their usual ways. In addition, as we saw the news regarding bank liquidity and other reserves. The things that are referred to as Basel III and now also Basel 4, why did they not shift the timeline? Why has ‘mandatory’ implementation been delayed until 2019? Why was Greece, as it faced the things it faced and as it needed funds all over the place, not pushed into a mandatory implementation of Basel III? Part of the deal should have been stress testing and demanding defences for banks directly. It seems that it had not been done!

This takes me to an article by Morris Goldstein from May 2012 (at http://www.voxeu.org/article/eu-s-implementation-basel-iii-deeply-flawed-compromise). In here three points come to order.

The first: “Whether member countries should be permitted to enact minimum capital ratios considerably tougher (higher) than those specified under Basel III without approval of the EU“, which is an interesting need, because this would have applied to Greece from the very beginning, and I am talking the issues as they emerged in 2013.

The second: “Whether the restrictions on what can be counted as high-quality capital under Basel III should be scrupulously adhered to in EU legislation“, the fact that EU legislation is not up to par here is even more of an issue, you set rules and standards and then not legislate it? How will banks EVER fall in line when it is not legislated? We have evidence going back to 2004 where bankers lost trillions and still got millions in bonuses. You mean that after a decade, the national legislation arms within the EEC are still no more than mere ‘pussies’ looking for that banking fellow named Dick?

The third: “Whether the Basel III deadlines for introducing an unweighted leverage requirement for bank capital and two new quantitative liquidity standards (the liquidity coverage ratio and the net stable funding ratio) should be mirrored in EU legislation“, which sounds all good and fine, but Basel 3 was already in the works in 2002, why has it taken such a massive amount of time to get close to nothing done? Why were the Greek banks not set to a higher setting because of them requiring so many billions in funds?

It seems that no one has any clear answers here.

Now we get to the good stuff. In the article Morris states the following: “The 15 May accord also permits EU banks to count as equity capital several financial instruments with dubious loss-absorbency, including the so-called “silent participations” of German banks and the minority stakes of French banks in insurance companies. Such a step weakens the Basel III guidelines on the quality of bank capital. In one of the few concessions to the Osborne View, the agreement adheres to the Basel III time schedules for the leverage ratio and the two liquidity standards“, which was to be discussed somewhere after May 2012.

So now we take another leap towards a Danish bank paper, a mere publication (at https://www.danskebank.com/da-dk/ir/Documents/2012/Q1/SpeechQ12012-Confcall.pdf), So in all this, we see the following text: “And you could not just use the what has been known as the Danish compromise, where you have 370% risk weighting for the capital, to kind of end up somewhere in between the two extremes?” to which the response by Henrik Ramlau-Hansen – Danske Bank – CFO was “That could also be a solution, yeah“. Let’s sit on this for a second, a form of weighting where we get to set the weight to ‘370% risk weighting’, so how is this a good idea? I have used weighting in the past, so it is not a big deal on one hand. However, when we look back towards 2004 and 2008, where setting abnormal risks, why give such a level of leeway to a branch that cannot be trusted?

The last part in this comes from shaky grounds, I will tell you this right now and I never hid the fact that I am not an economist. Consider the PDF from the Crédit Agricole Group from November 2013 (at http://mediacommun.ca-cib.com/sitegenic/medias/DOC/94509/2013-11-07-cp-casa-resultats-3eme-trimestre-en.pdf). So they report “Net income Group share in Q3-13: €1,433 million“, now take into account their solvency part:

The targets for fully loaded Basel 3 Common Equity Tier 1 ratios (CET1) are shown below:
1st JAN 2014 31st DEC 2014 31st DEC 2015
Crédit Agricole S.A. 7.8% to 8.0% 8.8% to 9.0% >9.5%
Crédit Agricole Gp 11.0% 12.0% 13.0%
Disclaimer: The above ratios are based on a number of assumptions

 

Now consider the text “These figures take into account the weighting of the capital and reserves of Crédit Agricole Assurances according to the Danish compromise (at 370%) or 34 billion euros in risk weighted assets as well as the extension of the specific guarantees (Switch) between the Regional Banks and Crédit Agricole S.A. for 34 billion euros in risk weighted assets“, so a company with a little over a billion in revenue, ending up with around 830 million in net income group share. So that place is running a weighted risk of 34 billion, which implies that the risk of 34 billion is covered by an income that covers 2.44%, how is that even close to realistic? Why has a massive change in dealing with the weighted risk not been done? Why are people still under threat of exploitation by banks as they live of the fringe of a Danish Compromise?

