Tag Archives: BBC

November 19, 2020 · 21:17

Citizens of Jahannam

Yes, the bulk of us transgressed to a new village, a new town, optionally a city. We all moved to the city of Jahannam, we enabled the politicians who diverted the laws that enabled the corporations. And as Eve spoke to the guy on her needs of an apple product, she stated, yes that would be nice. So he got her a iPhone 7 SE (Swedish edition) and to make sure that it would last longer, the maker of Apple products slowed the battery down, to enable it to be older. Does it sound familiar? The story (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54996601), give us ‘Apple to pay $113m to settle iPhone ‘batterygate’’, basically it took 76,000 victims to break even. Yet the news gives us “Millions of people were affected when the models of iPhone 6 and 7 and SE were slowed down in 2016 in a scandal that was dubbed batterygate”, and as such we see the first part, the second part is seen in the Verge who gave us “11 million customers that didn’t need to buy a new iPhone”, you still think that crime does not pay? Yes, there will be all kinds of noise that there wee more cases, more settlements, but all that money is TAX DEDUCTIBLE, as such we get to see a larger stage and it is high time that the people involved get the limelight. When we consider “Any legal fees or court costs incurred will be deductible as well as the cost of resolving the suit, whether the company pays damages to the plaintiff or agrees to settle the dispute”, So this is how you get to become a trillion dollar company, you set the stage in one direction, and as long as it cannot be proven, you tell the people something fitting, take the profit and pay the fee which is a tax option, so can we come to the conclusion that in this world criminals are better protected than the victims ever will be?

That consideration comes (in part) from “Two fatal crashes of Boeing 737 Max aircraft were partly due to the plane-maker’s unwillingness to share technical details, a congressional investigation has found” (at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54174223), with the additional ““Boeing failed in its design and development of the Max, and the FAA failed in its oversight of Boeing and its certification of the aircraft,” the 18-month investigation concluded”, even as we suspect t the there is something wrong with the statement ‘the FAA failed in its oversight of Boeing’, yet could that ever be proven? What does matter the the lives of people are optionally ignored when the bottom line of a corporation is under fire, just like the USS Zumwalt that cannot fire any of their smart bullets (at $1,000,000 per shot). As such, when we read the “The nearly 250-page report found a series of failures in the plane’s design, combined with “regulatory capture”, an overly close relationship between Boeing and the federal regulator, which compromised the process of gaining safety certification”, I wonder what the optional price was of ‘an overly close relationship between Boeing and the federal regulator’, several ideas come to mind, none of them really proper for vocation, yet the setting is there. Again corporate needs are protected as the courts seem to be in a stage of protecting those who do not deserve it and fail to protect those who were in need of protection. And the people wonder why we do have become so distrustful of governments, really?

We might have a few questions on the unrealistic minimum-cost estimates of the USS Zumwalt, yet will those who heralded the unrealistic minimum-cost estimates the inside of a court having to explain their actions, I doubt it, as such is the thought that we have become Citizens of Jahannam.
Too much of a leap? 

Consider the issues that we face, the political egos we allow for and ask yourself, how much more will we have to accept before the law does what it showed do and protect victims? As such, we need to ask the questions we at times fear to ask. And even as we accept the pragmatism is at times the safest course of action, yet the acts of Apple and Boeing give us a very different story, the story of pragmatism being the death of far too many people, yet that is a side we are seldom to see, is it?

I merely wonder what corporations are saved from facing next, I wonder if my choices to be slightly selfish were so bad in the end. If Apple can become a trillion dollar company the way it did, could I not become slightly less rich without dec option and by keeping my (slightly stubborn) disposition of fair play?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

Tagged as , , , , ,

November 17, 2020 · 17:20

Cursed by choice

It is a setting some will remember, some fondly, some less so. It is a state where you have too much options. Let me try to explain this, for example, your iPod you find after a year and you see hundreds of songs you have not heard for some time, but you cannot decide, or perhaps a choice of 5 RPG games and you have select one to play. The inability to seek between good options if you want.

It is a setting the reflects on to situations. The first is the one, the only, the musk (Elon to insiders). BBC reports “Tesla’s share price surged about 14% in New York following the news it was being added to the index. Given Mr Musk’s 20% stake in Tesla his net worth rose to $117.5bn, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. His wealth has jumped $90bn this year as Tesla’s share price has continued to rise”, I look at the setting differently, some say he has the Midas gene, he can anything he touches to gold, I reckon like Steve Jobs and a few others, he has the ability to turn generic outliers into commercial successes. We can go from the fact he knows what is useful, we can go with he knows where to push, who to push and how much to push. We can look at it in different ways, but in basic “Tesla’s share price surged about 14% in New York following the news it was being added to the index. Given Mr Musk’s 20% stake in Tesla his net worth rose to $117.5bn, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. His wealth has jumped $90bn this year as Tesla’s share price has continued to rise”, and that is before he realises (perhaps he already knows) that he is optionally sitting on an additional $1.2 trillion (meaning $1,200 billion) and the wired has seemingly no caught on, I had a few ideas in support of that, but the IP is already his, so why bother, he will figure it out. And that is before he goes to space, there he might make a few coins more. 

