April 11, 2015 · 09:53

Liber Calvariam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

April 10, 2015 · 22:09

An exceptional pound of flesh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

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

April 8, 2015 · 11:20

Is it illogical?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

April 7, 2015 · 02:01

A console surprise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, Media

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

April 5, 2015 · 20:29

The Labour Manifesto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

1 Comment

Filed under Media, Politics

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

April 4, 2015 · 12:41

A traitor as an ally

This was the first thought I had when I saw the news on the Iranian nuclear deal as it is being ‘stamped’ out. First let us take a look at some of the information, so that you all can see how I got to the conclusions I got to. The first one is the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/iran-nuclear-deal-negotiators-announce-framework-agreement).

So let’s take a look at the miscommunicated truths we can clearly see. The first one is “In a joint statement, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, and the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, hailed what they called a “decisive step” after more than a decade of work“. There has not been a decade of work, the ‘work’ has been no more than 20 months. Before that, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in office, the man was such a sociopath, that he makes the average British skinhead sound like a docile conservative. So, this is not a plan of a decade, this is, as I see it a situation that has been a bad idea for well over a decade. Now we get to the Kerry sound bite: “The test is whether or not it will leave the world safer or more secure than it would be without this agreement. And there can be no question that the comprehensive plan that we are moving toward will more than pass that test” You see, as I see it, it will not leave the world safer and it currently puts Israel in clear and present danger, in addition, the danger to Europe will be illustrated as well.

The quote from the New York Times is “The president promised to increase security consultations and cooperation with Israel to “remain vigilant in countering Iran’s threats”“, when? You see, the issue is not just Iran, it is the Iranian military, who have been openly supporting Hamas. The news (at http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.646624), shows us the title ‘Hamas and Tehran boost ties as Meshal meets Iran’s Larijani in Doha‘, this is not a secret, the quote “Meanwhile, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said in an interview two months ago that Hamas sought to re-join the Iranian-Syrian axis” could be discusses in how good those relations are, but in this there is one non mentioned fact. The fact that these officials are talking is also a clear path that military officials will have been able to meet with them too. It only takes one ‘misplaced’ shipment for many houses to come crashing down. You see, some will state on how weird it is that only Israel is reporting on this, my issue is that the meeting between these parties was open, there were photos taken on March 10th through March 12th, which implies (no evidence), that they had all the options to meet with some of the ‘assisting’ military too. Is that such a far-fetched assumption? That news was shown by RT, IB Times and a few others, including American, yet the American sources all stopped around July 2014. It seems that freedom of information comes at a price there too. Now, there are plenty Israeli sources, all with photographs. It includes Debka (http://www.debka.com/), who had additional news recently regarding arms deals, but in light that one localised source is always debatable, I am willing to remain cautious on this. Let’s not forget that Israel also has a political path to walk, to state America has one and Israel does not have one is just ludicrous.

As for the current situation, I have no doubt that Hassan Rouhani is a decent person, who has the best intent for Iran in mind. Yet, in this situation, we must not forget that Iran has a ‘democratic’ election system, which means that in no more than 5 years a new president shall be elected. There is no guarantee that the next elected person will be a former diplomat and a moderate. If the next elected president is an extremist like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, than the future of Israel will move from debatable to non-existent in soon thereafter. Is it not interesting how a proclaimed axis of evil is suddenly an optional choice for between the sheets? Is that what American bankruptcy is getting us?

Now consider the Guardian quote: “Iran will cut its nuclear infrastructure to the point that western governments are satisfied it would take a year to ‘breakout’ and build a bomb, if Tehran chose to follow that path“, so this American administration is willing to be on a one year deadline, whilst they know that whatever hits next will be on the plate of the next administration? How is that anything less than treason? Are you the reader not aware that Iran got more done while it is a clear threat, whilst thawing between Cuba and America took decades, which in light of other events calls for additional questions!

So now we get to the good stuff, because I made a claim and it is important that I show reasoning, if not, it is just noise. You see, the danger from Iran goes a lot further then just Israel. Until recently, my mention would have been ‘If Hamas’, but now, as things escalate, we get ‘When Hamas successfully detonates a dirty bomb’, we get a different picture. What do you think will happen? If the wind is towards the west, which it most likely would be, we get a radioactive cloud that will hit all over the Mediterranean. Now we get a direct danger to the fishing industry for Greece and to a smaller Italy too. Greek tourism will be non-existent for decades to follow, the ‘glow in the dark scare’ will do that to tourism, which might be nice for Portugal. Turkey will also see the fall out here, but not as much as Cyprus and Crete. Once the current spread the radioactive love, there might be larger implications. Then we will suddenly see all kinds of phrased denials, but then it will be too late for Israel and America will get its low cost oil for decades. They only had to be willing to sell their ally Israel down the river.