I am just asking!

This now reflects back to the Greek banks, have they been playing that same game, where did all those billions go to? As an underwriting for more riskier and more profitable incomes? It seems to me that there are issues with the banks all over Europe and their own local governments are clueless as to what the banks are doing. If you consider me wrong than ask any politician right now an answer in regards to Basel III, Basel 4 and their own banks. They are very unlikely to give you a clear answer. This approach is not just for the UK, several other countries should be asking questions and holding the answers to account. So as these politicians have no answers, how come they are elected and how come they are unable to budget anything. Are they budgeting in the same way the Danish compromise is applied to banks? A government spending anywhere between 37%-370% in a weighted budget for the expected gains of taxation tomorrow?

That sounds as hollow as Mr Wimpy going into a food court stating: “I will happily pay tomorrow for a hamburger today!” I wonder how many places he will be able to get food from. Interesting that we do not hold our politicians to this account, which is exactly why the massive cuts from the Conservatives (UK) are so essential, they are in the fight of their lives not to become the mere puppets of the banks. You see, I think it is not that unrealistic that even within my lifetime our income slips will have a taxation part and a deficit settlement part. The day that happens, remember my words! Austerity was the only option, and only when we neuter both the banks and politicians. I think that the change of making an administration accountable for their spending will be essential for us to have any future. For a decade politicians have been writing checks no one could pay and that choice should no longer be an option from 2015 onwards.

Which gets us back to Greece. The two final quotes are: “In August, Eurozone finance ministers released €26bn of the €86bn in bailout funds that went to recapitalising Greece’s stricken banking sector and make a debt payment to the ECB” and “Depositors pulled billions out of the country fearing that Greece would be forced to leave the euro. Limits on withdrawals and transfers imposed in June to prevent Greek banks from collapsing remain in place, although they have been loosened” (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/31/greece-banks-14bn-survive-economic-downturn), so as that risk was known, how come limits on transfers were loosened? So we see the need for another €14bn for the reason that people took their cash outside of Greece, something that was a certainty. Why allow for the loosening of rules on transfers? In that the first paragraph is also an issue. The text: ‘Greece’s four main banks need to find another €14bn (£10bn) of reserves to ensure they could withstand an economic downturn‘, should basically read: ‘Greece’s four main banks need to find another €14bn (£10bn) of reserves to ensure they will withstand the next upcoming economic downturn‘. Because in case of Greece the next downturn is a given and it is not that far away.

This again links to another part. The Greek Reporter gives us: ‘Head of Greek Capital Market Regulator Resigns’ (at http://greece.greekreporter.com/2015/10/31/head-of-greek-capital-market-regulator-resigns/), so basically, after the completion of the bank recapitalization he shoves himself out of the back door. Can anyone explain that to me? Because if he did a good job he should not get fired, if he did poorly, or even if he has messed up he should end up in holiday retreat Korydallos. Of course, as far as I can tell, he never committed any crime, so Hotel Korydallos is not for him, but it does re-iterate on how the banks should have been cut to size in freedom before those billions were pushed into Greece and in light of loosened restrictions a few more questions and demands should be set. Now, ‘shoving himself’ out of the back door is of course completely incorrect as the man resigned, but why did he resign? Is he not committed to saving Greece, or has he figured out something I saw almost 2 years ago when I spoke about the idiocracy of enabling the Greek system to the extent the ECB had done?

So why as I finalise this blog, the valid question becomes ‘Why is the Blogger Lawlordtobe having a go at Konstantinos Botopoulos?’