It is one setting and the opposing view is seen when we look at the lovely youthful youngling known as Taylor Swift. That BBC view (at https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-54969396) gives us “Writing on Twitter Swift said it was “the second time my music had been sold without my knowledge””, here we want to answer in anger, yet the article also gives us “Swift signed a deal with record label Big Machine in 2004 granting them ownership of the master recordings to her first six albums in exchange for a cash advance to kick-start her career”, as such if there is no clause with a mandatory first option to buy back, I wonder if Scooter Braun did anything wrong. The news gives us that she signed over ownership on her first 6 albums, so I understand that she is not happy, but did Scooter do anything wrong? She is not the first, I learned a lot later in life that Paul McCartney has lost ownership of Beatles songs. I actually never knew that. And he is not alone, as such, and especially as we know and have seen that Taylor is very intelligent, why she learned her lesson the hard way. As one is cursed by many options, the other one was forced by a lack of options. The most dangerous part in all this is doing something expecting them to act in another, when we see “US entertainment magazine Variety first reported on Monday that Braun had sold the rights – known as masters – to an investment fund. It said the deal is thought to be worth more than $300 million (£227m)”, I wonder how much the songs were bought for, as such still, one third of a billion is a whole lot of money, I would not sell my IP for that (I would set it to a percentage of the patent value), yet overall I could be tempted. And there is a setting switch, it is about awareness, how many people in the music industry have a real grasp of IP and what it is worth nowadays. Games, movie, TV series, they are all in need of music and there is so much one can compose, it was perhaps one of Ubisoft most brilliant moments in all this, get well known songs or well known artists to support the IP, Imagine Dragons is perhaps one of the more known artists, it propelled the game, not merely the graphics, the music was a large part of it and Ubisoft was exceedingly clever there, they might not own the IP, but they knew a good deal when it was there and musicians need to catch up, especially in this age of Netflix and streaming. Now this is not an attack on Taylor Swift, this might have been her only option, yet the stage remains, what kind of legal advice did she get? I do not know, I am merely asking. So when I see (according to the BBC) “When his company, Ithaca Holdings, paid $300m to acquire Swift’s former record label last year, Swift saw it as an act of aggression that “stripped me of my life’s work”. She accused Braun – who also manages Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber and Demi Lovato – of “incessant, manipulative bullying”” we see a lot of emotion, but the stage is did Scooter Braun do anything wrong or illegal? We might say immoral and unethical but neither is a crime according to law and that is the setting we need to see and perhaps Taylor should have appealed to Elon Musk who has well over 3,000 times what she apparently needed, it is merely food for thought, although, I reckon that Elon gets a dozen of these attempts to contact an hour, and optionally when he figures out where his optional missing $1.2T is even more.

Such is life!
There are two groups cursed by choice, one group has too many, the other has (far) too few. Which one do you belong in? And what makes you think that you are in one or the other, because that contemplation tends to be a solution in itself at times.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Science

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

November 17, 2020 · 00:45

Ignoring the dangers

We all do the at times, we ignore or minimise the dangers we are facing, some do it so the they can get their own needs filled and others again do it for what they call ‘the bigger picture’. So as Al Jazeera showed us ‘Iran blasts ‘hate-mongering’ in Saudi king’s comments’, I decided to take a quick gander in the Google Search, When seeking ‘Iran Saudi Arabia’ in the news, the western press was abundantly absent on the matter, yet the BBC did gif us 4 days ago ‘US election: Gulf Arab leaders face new reality after Biden victory’, they seemingly all have other ‘important’ news to give us. 

Yet the Al Jazeera article is more important than you think. When we consider the BBC ‘Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile ’10 times limit’’, it is the first of a lot of markers, it is the setting for more, when we consider the constant interference from Iran into Yemen, with the Houthi forces ‘US warns of possible Houthi missile strikes on Saudi capital’, the issue here is that the missiles and drones cannot be made in Yemen, the infrastructure is not there, as such only Iran could have smuggled them and it seems that the so called Western Navy has so far been unable to stop anything. Now that Houthi forces are deliberately targeting civilian population centres the stage is set in other ways too, Saudi Arabia has little choice but to hit back. So when we see “US officials warned of possible Houthi missile strikes on Saudi Arabia’s capital, Riyadh, after the kingdom reported it intercepted several armed drones and missiles fired by the rebel group in Yemen”, even as we get the watered down ‘US special representative on Iran, checks what Saudi officials claimed were Iran-made Houthi missiles and drones intercepted over Saudi territory last year’, we see Brian Hook on stage, but the International media remains in denial (through silence), on the simple fact that the Houthi forces cannot manufacture these missiles, they have a supplier named Iran and too many of these Iranian events go unnoticed by the western media steering clear of it. So when we are treated to “The kingdom stresses the dangers of Iran’s regional project, its interference in other countries, its fostering of terrorism, its fanning the flames of sectarianism and calls for a decisive stance from the international community against Iran that guarantees a drastic handling of its efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction and develop its ballistic missiles programme”, we see more than a truth,. We see a setting stage where we must act now, or it will be too late. Iran is too careless with what it has and it is willing to arm anyone willing to fire on either Saudi Arabia or Israel. When that happens we have a stage that can no longer be turned. So the tactic seems clear as Iran gives us “Iran criticises Saudi monarch urging global action against Tehran, calling for unity among Muslim nations”, yet it is the Iranian actions that require actions. The non actions, when it is too late these so called ‘world leaders’ in the EU and the USA will have to sit back and remain silent. They had their option but their ego’s are too consumed with some action plan that will never work in Iran over the essential need to call Iran to attention. 

We have ignored the stage for too long and there aren’t many moves left, the move we make when it is too late will seal the deal where no-one in Saudi Arabia will be willing to take calls from anyone in the EU or the US, is that what we truly want? Diplomats have been played with and kept on an Iranian leash for well over 5 years and it is time to learn our lesson, Iran will never be a civil voice in any of this. How is the for ignoring the dangers? How does any of the actions from the EU and the US even make sense in all this, it is time to act, we played for too long with the brazen incriminations and actions by Iran. So whilst the Arab News gives us ‘Iran and Turkey ‘losers’ in emerging new Middle East order, say analysts’ what do you think that people in Turkey and Iran will do with their overinflated ego’s? Do you think they play nice? 

As such when Alex Vatanka, senior fellow and director of the Iran program at The Middle East Institute gives us “I see Iran as a loser in the sense of losing out geopolitically, ideologically and politically at home”, how do you expect Iran to react? They will not care on the lives of Houthi or Saudi forces, they merely want to look important and they are willing to send all the wrong toys to Yemen. His majesty King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud is correct, the problem is not what he is saying, it is what the EU and the US are not willing to listen to and that is the larger game, ego. Ego in the people who think the they can till matter still look important all whilst Iran has decided not to listen. I reckon an enriched Uranium stockpile of 1,000% of what was allowed is sufficient evidence, as are the Iranian missiles fired on Saudi Arabia from Yemen. Either is enough, but for the global players to ignore two pieces of evidence? I will let you decide on how dangerous the game with Iran has become.