So is my view too extreme? Not if we believe the New York Times (at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/world/middleeast/arab-leaders-agree-on-joint-military-force.html). The first paragraph is already a clear notion “The Arab states said on Sunday that they had agreed to form a combined military force to counter both Iranian influence and Islamist extremism“, in addition to this we see “While the Houthis have received financial support from Tehran, the Iranians do not seem to exert a strong influence over the group as they do, for example, with Hezbollah in Lebanon“. It is in part all about the financial support, the Arab league needs to counter extremism, that is getting support from Iran, and now, in the same breath America is seizing the pressure that could have made a real difference. I reckon we all have the same question, ‘what gives?’ which is a statement that is not asked my many in press positions. Is that not odd?

Yet, these thoughts alone are not enough and the facts are not all in my favour. You see, many (including me) would see the previous president Hojatoleslam Mohammad Khatami as a moderate too, but the danger that another Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets elected is too great to suddenly ease on any nuclear deal. Instead of the Cuban approach that is all about reducing tension, we see an unacceptable willingness to just cast it all aside, hoping that Iran keeps a decent form about it all and as such, Israel is placed in immediate harm. That, in my view is not an acceptable act from a true ally. The linked truth to this is that the pressure also includes to the other Arab nations, so what game is America playing, what does it have to gain and why, as such is it willing to risk its ally Israel? No one has a clear answer here!

Another linked statement from the Guardian is “The smiles in Lausanne are detached from wretched reality in which Iran refuses to make any concessions on the nuclear issue and continues to threaten Israel and all other countries in the Middle East“, the person speaking this was Yuval Steinitz, as both Minister of Strategic Affairs and Minister of Intelligence. I wonder what former Mossad director Nahum Admoni would think of all this? He was at the helm when Israel had its ‘lunch’ displayed all over the British press through Mordechai Vanunu. There is however another side to this, one quote from Yuval was “Israel cannot place its security in the hands of international forces instead of relying on the presence of IDF soldiers“. I partially have an issue there too, even though I very much understand the position Mr Steinitz has, the European community at large has felt diplomatically negative about that statement, diplomatically speaking it was the wrong thing to say, tactically speaking, it is an understandable quote, as in the last few decades parties all over all Israel’s neighbourly borders have been single minded regarding the annihilation of Israel.

These are all clear facts, we know that Iran, might be on an improved path, but there is no guarantee passed 2020, so why so eager to give them nuclear freedom? That is a plain reality, the information stated “There is a very rigorous transparency and inspection regime with access for international inspectors on a daily basis, high-tech surveillance of all the facilities, TV cameras, electronic seals on equipment, so we know remotely if any equipment has been moved” sounds nice in theory, but remotely, errors, failings and other issues would not be unheard of, in that ‘confusion’ many acts and miscommunications could and with some degree of certainty WILL happen, then what?  What options would be left to Israel? As stated, my issue is less with Iran and more with the willing extreme military officers that have been and are still supporting Hamas and as I see it, any other linked party willing to go against Israel. That path will become a lot clearer as the Arab axis becomes more visible against Iran, let’s not forget that Egypt is next to Israel so a dirty bomb would most definite have the consequence of a panic attack on Egypt too.

Even in America there are sides that to some extent agree with my views. The guardian had this quote “Republican senator Mark Kirk compared the agreement to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Adolf Hitler” (at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/03/obama-republicans-iran-nuclear-deal). Now if you think that Mark Kirk is so out of centre, then think again. He is Senator of Illinois, a state, where the Daley family stands strong, two of them former Mayors of Chicago for almost half a century, in addition to several other high placed governmental officials, so we can state with certainty that the Daley family does not suffer fools on any side of the political isle; In that environment Mark Kirk survives, so he is no loon! Another quote is “Tehran would have to remove the core from its heavy water reactor in Arak, making it inoperable. It would have to dilute or export at least eight tons of low-enriched uranium, leaving it with only 300 kg“. Here is my issue, at least 8 tons, means that numbers this inaccurate allows for a few hundred kilo’s to be shipped or stored in non-visible places, one of the fears that Israel validly has. In addition, Iran has played fast and loose with lives in the past. What happens when someone figures out to shift the core from steady state to mobile? Yes, the core can be removed, but the supporting system, the steam system and the cooling system will still be there. So what happens when someone MacGyver’s a removable mobile solution? Is that so far-fetched? It took me 10 minutes to come up with that idea, so is Israel that far out of bounds? When we look at the info from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Conversion-Enrichment-and-Fabrication/Uranium-Enrichment/, where we see “the centrifuge process uses UF6 gas as its feed and makes use of the slight difference in mass between U-235 and U-238. The gas is fed into a series of vacuum tubes, each containing a rotor 3 to 5 metres tall and 20 cm diameter. When the rotors are spun rapidly, at 50,000 to 70,000 rpm, the heavier molecules with U-238 increase in concentration towards the cylinder’s outer edge. There is a corresponding increase in concentration of U-235 molecules near the centre. The counter current flow set up by a thermal gradient enables enriched product to be drawn off axially, heavier molecules at one end and lighter ones at the other“. A tank engine is mobile and has the power to get the power shifted, it just needs to get shifted into a carbon coated caboose. Of course it is in reality not a simple 44 minute episode of MacGyver solution, but the overall view of static equipment is relied on too eagerly. My issue remains not with what is now, but what comes next in Iran and it seems to me that Israel is keeping that in mind, but why Is America and why are the European partners at large ignoring that?