This is one that requires an answer and an explanation. You see, on May 20th 2015 (at http://www.waterstechnology.com/buy-side-technology/news/2409402/esma-board-member-capital-market-union-shouldnt-reinvent-the-wheel) we see the title “ESMA Board Member: Capital Market Union Shouldn’t ‘Reinvent the Wheel’“, which is fair enough, but the text: “The idea behind the CMU is not to reinvent the wheel by creating new rules but to achieve free flow of capital by using the existing tools and finding intelligent ways to tie everything together“, leaves me with the clear impression that the application of ‘to achieve free flow of capital’ could be seen as the loosening of restrictions which allowed for many billions (read: dozens) to be transferred out of Greece and as such the ECB (or the IMF) ends up pushing a few dozen billion more into Greece. In that same part ‘finding intelligent ways to tie everything together’, could be seen as diversifying the wealth of the Greek rich and famous towards the shores of Bermuda or Riyadh, places with not a taxman in sight. Is my interpretation correct? I am willing to consider that I am wrong and I am making no accusation, it is mere speculation on my side.

Yet in all this the timeline should be the cause of many questions, questions the press at large does not seem to be making. The rest of the article is on centralising reports and it seems to me that the article is missing a few steps. Even as the implied dangers of Brexit are voiced, Frexit is ignored. Now we must allow that people were not taking Frexit seriously, but the tide is still turning and the one danger in that part (Marine Le Pen) is gaining approval ratings on the right side of the Isle. Reuters stated: “Le Pen, who is set to win control of France’s northernmost area in December elections, saw her rating rise 5 percentage points to 52 percent among right-wing voters who were asked who they wanted to become more influential in political life“, which now puts her right behind former prime minister Alain Juppe, whilst both are leaving Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy far behind them in the dust. The battle is far from over, but again the reality of a Frexit is moving one more step forwards towards reality and in all that Greece was the starting spark to that upcoming dangerous escalation, only because hard choices were not made in late 2013, because the bankers and the greed driven required the Status Quo to remain as is, which is why we are seeing escalations that could impact the savings of millions to come soon enough.

Now, I will admit that there is no given that Marine Le Pen would win, yet as we have seen a massive amount of speculation and innuendo left right and centre, the mere danger of Frexit is ignored for the larger extent. Why? Is Frexit not an additional danger that is also propelling Brexit? And the Greek issue is what drove both to begin with, so there are direct links and in all that these intertwining events have been largely ignored for too long.

You should not take my word for any of this, it is my view on the matters, it is however important that you read up and that you ask the right people the right questions, the absent part in that is slightly too scary, especially when the Greek bank towers come tumbling down.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

November 1, 2015 · 11:05

Bashing the Sky

Like many other people, I have been really looking forward to No Man’s Sky. Like many others I was blown away what the E3 of 2014 brought. Like many, I kept my eye on a daily base on when the game would be released and when the IGN August special started, like many I felt that the game was almost upon us. This was just my interpretation and perception. So as no release date was known, I joined some to feel a little uncertain, a little worried because it was bad business practice. When something this wanted is out there, you might not be able to keep anyone in the loop, but to leave everyone in the dark is not good practice, which I voiced to Sean Murray as well. Now, I do not agree with some that ‘release dates need to be known immediately‘, yet the approach of Quarter, or even the initial news that a 2015 release was unlikely would have been fine. In the end I want a really good game and I am willing to wait, I feel that many gamers are on my side here, we do not mind waiting, we just want to know (in the roughest way) when a game is coming. I would have been very accepting long ago that if a Q2 2016 was given, it would have set my mind at ease. Even though not many are like that, the true gamer is.

As we waited we saw that even the Christian sites were luring people to their places with innuendo articles on the release date of this game, does that not beat all? A Christian site relying on a video game for web traffic, that part remains hilarious for a long time to come.

Yet there are a few more sides we must consider. The hype Sean caused as he went from show to show might seem good, but in the end it is a dangerous escalation because the negative cloud of the internet is now hitting them as well as us gamers. It hits you and me! First off there is Forbes, it is the article form Paul Tassi (at http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2015/10/28/will-no-mans-sky-end-up-being-the-next-spore/), which is a problem. The quotes that bother me are: “the footage shown is literally exactly like everything we’ve seen from the game since December 2013” and “And after all this time, I still don’t really understand how this game will play, and despite a slew of media appearances, the creators haven’t been able to explain that properly“. Now, important is that he is not lying. I think that the game is founded on a base to grow, but it is early days. Even as the planets are now adhering to a mathematical foundation, there are many other elements to consider. Yes, we have seen it all but is that not the point? What we see is supposed to wet the apatite, not give away the game in full.