Leave a comment

Filed under Military, Politics

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

November 11, 2020 · 21:10

Brother, can you spare a clue?

Yup, we all need clues at time. In some cases it is a simple as a vowel or a consonant, a stage where the word is still hidden to us. At times it is a clue to a larger picture, like the Guardian giving us ‘Biden to Trump – you’re embarrassing US’, now I am no Trump fan, yet the elections are not called yet in two states (31 electoral votes), we are optionally facing a recount in Wisconsin and Arizona (21 electoral votes), and there we see the larger difference, it is up in the air who becomes president. The media is shouting and screaming that Biden has won, which would be nice, but I deal in certainties and this is not certain. Georgia is leaning towards Biden, North Carolina is not. Yet until these two are officially called this race is still on. We can scream ‘count every vote’ and I support that, but not all the votes have been counted yet and there we have the larger station.

Then we see China optionally requiring a legal clue, we see this in BBC article ‘Hong Kong disqualifies four pro-democracy lawmakers after China ruling’, a lot of us might go all huffy and puffy, yet does that remain when we see “The expulsion came moments after Beijing passed a resolution allowing the government to disqualify politicians deemed a threat to national security”, as well as “China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee says that lawmakers should be disqualified if they support Hong Kong independence, refuse to acknowledge China’s sovereignty, ask foreign forces to interfere in the city’s affairs or in other ways threaten national security”, a setting that is open to interpretation. Especially when I consider “Freedom is the non-negotiable demand of human dignity; the birthright of every person—in every civilisation. Throughout history, freedom has been threatened by war and terror; it has been challenged by the clashing wills of powerful states and the evil designs of tyrants; and it has been tested by widespread poverty and disease. Today, humanity holds in its hands the opportunity to further freedom’s triumph over all these foes”, which President George Bush gave us from the White House in 2002, it comes in context with The National Security Strategy (NSS) which is a document prepared periodically by the executive branch of the government of the United States for Congress. It sets a tone towards the outlines the major national security concerns of the United States and partial methods on how to to administer these plans for dealing with issues. The legal foundation for the document is spelled out in the Goldwater-Nichols Act. The document is purposely general in content (read: Ambiguous), and its implementation relies on elaborating guidance provided in supporting documents. Both are choices in execution the need for a national security. Did you actually believe that the stage where Britain obtained a 99-year lease of the New Territories in 1898 was the end of that? After WW2, 50% of that lease period was surpassed, what did you think was going to happen? China giving up on the most profitable region in history? It is emphasised when we consider the Conversation giving us a year ago “Since 9/11, American domestic and international security policy has been focused on individual terrorists, terrorist groups and rogue countries as the primary threats. The country’s defensive response has been focused on the military and law enforcement capabilities. That’s natural, because the military knows how to shoot, drop and launch things at threats like that. And those dangers still exist”, do you think that China was not doing that as well? Since 2000 almost 100 attacks (mostly lone wolves) have been nipping at the heels of the USA, do you think that China is waiting for an attack? It will be minimising risk and Hong Kong is seen as all risk. 

Yet these matters are out in the open, there is a whole range of issues the remain in the dark, in the US, in China, in the Middle East and in Russia, each having its own baton of transparency, each having a different working method and in position we see the media pushing buttons and giving a partial view whenever possible, they too have their share holders, their stake holders and their advertising needs, it does not help many of us getting a clear picture. Consider the AP 4 days ago when they gave us “On Saturday, Biden captured the presidency when The Associated Press declared him the victor in his native Pennsylvania at 11:25 a.m. EST. That got him the state’s 20 electoral votes, which pushed him over the 270 electoral-vote threshold needed to prevail”, which is by all accounts a fair call, but the votes are not counted yet, the 31 out in the open and the end result could become Biden 276-Trump 262. This is an awful close call to be celebrating when votes are still being counted, one contested state is all the is required to show is all overboard and Wisconsin with 10 electoral seats might get us Biden 266 – Trump 272, that is the ball game. This is where it is at and the previous stage will be abandoned by so many it will scare you. You see, I am no Trump fan, and the chaos will ensure that the US will see several attacks, it infrastructure is massively undercut, its resources strained in the wrong directions and we are all screaming: Biden save us, all whilst the stage is not yet set, a stage that the Lone Wolves are really liking at present. Consider Savannah Georgia, Long Beach California, Seattle, Houston and South Carolina, they all have something in common and they neglected a lot in the last decade, the finds were not there. So when problems come calling the American people better have a real focal point instead of the reds versus the blues, we saw how that happened in Gangs of New York, how did the city fair there? It was set to Herbert Asbury’s 1927 nonfiction book The Gangs of New York. Yet what set it all apart, how do you remember the New York City draft riots? You think it does not relate? Consider that it was the moment when the population of New York fell below 11,000 and the area’s demographics changed pretty much forever as a result of the riot. You think that the second time around it will be better? When the reds versus the blues come calling instead of uniting, the US stands to lose a massive amount more from the start and this time around nationwide. I agree, it does not help when one of the players isn’t the sharpest tool in the tool chest, but the stage needs to be secured, China did it from the start, here we see a stage that is open for all with a gun and a loud mouth. Still thinking I have gone coo-coo? Consider ‘Three-quarters of Americans fear post-election violence and riots, Independent reveals’ (at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/election-results-2020-riots-trump-biden-b1700559.html), a stage given to us 2 days ago. That stage still exists, and it still holds water and there is the larger danger, not the rioters, but the opening the they give the lone wolves waiting for a signal. We are given “Such fears appeared directly linked to Americans’ concerns that it will not be clear by 4 November who won the presidential race”, now consider that one week later this issue is still in play. I watched two states remaining at 99% for 3-4 days, so what is hampering the final count? 

As you can see, in light of the unknown and there is quite a lot of it, brother, can you spare ME a clue?