So here we get the title, as Israel sees it, the nuclear changes pushed through, with so much ‘enthusiasm’ are more than dangerous and I reckon, when it goes pear shaped, in hindsight, when the event does actually happen, Europe at large will turn away from America for ever allowing such a dangerous event escalate to begin with. Then what will happen? Well, I can speculate on that (remember, pure speculation), whatever Global corporations that would like to remain in business will leave the United States, Google and Apple will announce themselves to be global and move to other shores. So Apple represented by 187 billion will move away, because the bulk of that is not coming from America, in addition Google’s 66 billion comes from all over the world. So a quarter of a trillion dollars will move away, whatever ‘deal’ America thinks it have will become obsolete and whatever economy it has will collapse overnight. I have not even considered another half a trillion that IBM, SAS and Microsoft represent. In a world of over 7 billion, 325 million do not add up to that much in the view of revenue eager corporations. When Europe sees the consequence of any fallout (pun intended) from this deal, how will they react? Nicely? 500 million that makes up the EEC and the Commonwealth that makes up for 2.3 billion, how incompetent, are the politicians pushing for this deal end up willing to be seen as?

Part of me, in all honesty would hope for the Iranian deal to work. All indication of Hassan Rouhani are positive. It is the person after this that is the problem. I am all for a better deal less restriction with Iran, as long as they are non-nuclear for the upcoming decades. That would already be progress. So as I see it, the administration on the way out, an administration that could go into history as one of the worst in recorded American history is playing a dangerous game, a game they will leave to others to pay for.

How is this the responsible act from any ally?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics, Science

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

April 3, 2015 · 11:42

Why do we bother?

This article is not for the faint of heart, or for those who ‘believe’ in equal rights. This piece is as misogynistic as it gets, for the simple reason that being nice, being considerate sounds like an idea, but in the end, it seems to me that

  1. No one cares
  2. The prosecuting side of the law at large seems to be ill equipped.

What brought this on?

It’s been going on for a little while. Usually in the form of these ‘innocuous’ advertisements through Facebook linked pages and other sourced forms of mass marketing.

You might have seen them, pictures of photo shopped women, ready and posing to be ‘coitussed’, with added statement like ‘Male Gamers Only‘ (EDGE, by UDM), an advertisement for a game called Wartune, with the ‘warning’ Adult content! It is all promoted by a site called ‘utterlypettable.com’ (one of several places), in this case regarding the 21 most deadly animals. So can anyone explain how a transgression on sexual discrimination is not being prosecuted? Because they are just ‘facilitators’?

It seems to me that those facilitating mass advertising have a lot to explain for. To just get through and to just get the revenue in, they will overlook many issues. Of course these pages are usually linked to advertisements like ‘Hurry before this video is banned‘ and ‘Rich people Do Everything To Ban This‘. I normally ignore them all, but in this light, I decided to take a gander on the idiotic side, which now links to ‘Free money’ sites with additional spamming scripts. The fact that pressing the button to close that window steals the act and forces you to submenus only give way to the dangers that these places present. You see, if they were all on the up and up, they would not resort to these tactics and closing the window would not be hijacked. A world limited to Hijacking and Misogyny. It all goes even further when we consider the damage Facebook is handing out (from https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/26915213/stop-being-selfish-outrage-over-anti-c-section-facebook-page/). This shows us A Facebook page criticising women who have given birth by caesarean section. How is this ‘freedom’ of speech? So as we see the reasoning for this need, which is “A Caesarean section is often performed when a vaginal delivery would put the baby’s or mother’s life or health at risk“, we should ask how we can condone ‘freedom’ of speech, attacking people for diminishing a person’s health, in this case both mother and baby. Yes, there is a growing concern that more women ask for it and not always is there a health danger, but that is between the upcoming mother and her physician as I see it.  My question becomes, the ‘offender’ known as the Disciples of the New Dawn, how many of them are man and what percentage of this group is female?

At this point I must also illustrate that this is not a new issue. The guardian had an opinion piece in May 2013 (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/23/facebook-violently-sexist-pages-twitter-fbrape) called ‘Facebook’s violently sexist pages are an opportunity for feminists’, directly stated, not only do I disagree, these pages are a lot more dangerous than both genders realise. When we see eBay pages, selling T-Shirts stating ‘I’m feeling rapey’ we can honestly state that there are massive issues. The 2013 offensive T-shirt “Keep Calm and Rape A Lot” being the clearest of these transgressions. The article explained on how the automated phrase was in the hands of ‘Solid Gold Bomb’ and as they stated ‘these shirts were computer-generated and we didn’t even know we had a shirt that says that‘. The article does not touch on the part on how the phrases were collected, if we take the logic on the event that the act required someone to type it in, it would take thousands of people to type the phrase to get detected by these algorithms, which means that there is a larger problem hidden behind the issue which was not addressed by the press at large either.