So it is likely that the game will have a much larger evolving part to play in exploration, in economy, in growth and in evolution. Let’s not forget that reaching the centre of the universe is no small feat. I am trying to do that right now in Elite Dangerous (to get the achievement), a game where I currently cannot land on any planet surface and it is still a massive trip to undertake. Still in this No Mans Sky shows itself to be a high resolution version of Minecraft so there is no given that we are set to no less than building our own domicile on a planet of choice. If these planets are life sized then any planet could take a lifetime (which amounts to 7 weeks in Minecraft time). So this game is already showing more gaming promise than the last two Tombraider games, (including the upcoming title Rise of the Graved Robber) and considering that the second is merely more of the same. So Rise of the Tombraider could be ‘More repetition of something you finished in 10 hours the last time around‘, which is not a marketable title, but a realistic one. So when we see in Forbes the message “the game is starting to wear out its welcome“, we have to consider the source here. The same firm that stated the title “Credit Default Swaps Are Good for You” is now judging games? So for Americans, how did Credit Default Swaps play out? Perhaps we need to take another look at the media here. Going on innuendo and instead of dropping the subject on getting hammered again and again on a deadline, in there Sean Murray might have been wrong to enable the ‘media beast’ to the smallest extent by going all out in visibility, but it was a choice and it was his to make. The true gamer will wait for the final product when it is ready.

So as we now see many press releases on spouting negativity whilst inserting ‘If this latest rumour is true‘ we should realise that none of this can be trusted. Especially, as they rely on the emotional end “Look up at the stars and despair in the comments section below“, which is just an invitation for the ranting masses, but where is the truth?

In my view, I do not care, Hello Games have given an estimated release of June 2016 and that is fine with me. This month there is Fallout 4 and I still have my empire growing in Elite Dangerous, after all that there will be space for No Mans Sky in 2016 too. Part of me hopes that there will be a playable beta that can allow us to explore one system in solo mode. It might give good feedback to the people at Hello Games too, which is something they might consider for next year February/March. Such a step will give a threshold to some to see the game. And let’s not forget that this still gives credibility to the rumour that No Mans Sky will be a Sony Morpheus launch title. If so than the gamers could be in for a massive treat! Does this debunk value for a game that is in development or does that show that No Mans Sky is truly a new generation of gaming?

It is too soon to tell and I am willing to wait to see if Hello Games goes that direction, which is more than we can say for Forbes, Push, Kotaku and several others ‘reviewers’. Although Kotaku had an interesting quote “So I’m going to play Spore now, years after the hype has dissipated and the game has been all but forgotten. I’ve installed it on my Windows PC. I will be back to tell you if it’s any good. And what if, separated by a decade from expectations that no game could possibly fulfil, it is?” Which gives me the ammunition I needed. You see, if you were controlled by ‘hype’ you should not have gone into the games reviewing business. the part ‘I will be back to tell you if it’s any good’ gives me the indication that this writer never did his job, now if he is trying to be funny than the joke is on him, because writing towards the hype is the most stupid of all actions, hype is merely an unrealistic perception of what might be, it would be his job to give the goods, what can the player expect when they buy this game. To give a fair and balanced review is in the interest of the producer and the gamer.

I believe that No Mans Sky can be the product we are still waiting for and I will let Hello Games get on with it. My advice to you is to ignore the news on this game as much as you can you get until May 2016, because it will be tainted with emotions and it does not show what we are in for, so basically our times will be wasted, time that can be spend on many other games (especially getting your Diablo Dream team in Hardcore mode). Other games that were there before No Mans Sky and games that will be released after No Mans Sky. The true gamer will play many games and he/she will desire only a few, in my case will No Mans Sky be placed in a slot of ‘play regularly forever’ next to Minecraft, Fallout and Diablo 3? I cannot tell yet, but I truly hope to learn that when the game gets released, it will set the bar of games really high, because I the game makers need a reset of values, a value line both EA and Ubisoft have relied on remaining under for a little too long. I do not rely on hype and I do not wish to create it; I merely await its arrival and hope for the experience to be truly awesome. What if that is not the case? Does that matter? In that case there will be something else to play, which is the reality of the life of a gamer, so let’s leave Hello Games (as well as Sean Murray) alone and let them finish the game for us. If the delay bothers you than consider that a Billion plus company like Ubisoft needed 9 months and in the end was unable to deliver the Watchdogs we deserved, so let’s see if Sean and his keyboard minions can put Ubisoft to shame, which might up the level of games for all gamers around.