Oh, and I was not done yet (well, not completely). You see, the Goldwater-Nichols Act is the foundation of a larger issue (at https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a525942.pdf), you see when we consider “Goldwater-Nichols may have made DOD more efficient but at the cost of civilian control. It has also politicised the Armed Forces. Like the law it replaced, it has created a national military command structure that ignores the separation of powers. The amended National Security Act has consolidated dispersed powers into one office, unintentionally establishing conditions under which an imperious Secretary might abuse them”, as such we can surmise that the US will be under a larger version of exposed danger until the 19th of January, 2021. You did not actually think that these lone wolves are sitting on their hands, did you? The danger is not red versus blue, it is those seeking an advantage during that time and as I personally see it, the US is not ready to deal with that danger.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

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

October 29, 2020 · 19:09

Is it me? Perhaps it is!

Yup, we need to look into matters and I am willing to concede that I am the stupid one, yet the BBC is setting a stage that is not set to the proper players and it shows (well, to me it does), so as I look at ‘Facebook, Twitter and Google face questions from US senators’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54721023), we see ““[It] allows digital businesses to let users post things but then not be responsible for the consequences, even when they’re amplifying or dampening that speech,” Prof Fiona Scott Morton, of Yale University, told the BBC’s Tech Tent podcast. “That’s very much a publishing kind of function – and newspapers have very different responsibilities. “So we have a bit of a loophole that I think is not working well for our society.”” You see, the stage is larger, even as we see a reference towards section 230 with the added quote “some industry watchers agree the legislation needs to be revisited”, so can we have these names? 

Section 230
Section 230 generally provides immunity for website publishers from third-party content.
Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an “interactive computer service” who publish information provided by third-party users: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides “Good Samaritan” protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith.

Yet the stage is a lot larger, most common law nations (civil law nations too) have similar protections in place, and ever as we see the repose by Professor Fiona Scott Morton giving us “we have a bit of a loophole that I think is not working well for our society”, most parties refuse to hold the posters of the online information accountable. It is too hard, there are too many issues, but in the end, I call it a load of bollocks, the avoidance of accountability has been on my mind for close to a decade, the lawmakers have done nothing (or close to it). These lawmakers do not comprehend, the politicians are mostly clueless and the technologists cannot abide to the lack of insight that the other two are showing they lack.

So as we see “both sides agree they want to see the social networks held accountable”, yet neither is willing to hold the poster of the transgressor accountable and that is the larger issue. So even as we see the so called political ploys and no matter what the reason is, when we see “Both President Trump and his election rival Joe Biden have called for the removal of Section 230, though for different reasons”, yet both ignore the obvious, the posters want a medium and outside of the US they have all the options to continue. Basically the only thing that the US will accomplish is isolation, all whilst the dreaded posts from those who seek to harm society will never be stopped, they merely change location, and now that the US is ranking 8th on the 5G speed lit at a mere 13.29% of the speed of number one, things will go from bad to worse, limiting big tech is the larger error in their thinking pattern. 

Any form of censorship strangles freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Holding the speakers accountable is not censorship, it merely sets the frame that these social media speakers will be held to account, optional in a court for WHAT they say. It was never that complex, so why push the side that resolves nothing? So whilst we see all these media articles on AI and how AI is NOW the solution that one can purchase, the factual reality is “experts have predicted the development of artificial intelligence to be achieved as early as by 2030. A survey of AI experts recently predicted the expected emergence of AGI or the singularity by the year 2060”, a stage we seemingly forget whenever some short sighted politician makes a twist towards AI and the solution in social media, the reality is that there is no AI, not yet. Forbes (at https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/06/10/how-far-are-we-from-achieving-artificial-general-intelligence/#389ade286dc4) introduces us to “Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) can be defined as the ability of a machine to perform any task that a human can”, you see, commerce couldn’t wait for AI to come, so they pushed it into AGI, and the AI they all advertise is merely a sprinkle of AI, scripted solutions to singular tasks and even that part is debatable, because the application of AI needs more, I wrote bout it almost two months ago. I wrote “until true AI and true Quantum computing are a fact, the shallow circuits cannot cut through the mess”, I did this in ‘About lights and tunnels’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/09/08/about-lights-and-tunnels/), you see, IBM IS THE ONLY PLAYER that is close to getting the true Quantum computing up and running, Shallow circuits are still evolving and that matters, because they only launched their first quantum computing solution a year ago. When they complete that part we see the first stage when a true AI can become a reality, only then is there an actual solution available to seek out the perpetrators. So as we look at all the elements involved, we can see to a clear degree that 

  1. There is no real solution to the problem (at present).
  2. Section 230 is doing what it was doing, even as there are issues (no one denies that).
  3. As such we need to hold the posters accountable for what they post.

As I see it these three parts are only the top layer, and in no way is adapting or editing section 230 the solution, it might if all nations adopt it, but what is the chance of that? The only thing that the US and its senators achieve is scaring business somewhere else, when that happens the US and its data gathering stage will take a spiralling downward turn, one their economy is certainly seen as a near death experience. I think that these senators need to stop selling shit as peanut butter. To realise that part we merely need to turn the clock back to April 2018 and consider Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) asking Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg how he is able to sustain a business model in which users do not pay. The answer was simple “Senator, we run ads” (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2H8wx1aBiQ). A stage where someone was allegedly this unaware of the stage of digital media, when they rely on questions that are a basic 101 of digital media, how can we take the efforts, or the presented efforts of both the democratic and republican houses serious? 

It is a stage where you will need to take a deeper look at what you see, it is not easy and I am not asking you to believe me, I for one might be the one who sees it wrong, I believe that my view is the correct one, but when all these high titled and educated people give sides, I am willing to go own faith that I need to take another look at what I believe to be correct. And wth that, I get to my very first article. The article ‘The accountability act – 2015’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2012/06/19/the-accountability-act-2015/) was me seeing the change in 2012, seeing the need for an accountability act, an essential need in 2015, it never came to be and people more intelligent than me thought it not essential. So whilst I wrote (in 2012) “I believe it is time for things to truly change. I believe that the greed of some is utterly destroying the future of all others. Who would have thought in my days of primary school, that an individual would be able to have the amount of power to bleed entire cities into poverty? It was never in my thought, but then, GREED was always a weird thing. It is the one utter counterproductive sin. You see, greed does not drive forward. Competitiveness does. Innovation does. Greed does not. Greed is the foundation of slavery and submission. It drives one person to get everything at the expense of (all) others”, as such, I saw a setting that we see now more and more clearly, I was ahead of my time (well, my ego definitely is). 