This is partially seen in the UK where domestic Violence is at a massive high. At this point I want to mention an article I mentioned in the past (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/13/domestic-abuse-violence-victims-crime-survey-figures). Here we see ‘Domestic violence experienced by 30% of female population, survey shows‘, if this is anywhere near the truth, then tomorrow, when you get into the Underground and look at the women on route to their destination, then consider that over time it is likely that out of every 4 women you see, there is a small chance that one of them has not yet experienced abuse. Now ask yourself if you can live with that number, one out of four!

So when we see Jeri Ryan as the Female Borg, we can consider that being 7 of nine, that she could be one of 7 currently receiving domestic abuse. These are not nice statistics and the failing of the law is getting ever clearer and ever more unacceptable.

All this is propelled from the statement ‘Male Gamers Only‘, one of the most unacceptable calls for a game. I have played online many times, several friends on the multi-player Mass Effect 3 are women and they are quite good too! Games are a great channel, there we need to be part of the pack, part of the group and there the gender, age and religion has no bearing, only that you are part of the team, propelling victory for the entire group. The most unbiased of acts, to be together and just have a fun time. So when we see a T-Shirt stating “You provoked me” and “I was drunk“, we should worry on how this was regarded as ‘freedom of speech’. When we see the dreadful statistics of domestic violence, those ‘slogans’ have no place in this society and merely removing the page from eBay just does not cut it in my train of thought.

So when we see the quote “T-shirts that make a joke of rape are still available, of course, even on the biggest retailer of all, Amazon, but Laura Bates at Everyday Sexism has vowed to keep fighting to stop rape being regarded as a joke, rather than the violent crime it is“, we have to ask more than serious questions, we should ask whether a retailer like Amazon would be allowed to continue to cater to any Commonwealth nation. In my view, removing fields of revenue tends to be a great motivator to start being actually correct (in comparison to being ‘feigned politically correct’).

As stated, these events are not opportunities for feminists, they are just dangerous grounds for additional victims, which brings us to the second part of all this, the act of trivialisation. There are two kinds, there are at times trivialised moments when we have a vocal ‘spas’ with friends, we all say some things that are way outside the realm of politically correct. Men will giggle when we hear (as I did) the words of one woman saying to the other ‘No knickers? Laundry day or lunch with Mr Big?‘ (At Paddy’s market, Sydney). The mention is essential because it is a simple dialogue between two women I passed whilst looking for a polo shirt. Is objectification wrong when female friends do it among themselves? Was there objectification, or was ‘Mr Big’ about to get himself objectified over ‘lunch plus’. I feel unable to answer as there are too many unknown variables. Yet, linked to something I do know is the article ‘If you want to write about feminism online, be ready to take on the haters‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2015/apr/01/if-you-want-write-abaout-feminism-online-be-ready-to-eal-with-the-haters). You see, in my view, the photo is part of the issue. Three women wearing ‘no more page three‘ texts. I for one was never against page three (being a guy and all), but moreover, I always felt that those women used the Murdoch system to hopefully get ahead. Was that wrong? I do not know, but it was their choice to make, just like it is the right of these women to oppose page three. I mentioned the issue before. You see, when we see Keeley Hazell, who became known for working with charities, which include those working for animal rights and breast cancer awareness, we should wonder how bad the act was. There are not too many examples like these, so over 4 decades we can wonder on the numbers of good versus evil, but in my view, it is not about feminism, it is about the causes that matter. I am not convinced that page three led to domestic violence, but all this effort on a page in a paper that has been faltering versus the national issue that plays in more than one Commonwealth nation makes me wonder whether energy and effort are pushed into the right direction. There I have my questions and I am not convinced. The article does mention my feelings in a way when it raises the paragraph ‘There are more important issues to worry about’, which is exactly the issue I have. It is also for that reason that I am such a fan of the effort Emma Watson who is bringing us ‘HeForShe‘. I disagree with The Age (at http://www.theage.com.au/comment/emma-watson-speech-hardly-a-gamechanger-20140925-10lhz9.html), where Clementine Ford (a woman) is stating that it is hardly a game-changer. I disagree, As Hermione Granger she spoke to the imagination and reverence of an entire generation, a generation that now entered the real of young adult. A generation that consists of both man and women. She had an opportunity and she is forging a change from within this generation. That is not ‘hardly a game-changer’, this is huge and as far as I can tell, almost unique in our history, which makes it even bigger. There is a part I feel uneasy about. The quote “Gender inequality comes as a direct result of the enforcement of patriarchal structures. Although men are impacted negatively by it, they are not impacted in the same ways or to the same drastically violent extent as women“, is not wrong, but as I see it, it is incorrect. You see, a lot has changed, many changes that started in the last two decades are now coming to fruition. So as I see some women ‘whine’ about inequality (not judging right or wrong), I see that it is not wrongly seen, but wrongly shown in dimension. At University, now as I complete my Masters in Law, I see that the gender gap is no longer equal, I see that the man are now a minority, moreover, the people becoming partners and the higher echelons of law are slowly being replaced by women, who have completed the journey from legal aid to where they are now. This was not a simple task, these women excelled in law for a long time and now, those women get the positions. This is not a patriarch side, this is an evolving side. Now as the changes come over the next decade, women are more likely to be in charge in many fields, not because they are women, but because over time they had proven themselves to be equals. The second part of the article I disagree with is “Men have always been welcome to ‘participate in the conversation’, most notably when that participation involves action, change and acknowledgement of their own privilege and power“. That was (as I see it) never the case. I remember at VNU (Dutch publication house) that there was a guy who offered several pieces on promoting IT and IT skills for women. He literally got laughed out by those working at the Cosmopolitan editorial. So do not come to me with ‘welcome to participate’, because that was not the case. I am not making a judgment whether the act then was valid or not. Change took a long time and we are not there yet, but the wheel has turned and the acts of Emma Watson and women like her will be essential in propelling it all forward. So as we allow the issues of some advertisements, some T-shirts and on trivialised domestic violence, I wonder what fights still need to be fought.