Have a great weekend and never stop gaming!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Media

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

October 31, 2015 · 22:56

United we classify others

Two articles hit me a few days ago. One of them was an article describing a survey by the Reputation Institute. The news article titled ‘Tel Aviv ranked among least reputable cities‘. The article was found at http://www.timesofisrael.com/tel-aviv-ranked-among-least-reputable-cities/. This was an issue for me, because I have been to Tel Aviv. Why would it not be reputable, or at least one of the more reputable cities. In all that I wonder, because the top 600 cities (by population) are larger than Tel Aviv with its 425,000 people. So coming in at 92 whilst 600 are larger is still a good achievement. What puzzles me in all this is the part ‘least reputable cities‘. What makes a city reputable? I did not see the research or the questionnaire, but when we see “the Reputation Institute, asked 19,000 residents of France, Germany, Italy, the UK, Japan, the US, Canada and Russia to rank the world’s top 101 cities based on their levels of trust, esteem, admiration and respect“.

Trust, “In a social context, trust has several connotations“, which is nice yet did the interviewees realise that? The paper (at http://misrc.umn.edu/workingpapers/fullpapers/1996/9604_040100.pdf) gives a nice view on how trust is not an easy thing to tackle. at Page 43 we read “one can develop a good relationship with another person by gradually increasing Trusting behaviour, while at the same time decreasing any minor control measures directed at the other person. Decreasing controls includes less ‘checking up’ on the other person. It also includes moving from a formal relationship to a more personal, informal relationship”

Which is nice when we consider that Russia, land of GRU and FSB gives way to ‘decreasing any minor control measures directed at the other person’, so do the interviewees from Russia consider trust the way a person from Sweden, the Netherlands or even Uruguay does? I can go on for the other nations, but in all, many have a feeling towards Israel, their view is biased from day one. Plenty with an anti-Israeli view, some with an anti-Jewish view, the probability of a mean will not apply here.

Then we get ‘esteem’, are they looking upon Tel Aviv in a particular way? Are they confusing esteem with ‘self-esteem’? All questions that go through my mind. We could state that Bagdad in last position is validly there, but over what level of reasoning? Because it is in a warzone?

Yet, do my thoughts invalidate the results? The paper as shown does give a solid foundation, the methodology sounds sound. In that I state ‘sounding sound’ is not entirely on the ball. You see, the heart of the respondent, how does that come in? The study overview states “G8 general public (only people who were ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ familiar)” Yet what makes you somewhat or very familiar? How many Non-Jewish people who have been to Tel Aviv answered this? How many know this place. I was there, and I felt safer there than in Budapest (and Budapest is a decent and safe city). Tel Aviv scored less than Johannesburg, Hanoi, even Cape Town, known for its high crime ended up with a score better than Tel Aviv.

So what gives value to this report? This is not the setting of my view, it is a question. The question exists in my mind because if we give reputation and value to a place we must know and agree to the standards given here. That is the question that should be on your mind too. Now, you might not care about Tel Aviv for many reasons. The bulk of us will never visit the city, visit the country or end up anywhere near it. So how do we give value to a place, even when we are somewhat familiar? Yet there is more than just the result as given in the Times of Israel. Slide 22 when you get the 2015 reputation report (at http://www.reputationinstitute.com/), shows a very interesting part. Familiarity versus Reputation. So how about the places with low familiarity? How come their reputation is so high? Is it the media, because there again we see that Tel Aviv gets in the news when there are rocket attacks and terrorist issues towards Israel, so how can we consider reliability in this report? Beware my words, I am not stating that the methodology is in question, I am wondering how the validity of vision from the interviewee is correct. In a similar way, we can understand that Baghdad is graded poorly, but why is Tehran graded so bad, it is because of our impression of Iran? In that same context we might understand why Sydney, Stockholm and Melbourne are graded so high, yet in all this, what makes Zurich more reputable than Amsterdam or Oslo, perhaps because FIFA is placed there? With the FIFA news Zurich got a lot of visibility, but is that visibility correctly graded in the mind of the beholder? The issue here is the colouring by the media, that influence cannot be countered, which is why I think that Tel Aviv got placed so badly (in this 101 list). Behind all this is a bigger issue. It is the one reason why I object to some of these studies.