We need a different setting and we can blame the big tech companies, but is that the factual setting? When we use the quote from the AFP giving us “Capitol Hill clashed with Silicon Valley Wednesday over legal protections and censorship on social media during a fiery hearing a week before Election Day in which Twitter’s Jack Dorsey acknowledged that platforms need to do more to “earn trust.””, yet the big tech companies do not write laws do they? Yes they all need to earn trust, but trust is also lost through the newspapers using digital media to set the stage of ‘click bitches’ reacting to THEIR stories, as such, how guilty is big tech? So when we are confronted with the ludicrous headline “Kim Kardashian is accused of having SIX TOES in snaps from THAT controversial birthday getaway: ‘Why is this not trending’”, something that comes up apparently every now and then, yet this is a NEWSPAPER, as such as they also use digital media to push forward their economic needs, the stage of section 230 is a little larger, and the fact that what I personally would see as fake news, we see fake news coming from news agencies, so when we consider that some talk about “earn trust”, I think that we demand this from newspapers and see how long they accept that stage before greed takes over, or should I say the needs for clicks on digital media? A stage we saw in the Leveson Inquiry and as greed took over, I wonder whether these senators have any clue on the stage that is before them and the size of that stage. A stage that has additional sides and I am willing to wager that they haven’t got a clue how many sides they are unaware off. The US (and some others) need big tech to be as it is, if I can innovate 5G beyond their scope, that matter will merely increase when they break up, making the US more and more of a target against innovators they have no defence against, because the innovators are no longer in the US, and those they thought they had are moving away to greener pastures.
It might not hurt the big tech companies with offices outside of the US, but I reckon those senators thought of that, didn’t they?

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media

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

October 27, 2020 · 19:28

Freedom to insult

That is the stage that we see reopen an hour ago on Reuters. The article ‘Saudi Arabia condemns cartoons offending Prophet Mohammad’ (at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-security-boycott-saudi/saudi-arabia-condemns-cartoons-offending-prophet-mohammad-idUSKBN27C0FE), which pretty much repeats my view given in ‘Creation of doubt’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/10/18/creation-of-doubt/) almost 10 days ago. Even as the BBC gives us ‘France targets radical Islam amid row with Turkey’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54692802), the larger issue is avoided by almost all. In a stage where we see ‘freedom of expression’ versus ‘disrespecting religion’ how can this ever be right? We see it in Hedbo in their view of christian values and in this there is no real setting, there is no doctrine against an image of Jesus, or an image of cardinals or the pope. Yet there is a clear directive on images of the prophet Mohammed, and Islam is quite outspoken of that part and that is ignored again and again.

The Reuters article gives us “Freedom of expression and culture should be a beacon of respect, tolerance and peace that rejects practices and acts which generate hatred, violence and extremism and are contrary to coexistence”, yet we see a lack thereof by the teacher Samuel Paty, in this I believe that the action against him were wrong, yet I wonder what drove a teacher to intentionally insult Islam, yet the media is driving around that question, driving around it by well over a mile. In this the BBC gives us “The government believes the response cannot only be about law enforcement. They also need to manage social networks and associations, because this tragic case shed light on a whole network which spreads hate speeches within the population. The system needs changing”, an interesting quote, yet if we look at ‘a whole network which spreads hate speeches within the population’, yet that applies to a schoolteacher as well as the person who beheaded that teacher, and that part is largely missing. And by the time we get to “Marine Le Pen has also cast the peaceful public expression of Islam as a threat to French national identity”, in this it is not about “peaceful public expression of Islam”, it is the intentional disrespect of Islam that is the larger part here, and ever as some state that this is the need of Macron to win a reelection, the stage of intentionally insulting religion has a much larger stage all over Europe, and as far as I can tell the big newscasters are all in silence there, they will skate around the subject and most of them are doing just that.

Even as the Guardian gives us yesterday ‘Macron’s clash with Islam sends jolt through France’s long debate about secularism’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/26/macrons-clash-with-islam-sends-jolt-through-frances-long-debate-about-secularism) we get a set stage, and as such we need to look at that stage.

First there is secularism, which means “indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations”, as such we need to see “rejection of religious consideration” when it is set against ‘insulting religion’. In an age of discrimination laws where some might accept “The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on Thursday that insulting Islam’s Prophet Mohammed is not covered by freedom of expression” (source: Al Arabiya), the stage is not that clear as France rejects the Blasphemy Law, as such France is in a different pickle, yet the stage of ‘insulting religion’, and until that part is dealt with, the stage remains and might actually get worse.  So whilst we all accept and see that beheading a teacher is wrong, no one is wondering why a teacher is allowed to openly insult religion, insult Islam. Even as some papers give us “some of them caricatures of the prophet Muhammad, during a history lesson about freedom of speech and freedom of conscience”, I would have had the same stage in 2015, I protested like others Je suis Charlie, yet at that point I did not know why the action was taken. I believe that the protest was valid, but the lack of validity that goes with openly insulting religion is not addressed, not by any news paper. Why is that?

Now that I know that images of the prophet Mohammed are taboo, why would a teacher repeat the same insult? If it truly was about freedom of expression, why not use the christian examples (we christians do not object to this) and refer in that same lesson that Islam has specific rules on idolisation, yet the papers and plenty of other sources steer clear of that part, I wonder why?

It is clear that there is a gap in secularism, as such we need to take heed on how we openly insult the religions around us, why do this, what is there to gain? 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

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

October 22, 2020 · 18:00

What ya gonna do?

It started two days ago, actually it started a lot earlier, but I basically had enough of the BS stage that we are given. Just to be sure, this is for the largest station not a media thing, so even as the BBC flamed my mood, the BBC is not responsible. As such before I go into ‘Google hit by landmark competition lawsuit in US over search’, I need to set the record straight according to the view I have and you might decide that I am wrong, which is perfectly fair. 