So in the end, why do we bother?

Because within ourselves we acknowledge that moving forward requires equilibrium and equality, they are one and the same in our mental position and championing this position will end to be good for all. This is exactly why I am all for women in gaming. Not because they are women, but because I want a better game and it has been proven again and again that originality is found when new views are added to the table, in an age of mediocre sequels, originality is the essential ingredient. I look at it from the world of gaming, because I know this world the best, in IT it does not matter what gender the person is as long as there is skill and innovation. The result there is never seen in gender, if you doubt that, then list the names of all who worked on either Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel or Adobe Photoshop. There is the simplest shape of evidence. Here we do not care, who did it, as long as it works, the ultimate equaliser of gender.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law, Media, Politics

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

April 2, 2015 · 23:35

As we seek options

There is a clear delight in looking a little longer at the Greek comedy that is about to become a tragedy, but I reckon that their loss is now a certainty to so many that the blogs and the news as it is released is no longer truly in the interest of many to watch.

Instead of that, it might be more interesting to take another look at what should be regarded as the shifting trend of danger as it hits on a global scale. It is an opinion piece by George Monbiot, which was published 3 days ago. The article called “‘Wealth creators’ are robbing our most productive people” (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/31/wealth-creators-klepto-rewards-bosses). George is touching on several issues I have written about and many have known for a long time. The following quotes are at the centre of the issue “A report by the Resolution Foundation reveals that two-thirds of frontline care workers receive less than the living wage. Ten percent, like Carole, are illegally paid less than the minimum wage. This abuse is not confined to the UK: in the US, 27% of care workers who make home visits are paid less than the legal minimum“. So here is number one. Mr President, your claims on healthcare for everyone, in this view, did you intentionally set it up to be affordable through the use of what might be regarded as slave labour? There are heaps of jokes involving slave labour and African Americans, but then, I am not sure how many of your involved advisers fit that bill. Yet, it is not about health care, it is only a factor in a larger scheme of things, so up to the next part. “As the pay gap widens – chief executives in the UK took 60 times as much as the average worker in the 1990s and 180 times as much today – the uselessness ratio is going through the roof I propose a name for this phenomenon: klepto-remuneration“, this is an interesting view. You see, ‘klepto’ implies what is ‘not theirs’, yet the system had been destabilised to maximise exploitation by those in charge. What George sees as ‘klepto-remuneration’, I see as unbalanced unaccountability. Because the board of directors has a clear responsibility, to ensure the future of the corporation that they are heading. It seems to me that these board members are doing whatever they can to fill their need for comfort. When people doubt that approach then take a look at the mediocre collection of bundled fiascos. Tesco, RBS, Northern Rock, Polly Peck and the list goes on for a decent time. The US is not innocent their either, it is a global problem.

The interesting part is that these events have been known for a long time and in some cases there was a change to the UK Corporate Governance Code and other laws, but overall the massive need for change to ensure (read: force) fairness to the corporations and the bleeding of revenue (read solvency) towards their own board of directors is nowhere near the changes that are required, which is shown on a near global scale. The issue will only increase over the next two years as we see mergers and therefor non-taxable solutions for certain moguls TEVA, Horizon Pharma and linked to this there is Deerfield. Yet, Deerfield has other options, so what will they do, will they drown their board into a group of massive commissions, or will they exploit their centre position and grow larger into the need to corner the pharma and generic patent market. Deerfield could grow its market from 4 to well over 11 billion if the right patents are acquired. So the question becomes, where is the cut-off point? When will we see the appropriate response of those boards, not for profit, but for opening markets and allow taxability to become a true value of restoring its government’s coffers, whether it be US or Commonwealth? Yet the proper laws to truly state the changes are not in place. The draconian shift would not just be unacceptable, it will result in a change that could choke a commerce, but the current unchecked options are equally non-working and equally devastating, all due to the lack of accountability, so how to change the setting?