In my personal view this list caters to presentations and to some who need to see a national interest, it also places my own view in debate (as it should), not because my view is too shallow, but as we go through the iterations of reasoning behind this as we see in slide 24. The Advanced Economy gives view to the question ‘why is an advanced economy part of reputation or familiarity?‘ This connect on more than one level, which got me to ‘The Economics of Developing Countries‘, what makes for an Advanced Economy? In that view Peru, Chile and Uruguay are not amongst them, so with close to 1/3 of the measurement absent, in that case, how come Montevideo scored so high in that list? If it is the state of peace, we see something a lot more linking, Tel Aviv, Karachi and Abu Dhabi together, a pattern seems to emerge. In that view we must wonder as Tel Aviv is not in war, but under near constant attack. Now when we add Rio to all this, we see another pattern emerge, those not relying on ‘stability of peace’ we see the need for positive reinforced publications, Rio is certainly getting that. In all this we do not question the reputation institute or their methodology, it is all about the people giving their vote. It is that view which gives voice to my worry. Slide 24 is descriptive in all this. ‘Appealing environment’ is one, which give the view to ‘non war torn places’, Effective government is the second one. Yet, why is ‘effective’ government part of all this? You see, in my view, the most effective government is a corrupt one, a humane based government (like Norway and Sweden) tends to be expensive and not that effective. Perhaps effective government and humane government are terms that are interchangeable? I am just asking. In all this we see the four earlier words at the core of this. ‘Trust’, ‘Admire’, ‘Esteem’ and ‘Feeling’, so how does this all link?

Slide 25 gives us ‘Social, Economic & Environmental Policies’ in regard to ‘Effective Government’, are they for real? Environmental policies can be made more effective, but they do not, I say again absolutely not make for an effective government. In addition when an Advanced Economy relies on ‘Financially Stable & Future Growth’ we can state that Wall Street took care of that not happening in the last decade and in addition not for many more years to come, so when we acknowledge that the elements of attributes are an issue, does that not add question marks to the stated foundation of this report? In all this the summary from page 28 onwards makes sense. I do not disagree, I do not oppose it, but in all this, it is a view brought to us on the premise of a flawed view, the influenced view of the interviewee, that part is missing, which gives the question mark within me. This gets me to slide 34, a good reputation might influx tourism, yet in all this, the tainting influence of media becomes a colouring issue, discriminatory and revoking as we ignore or forget that perception is tainting and the press factor seems to be uncorrected for. So how is that not an issue in all this, or at least a non-correcting influence? This all gets me to the final part “living or working in the city, or deciding to invest in the city” might be deciding factors for anyone when the reputation is an issue, but on what foundation? Still overall the report remains an interesting piece of work, the supportive behaviour slide gives fuel to that.

My views do come to fruition in slide 40 where we see the two quotes “Communication is required to capitalize on good reality and overcome poor perceptions” and “Change is required to alter ‘reality’ and minimize reputational risk“. In my mind, this states that opportunity and risk are influential factors that can be pressed on by the media, the media sets perception and alters reality in a hundred ways, so does this paper show true reputation, or does this show how the media is too large a factor to ignore and in all this a place like Tel Aviv got introduced to the less reputable score than they should have gotten? The question is how we see a true score on reputation and perhaps that list is not completely incorrect, but in my personal view, the idea that Bangkok is more reputable than Tel Aviv remains an issue, one of perception and I have actually been to both places.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Science

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