History gives us that Larry Page (aka Clever Smurf) and Sergey Brin (aka Papa Smurf) developed PageRank at Stanford University in 1996 as part of a research project about a new kind of search engine. It was not the first attempt, or perhaps ‘version’ is a better setting, there were earlier versions that go all the way back to the eigenvalue challenge by Gabriel Pinski and Francis Narin. So two bright surfs came up with the setting that big people players like Microsoft and IBM ignored for the longest time, and as such Google had the patents. The idea of link based popularity had not syphoned through because a lot of these wannabe bullet point managers basically did not understand the internet, they merely understood the options of selling concepts, yet in that age of selling concepts Google had the inside track to sell a setting that was ready and able as early as 1998. As such I have watched with my eyes desperately focussed on the heavens, asking our heavenly father to smite some of these stupid people, we now see “The charges, filed in federal court, were brought by the US Department of Justice and 11 other states. The lawsuit focuses on the billions of dollars Google pays each year to ensure its search engine is installed as the default option on browsers and devices such as mobile phones”, the same organisation that ignored Netscape and gave free reign to Microsoft is now seeing the government data lights? So when we see ‘the billions of dollars Google pays each year to ensure its search engine is installed as the default option on browsers and devices such as mobile phones’, all whilst it truthfully should say ‘Google installs its search engine on its mobile operating system Android, an alternative to the largely unaffordable iOS iPhones’, consider that the three generations of mobiles I have bought containing Android in times when the Apple alternative was close to 250% more expensive each and every time. The last time around the iPhone was $1999, whilst my Android phone (with almost the same storage) was $499, I will let you work out the setting. So when I see “Officials said those deals have helped secure Google’s place as the “gatekeeper” to the internet, allowing it to own or control the distribution channels for about 80% of search queries in the US”, I merely see (with my focal points partially towards the history of things) “Google was active and affordable in an age when Apple was not, Apple was unaffordable as they set themselves up as the larger elite provider, Android had affordable models by Motorola, Huawei, Google Nexus, Google Pixar, Oppo, HTC, Samsung, Oneplus. A setting that was open and affordable. And the officials that are raving on ‘allowing it to own or control the distribution channels for about 80% of search queries in the US’, these (as I personally see it) so called idiots, optionally way too deep in funky mushrooms are ignorant of the stage that Google catered to the user, Apple (the alternative) catered to its own bottom dollar way too often. In that same trend we need to see that “Apple’s iOS operating system has a share of 50 percent of the mobile operating system market in the United States”, so how come that Google has 80%? They thought things through, the BI management idiots with their bullet point presentations never thought things through. I have at least two examples that predate Facebook and well over half a dozen examples of 5G IP that is beyond the comprehension of mot of them (with the exception of Google and Huawei), these two UNDERSTAND systems, the others merely use and use to their nature towards limited comprehension, or at least that is how I see it. And in this ZDNet was a happy supplier in January of ‘Microsoft is about to force Bing onto Office 365 Plus users. But does even Bing think it’s better than Google?’, which is a nice setting, because I can ask bing on my Android, yet it seems that Microsoft forces Bing on its system, but it allegedly seems that they get way with that. The article has a few nice tidbits, but I particularly liked “Why Hasn’t Bing Improved To Become Better Than Google?”, an 2016 article by Forbes. With the article (at https://www.zdnet.com/article/is-google-better-than-bing-i-asked-google-and-bing-and-got-surprising-results/) giving us the added “and why Bing has a bit of a reputation as ‘the porn search engine’”, it seems that 18 years later bing is still sliding very much behind Google, Google had a few things better and better set. It is the final two parts that matter, the first one is “Both companies might try to offer something authoritative, but you should always use your own judgment and realise the vast limitations and algorithmic biases of all search engines. If Bing works for you, be happy. If Google does, be happy too. In both cases, though, be wary. Can you cope with the responsibility?” Yet in all this Bing never shows up in any official part does it? The second part gives the larger stage “in Bing searches, the entries under the News tab were far, far more dated than those in Google”, consider the need of us, the users, when do we accept dated information? It seems that any competitor of Google is vastly behind, even the rich bitch Microsoft. When we see that part of the equation, we need to wonder what is the play that these officials are making? What is it actually about? The BBC article also gives us “Google called the case “deeply flawed”” and that is the larger truth, the Bing setting proves that side of it, and more important, Microsoft who pushed Netscape out of the market is not being asked any questions in this regard, or is used to show the inferiority of what they have countering the vastly superior solutions by Google. As such, when we see “Politicians in Congress have also called for action against Google and fellow tech firms Amazon, Facebook and Apple in an effort that has united Democrats and Republicans”, no one seems to be wondering what Russia and China have on the market, because the advantage Google has now could become the stage of a fight against whatever Russia and China offer, in this data is the catalyst in these systems and before anyone starts trivialising that, consider that TikTok is Chinese, when we consider that over 2 billion people have downloaded it and it nw has a value between 110 and 180 billion, in a stage that only had Google before (YouTube), yet even in that setting the larger US tech giants set on their hands and they never came up with it, a Chinese entrepreneur did, so what else can they come up with? In a stage with non comprehending officials on just how cut throat this market is, they are weighting down on the tech giants all whilst Chinese innovators are going to town. And none of them have my IP yet. Another stage they ALL overlooked. What else do you think they will miss, because I do not think of everything (I just cannot be bothered thinking of everything), so what else is not seen? 