I do not pretend to have the answer. I am not sure what the best course is to properly adjust the law, but as we saw in the article written by George, he had one final part I did not mention yet “There is no end to this theft except robust government intervention: a redistribution of wages through maximum ratios and enhanced taxation. But this won’t happen until we challenge the infrastructure of justification, built so carefully by politicians and the press. Our lives are damaged not by the undeserving poor but by the undeserving rich“, you see, here I slightly disagree, not with his statement, which is fair enough, but in this view ‘a redistribution of wages through maximum ratios and enhanced taxation‘, will never be a proper long term solution, it is a flim flam approach to a non-working premise. It is like the additional taxation of the rich, now consider that this money comes from less than 10,000 people, how can we see a redistribution on fairness, whilst only a small part of these rich are undeservingly so? If we cannot bolster their move, or tax their efforts, the only part remaining is to limit their actions. I had seen several moves in the past, which are still ignored by nations (and their taxation offices at large). I reckon that corporations are unwilling to receive taxation, in addition, several tax sheltering governments (Ireland & Netherlands) are unwilling to let go of the little advantage they have, but it is that unwilling part that is hurting all.

Laws to ‘maximise’ industrialisation have become anchors, minimising wellbeing, none of these elements are dealt with by ‘enhanced taxation’. It can be achieved by removing tax write offs. What if there is no longer a benefit for merging? What if Teva Pharma (TEVA) was not allowed to Acquire Auspex Pharma unless there is full taxability? So no tax write-off, no benefit for either. Why give tax breaks to companies making millions/billions? In addition, some of these mergers are done to allow for some patents to be prolonged. I believe in patents, I truly do, but I also believe in an end date of that exclusivity, so that the innovators of generic solutions can make a product that is affordable for all, solving more than one issue in one go.

Was that so hard to begin with? The solution providers only had to let go of a little greed!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

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

March 31, 2015 · 22:58

Chicks for free

Yup, that is the name of the game, how to get your chicks for free. You can go towards the end seeing what you can pick up from the free handing from the tray that serves the drinks and babes, but the song is not that simple, you see The Dire Strait sang: “Get your money for nothin’ get your chicks for free“. The song refers to doing things for fun, when it is fun, at times it feels like you are not working at all.

In my view the expression has evolved. As I see it, ‘money for nothing‘ is more and more about value for money. Deals that are too good to pass up. Here we now get to the issue at hand. We look at players like Apple (with their iPhone), Google (with their Nexus) and several other players like Nokia, Microsoft, Samsung, LG and a few others, yet the one player many ignored, namely Huawei did what others would not in their iterative field of exploitation. They decided to give the people value for money, not some half-baked offer, but the power offer that the models P7 and Mate7 are bringing. The P7 priced at almost 50% of the old models of most is more than a contender, in addition, the Mate7 offers a massively stronger device than the new models from Samsung, Apple, LG or Nokia can offer, hundreds of dollars cheaper. So now we get to the BBC article (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32126628). So the quote “The world’s second biggest telecoms equipment maker said its net profit was 27.9bn yuan ($4.5bn; £3bn), up from 21bn yuan in 2013” is not all about mobile phones, but Huawei is now quickly showing to be the number one choice for consumers and students (consumers, usually lacking in funds) alike. It seems to me that even though there is a decent group with funds that is all about value for money and that group has been ignored by the providers at large, which means that Huawei is now sweeping the nations on a global level. There are two parts in the story, which become a concern.

The first one is “Huawei’s growth comes despite it facing challenges in several major economies. In the US, it was branded a national security threat by legislators, because of its alleged close ties with the Chinese government“. There is no clarity on how precise this quote is (the next one will touch on this). So, if the statement is true, how about OOCL (containers) and Evergreen (Taiwan containers). Are they a security threat? I think it goes further, as some players were sitting on their hands, Huawei has been growing the business globally, now they are ready to get into bed with ‘facilitators’ in a very wide area of business. If we look at the Huawei Tecal servers we see a device that goes beyond simple needs. Its citrix compatibility gives a first view that soon Huawei will be the number one choice for new SaaS solutions, mobile providers of consultancy but from a cloud environment, meaning that these new engineers will be global. They are not ready for the next part yet, the issue is not just the data; it is about the transit mode of data for Huawei. They are now one step away from nibbling at the feet of Cisco. Cisco is comfortable for now, but that could soon change. You see, in 2012 Huawei was not ready for any of it, but they remained quiet for 2 years whilst their consumer market grew, now within a year, if their router solutions are decently shielded, they can move forward.