Consider that when you look at these so called ‘lets kick the tech-giants’ because at this speed the US will only have these four tech-giants left, the rest is most likely Indian or Chinese, the hungry tend to be innovative and in America these so called innovators haven’t been hungry for the longest time, so their track record wanes more and more. That is partially seen with ‘Quibli is the Anti-TikTok’ (at https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/09/quibi-vs-tiktok). Here we see the article from April where we are given “Rather than iterating toward product-market fit, it spent a fortune developing its slick app and buying fancy content in secret so it could launch with a bang.Yet Quibi’s bold business strategy is muted by a misguided allegiance to the golden age of television before the internet permeated every entertainment medium. It’s unsharable, prescriptive, sluggish, cumbersome and unfriendly. Quibi’s unwillingness to borrow anything from social networks makes the app feel cold and isolated, like watching reality shows in the vacuum of space”, with that consider that Quibli was founded 2 years AFTER TikTok, as such the stage for a better product was there to a much larger extent, and as Tech Crunch states “It takes either audacious self-confidence or reckless hubris to build a completely asocial video app in 2020”, and when we consider the fact that TikTok was created earlier by 2 years, the lack of innovation in Quibli is easily seen and as such after 6 months it shut down. These officials need to wake up and smell the coffee, the race is on and even as scare tactics towards anti-China might work to some degree in the US, the EU with 700 million consumers have little faith in US Hubris and that is where the stage changes, especially now with data laws in place. If Chinese and Indian innovators get the name and therefor the people and consumers, the marketshare of US companies will collapse more and more, as I see it 2022-2025 will not be a pretty picture for the US, the 5G backlog is starting to show and it will show more and more soon enough. 

As I see it, Google has two wars to fight, one with its own political administration, one with the true innovators out there. The second war they can win as they have true innovators themselves, but the one with the US political administration is a larger issue, because that war will also hinder the second war, which would be a bad situation for Google to be in.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Politics, Science

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

October 11, 2020 · 22:45

Pleasing the minority

There is a stage we all face, at times we have to please the minority, I have nothing against that. There is a first need to do this at times, and it is also a stage where we see that ONLY pleasing the majority tends to set an empty example. Let’s set the stage by asking 5 questions, in 5 cases 80% says yes, 20% says no, now consider that the questions are related somehow and the ‘no’s’ never overlap. So there is optionally a state here an unanswered question exist where 100% would say yes, but now it is never asked. It is an extreme setting, but they do exist, and the stage is that if we please the minority at times, we have a stage where there is a diminished need to polarise. Now, this last part is speculative from my side, but it is one that exists to some degree.

Yet it is not about some theoretical side, it is a real side and we have been exposed to the largest stage of it. A global economy in shambles as we gave in to lockdown after lockdown, which is fine (to some degree), I understand and accept that actions were needed. 

Yet in all this, consider that we are in a stage where we are trying to please a group of people that amounts to 2.7% of the people who will not survive the Coronavirus. Now I am all about reducing risk and the setting is not the 2.7%, but the expected 4.3%, which we need to name the stage of expected and actual morality rate. No matter how we turn it, the 95% is trying to please the less than 5% of the population who will not survive the event. 

I understand the face masks, and certain preventive measures like social distancing, we want to do as much as we can, but that stage is not always possible, the lockdowns show that. And in all this we are trying to fictively please a minority to continue all this, consider that we told the news that we are locking down nations because of a flu, how would that have ended?

Now consider the headlines ‘Second national lockdown possible, says top UK scientist’, ‘India’s coronavirus outbreak in 200 seconds’, and ‘Israel’s second lockdown slowing outbreak, data suggest’. We can jump any way we want, but until there is an actual vaccine that works, slowing down is as good as it gets and the stage of lockdowns only results in a stage that destroys global economies and nothing more than that. Even as the BBC gives us ‘A visual guide to the economic impact’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51706225) we see the larger impact. Yes there was always going to be an unemployment issue, but the economy was already weak, this merely pushed it over the edge. Yes, we see ‘More people seeking work’, and a weak economy was in part to blame, the lockdowns merely intensified it. And as we seek other reasons, no one is looking at the part the we ignored, when the lockdown started, we were left at home with nothing to do and the shops were closed too, result, millions of people turned to Amazon, which gave Jeff Bezos a $12,000,000,000 sandwich, and I reckon that it tasted good. Now, none of this is the fault of Jeff Bezos, lets be clear about the, global economies overreacted and we got into a stage where Amazon is one of the few beneficiaries clearly having a profitable stage. I agree that governments had to do something, so there is nothin to state against a first lockdown, but as we now see in the UK, and France as the headlines of France24 give us ‘French coronavirus cases set new 24-hour record with nearly 27,000 infections’, lockdowns are not a solution, we merely need an actual working vaccine and until that happens, people will die, optionally me as well. Am I happy if I do not make it, of course not, but if I die I get to avoid my next tax-bill, is this the silver lining, or the dark close the follows the current silver lining? I actually do not know. 

But we are in a stage where we see politicians act the same solution again and again and expect a different outcome, and before you wonder, yet I am coming with an Einstein setting. He stated “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”, and when will we catch on that this is not working? Even as we see ‘Supermarkets, chemist and Bunnings among alert venues after NSW records five new COVID-19 cases’ (source: 9News), consider that New South Wales has 8.2 million people, most of them in Sydney (5.3M), on 801,150 km², outside of Sydney 3 million people are in a stage of being hindered life on all matters. Of course Australia is an example that is a bit of an outlier, yet I feel that France, Germany and the UK have similar stages outside of the big cities. Consider the overreaction of 5 new cases on a place that is larger than 35 nations in the world.

These places and others too have a stage where politicians and scientists are setting a stage that is not a wrong one, but it caters to the minority. I get it, they want to safe as many people as they can, but now the economy is setting a stage of a much larger time of hardship, I reckon that Amazon is pleased of whatever comes next, they are still roaring, and consider that a new lockdown gives us a stage of two new console and several new games and only Amazon will be able to hand over the goods to people in houses staying away from the debatable diseased areas. This is NOT about Amazon, they did nothing wrong, we need to find another solution, something that results in not getting the Einstein insanity definition thrown into our faces. I get the first lockdown action, it made sense, but now that we see that it is not working and when we see that the White House population was a massive spreader of the virus, we need to wake up and consider that for the coming year we will place ourselves in danger, we cannot solve the setting until there is a cure, until there is a vaccine. We can merely protect ourselves as best we can, we can all wear the facemark, we can prosecute the infected who did not for negligent endangerment, and get indicted for a lot more if it results in a fatality. We  might think that all lives are to be saved, but what happens when the economy dies? Was the economy not worth saving? I am not sure about that part of the equation, I do not know if it is worth saving, and perhaps neither are the people. I cannot profess to be wise enough to make that judgement, yet I believe the inaction is a mortal sin, and so is feigned inaction, by doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results, different outcomes. 