Now we get the second quote: “Meanwhile, it has been banned from being involved in broadband projects in Australia over espionage fears“. Really? So American solutions are not any kind of espionage fear? I am not judging, it seems to me that either our personal data goes to America or China. The article does not seem to elaborate on this part. This we see in the final quote of the article: “However, the company said it was well positioned to capture business opportunities with heavy investment in innovative areas such as cloud computing and fifth generation (5G) mobile technology“. Personally, I do not think that 5G is anywhere near an option for providers of mobile networking at present in any affordable kind of way, but the cloud is another matter. Whatever next part will be used to get business growing and moving forward will require the cloud. Yet, as I saw it for the last two years, security is just not good enough, not from any provider. That part can be seen in this place: http://2015itss.ucdavis.edu/event/the-weak-link-in-cloud-security-2/, here we see the following: “This session will illustrate and demonstrate that the very collaborative nature of SaaS (Software as a Service), such as Box or Google Apps, may also be their weakness. When organizations adopt cloud applications, users must take care to ensure that the organization’s sensitive cloud data does not end up in the wrong hands“. This is at the core of one of several issues. SaaS is only one part. The adoption and implementation is at the centre of a cloud that could be the fog that keeps us all blind as we lose data towards whatever provider of consultancy requirements were miscommunicated too. What a weak data web we weave for ourselves!

This event in June 2015 shows several more issues that we all in business need to consider as we are at times decently in the dark of that what must happen and that what needed to be done. The reality is that Huawei is not even a factor here, this all becomes an issue in any implementation. So why is there no clearer broadband issue? Is there truly a Chinese espionage fear, or are some players too dependent on whatever solution SaaS offers and in this stride, data leakage will be an issue from day one, whether the owner of the solution is Chinese or other. What is without a doubt is that Huawei is making massive strides, they are doing it in places where they were not a consideration 6 months ago! So what is wrong with the picture I am showing you?

I am not showing you any picture, but I am implying that the other big players (all American) are currently losing out on business, on revenue and on profit.

I wonder how the Dow will take it!

 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

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

March 31, 2015 · 21:56

Just before the joke

 

That is how I feel at this time, after a week of hospital, the first thing I did (actually the first thing I did was to get a bacon and egg roll, which I missed beyond life), was to take a look whether that Greek (Tsipras) had gotten a clue and a few vowels. So as I look at the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2015/mar/31/euro-falls-greek-progress-unemployment-inflation-live-updates), one of the initial views I get is: “Samaras says Tsipras imagined he’d get money without terms but ended up getting terms without money“, which is very apt. It was a statement by @MacroPolis_gr (Twitter id). It is interesting that I made similar views 10 days ago, just slightly less poetic. Just above that we get: “He pledged to end the ‘pillaging’ of the middle classes, and revealed that a new clampdown on unpaid taxes had already delivered €100m. But his speech lacked clear details about the reform plan that Greece is putting together in negotiations with its creditors over the last few days“, moreover, 100 Million is just a joke in the sight of what is required and it seems clear that many parties are not willing to give a single Drachma to help Greece out at present. Theatrics and fake images are no longer enough, in addition, the 10 days of absence shows that not only is there a lack of progress, the words of Jeremy Cook take us one step further: “On every agenda item of what the austerity and bailout program needs, Greece disagrees. The program calls for a VAT increase on the tourism sector, the Greek government has said no. Pension reform has been shot down and public sector wages will remain protected“, so there is no decrease in spending, no increase in taxation and the cost remain untouched. There is a clear need that something has to give, and Tsipras as the spokesperson seems to be steering towards the Euro collapse, whilst he could be suddenly play ‘possum’ in the last 5 minutes of the deal stating: ‘what would you like?‘, at that part, is he relying on the initial ‘too big to fail‘ part as I had predicted it, or is he willing to be the first one to collapse it all? At that point, when 85% of the 8 million retirement funds dwindle down below 70% of value, who will be blamed? The Germans (as they seem to do), the troika group, or are the Greeks willing to consider that electing Tsipras was a massive mistake in a long line of huge mistakes? So as we see more razzle dazzle misrepresentation from Tsipras as he claims to remain within 1.5% shortage of GDP, the question becomes…. how?

That answer is not given in any way shape or form.

When we see the quote from Mark Mobius “Templeton’s #MarkMobius tells the Greek press ‘Greece will stay in the euro zone. The stock market is cheap and we are buyers.’“, in my view this means ‘As long as I am making profit in other markets seeing Greece leave the Eurozone will be detrimental to my bottom line, which is profit‘. Is my view wrong? Am I not seeing right, or are we facing iterations of cadaver devouring? You see, the bond of a place that will not pay back is a worthless bond, so why give such a place billions. You see, in my view if these ‘moguls’ are so iteratively happy on Greece remaining in the Eurozone, let them pay Greece from their profits. They only need 5 billion for now, but guess what, it seems that those ‘investors’ are just like all other investors, unwilling to pay for the bag of potatoes, which is no longer worth the potatoes. That gives us the issue, Greece willing to play, but not pay, investors very willing to pay, but not play. You see investors (they call themselves grown-ups) have no sense of humour, especially when their profit is in danger. So here we are looking into the mouth of the claimants, Tsipras and Mobius, all just playing the tune to their needs and the Greeks are just about to get marginalised in the scheme of things.

Now, you might want to conclude that I am just imagining things and that would as always be fair (never just accept the word of anyone), yet in my view as stated before things do not add up, in the last light as Greece is under so much pressure, we see a Prime Minister showing close to zero effort in obtaining that what is essential for the current continuation of Greece, yet he does not seem to take any clear effort to truly fight for his nation (as I see it). Yet, consider the other information when we look at the data as I presented it roughly 10 days ago, we saw the Australian Financial review reporting: “The country’s cash shortfall is projected to hit 3.5 billion euros in March, according to Bloomberg calculations based on 2015 budget figures“. If that is true the the shortfall is already a fact and the news on the BBC (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32113699), quoting: “The reforms are needed to unlock a new tranche of bailout cash for Greece, which could run out of money in weeks“, is that so? In addition, when we look at Reuters (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/24/us-eurozone-greece-cash-exclusive-idUSKBN0MK1PT20150324), which is a week old, states in the title ‘Greece to run out of cash by April 20 without fresh aid – source‘, the quote “Greece will run out of money by April 20 unless it receives fresh aid from creditors, a source familiar with the familiar with the matter told Reuters on Tuesday” is fair enough and the article is a week old, yet it seems that one states shortfall as per today, out of cash within 3 weeks. It seems to me that several parties are already dragging their feet and dragging the point of no return as far forward as possible, yet the ones needing to get things done are dragging their heels too, so how is any of it a good idea?

This dragging thing is all the rage amongst economic players. The BBC gives us “Mr Varoufakis said that tensions between the two countries ‘must stop’, adding: ‘Only then can Greece, with support of its partners, focus on implementing effective reforms and growth-orientated policy strategies’“, no no no! The tension does not need to stop, Greece only needs to stop blaming Germany and get on with it. There was no debilitating ‘tension’ there is only a group of debilitated Greek officials who are not doing what they are supposed to do. The additional quote: “However, the reforms as initially proposed do not appear to have been specific enough to win the approval of the lenders, formerly known as the ‘troika’“, shows that Greece has been dragging its heels, as specific plans were clearly required, so what game are the players Tsipras and Varoufakis playing?

Is that such a weird question to have?

When we see ‘To Vima’ (at http://www.tovima.gr/en/article/?aid=690574), we see the following: “Mr. Tsipras called for the opposition parties to support the government’s efforts in the current negotiations with the country’s creditors and partners. The Prime Minister outlined his government’s “red lines” and argued that he would not accept any further pension and wage cut, or the implementation of any recessionary measures. Mr. Tsipras further stated that he would not accept the deregulation of collective dismissals, any increase of the VAT in food or medicine, nor would he agree to the further “selling off” of public assets“. I personally agree with selling off public assets, that makes sense, if Greece is to move forward at any stage, selling of its assets will only mean that thy will make money for the new owners. The no recessionary measures is a boast that cannot be continued, either they do it now, to a strong extent, or the Drachma will force it onto the entire population beyond its debilitating extent.

Yet what could be done?

That is the question when we see the Financial Times from two days ago (at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a45d78e2-d627-11e4-b3e7-00144feab7de.html), here we see: “Without fresh funding, Athens risks running out of cash before meeting a €450m loan payment due to the International Monetary Fund next week. The credit rating agency Fitch downgraded Greece late on Friday to a “substantial credit risk”, citing “uncertain prospects of timely disbursement from official institutions”“, now we have ourselves a ball game.

So, this gives the clear insight that Greece is already short by half a billion long before the 20th April deadline. The article shows a few more gems and you should definitely read it. I especially like the Greek officials and their ‘hope’ for a partial disbursement off the $7.2 Billion which could tide Athens over until they would be able to reach what they call ‘a full deal’. Is it not nice on how they make no steps in any direction and still they want cash?

So as we look at the Greek expressions we see the old time favourite “I’ve lost my eggs and baskets”, meaning in this case, I have no money and I cannot fathom why not. You see, the situation turned into “a whore’s fencepost“, which implies that things only get out of hand when it is more than a brothel’s walk away.

But we must not forget that there are other players on the horizon too. That part seems to be a lot clearer when we see the response from Mark Mobius. When we look at some other quotes like from CNBC, we see “Amid the turmoil, hedge fund managers are again eyeing Greece for bargain shopping, but the political uncertainty has kept them from aggressively investing there“, so hedge funds are all about the stability, yet these ‘stable funds’ require clarity of profit, that much can be ascertained from Paulson and Co. So as we see the quote “Paulson, which manages $17.8 billion overall, still holds longstanding equity positions in two major Greek banks, Piraeus Bank and Alpha, according to recent investor materials“, we can only guess on how large the ACTUAL amounts are. All that at what percentage? 6%, 7% or even more percent? That interest needs to come from somewhere, so as the Greeks think that they move forward by 2019, the truth seems to be that they are taking care of interest and principle of whatever is out there right now. So as we question the claim by Mark Mobius, my questioning his statement comes in part from this “Alden’s main fund fell 9.6 percent in January thanks in part to losing Greek positions, according to the person“, so if shares are so cheap, why did Alden still lost close to what amounts to well over 150 million? 9.6% of 1.7 billion is a lot more then I will ever make in my life, so why was Mark Mobius so blasé? What is he fishing for and what are the current Greek officials not telling the people that voted them in?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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