Consider what you have done in the last 6 months and see what you gained and what you lost. Close to 99% of the people had a significant loss, so why do we cater to the minority in all this?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics, Science

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

September 29, 2020 · 20:42

Using the limelight

It all started a few days ago and for the most I kept you all informed. The latest news was in my possession for well over an hour. I waited because I wanted to see how the others were reacting. And I was not disappointed, they did exactly what I expected, basically, they did nothing.

It all started with ‘Saudi Arabia says it took down ‘terrorist cell’ trained by Iran’ (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/9/29/saudi-arabia-says-it-took-down-terrorist-cell-trained-by-iran), so should we say it is real or not? It is a fair question to have, yet the quote “Saudi Arabia says it has taken down a “terrorist cell” that had received training from Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, arresting 10 people and seizing weapons and explosives”, leaves me with the setting that this is factual. We are also given “Among the items seized were improvised explosive devices (IEDs), dozens of stun guns, kilos of gunpowder and a variety of rifles and pistols, according to the statement. It did not say where last week’s raid or arrests were carried out”, yet the western media has nothing. Not the BBC, not Reuters, not European news offices, and not FoxNews. It seems to me that Iran is given an option to get away with any action that is not set in America or Europe. And this is where we get the larger issue, the news is filtering what they think we need to know, as such we see a totally destabilised view of what is going on. 

This news matters because it gives strength to something else I stated, which was speculative at the time. I speculated that someone was painting the Aramco targets so that the drones would be more effective. These 10 men could have done just that. The arrest off the 10 men does not make my setting any less speculative. It does however open a larger stage, the news was avoiding a lot of what happened, eager to use ‘speculative’ and ‘alleged’, which is not unacceptable, yet it sets the stage that the western media is optionally complicit is setting a stage that is not part of what happened (like the Khashoggi disappearance). We see even the UN side with Turkey (where the most incarcerated journalists in history are), blatant statements even as there is no evidence is supporting any of it. 

So in this we have a much larger guilt, we are part of the problem, the media is filtering what is happening and no excuse makes up for that. It goes beyond the media, there is some indication that Google and the social media are part of this. Google calls them omitted results, social media merely hides the events on the timeline altering most results and chronological results, the last part is speculative, but the seems to be happening.

Why does this matter?

The UK, US and EU have been throwing the ‘terrorist’ word at us for the longest time, and we merely had to swallow it, now that there are additional indications that Iran is part of the problem we are left in the dark. The Saudi government gives us ““The competent authorities will conduct investigations with all those arrested to find out more information about their activities and the persons connected to them in the kingdom and abroad,” the statement read”, yet I wonder if the is enough, I wonder how much shielding Iran is receiving, Yemen and the Houthi actions made it clear that this was happening, now we are set in a stage where shielding is a lot larger making the media less reliable, I wonder who they are working for, because as I personally see it, it is not the advertisers. This all does not make the 10 men guilty, but it sets a stage of questions that most do not want to entertain, what is Iran actually up to?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

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

September 29, 2020 · 01:30

The A-social network

That is a stage, it is a big stage and it does not care whether you live of whether you die. So let’s take this to a new level and start with a question: ‘When did you last cause the death of a person?’ I do not care whether it is you mum, your dad, your partner, your child. When did you cause their death? Too direct? Too Bad!

You see, we think that we are innocent, some are risk programmers into debt insolvency programs, yet there it is not about the people, it is about the business that needs maximisation. We pride ourself in compartmentalisation, yet in the end the programmer is just as efficient a murderer as the sniper is. When I look through the sight of a .308 rifle, the sight allows me to go for a target 450 metres away, an optimum distance, the silencer will make is silent enough so that anyone more than 4 metres away will not hear a thing and 450 metres away, a person falls to their knees, the chest wound is damaging enough to ensure that the target will be dead on arrival, even if it happens at the entrance of a hospital, for the target it is over. You think this is bad? 

The programmer writes the formula that sets a different strain of insolvency. It is a form of credit risk, as such we get “In the first resort, the risk is that of the lender and includes lost principal and interest, disruption to cash flows, and increased collection costs”, as such the credit firms hire programmers that can stretch the case to lower the risk to the lender, set the stage where there is an increased option to pay back at much higher cost. In that same way we see programs and risk assessments being created where the facilitators are not at risk, they are not to blame and they are not to be held accountable. 

So here comes Molly Russell and the BBC gives us ‘Molly Russell social media material ‘too difficult to look at’’, it starts with “The 14-year-old killed herself in 2017 after viewing graphic images of self harm and suicide on the platform”, so what ‘platform’ was that? How much was viewed and what time frame was in play? These are the first questions that rise straight from the bat. It is followed by “A pre-inquest hearing on Friday was told not all the material had been studied yet as it was too difficult for lawyers and police to look at for long”, basically at least two years later lawyers and police are unable to view what a 14 year old did, and this does not give us the hard questions? So whilst the article (optionally unintentionally) hides behind “The inquest will look at how algorithms used by social media giants to keep users on the platform may have contributed to her death”, the basic flaw is at the very basic level. How did this stuff get uploaded, why was it not flagged and hw many viewed it, in addition towards the small setting of who was the uploading party? So someone gave a 14 year old the settings and the access to materials that most adults find unwatchable and I think there are bigger questions in play. It is the line “He added certain parts of the material had been redacted and lawyers and police were trying to find out why”, as I personally see it, redaction happens when you need to hide issues and this becomes an increased issue with “the investigation was seeking the cooperation of Snapchat, WhatsApp, Pinterest, Facebook and Twitter, although until recently only Pinterest had co-operated fully”, as well as “Snapchat could not disclose data without an order from a US court, WhatsApp had deleted Molly’s account and Twitter was reluctant to handover material due to European data protection laws, the hearing was told”, On a personal footnote, Twitter has been on a slippery slope for some time, and the deletion by WhatsApp is one that is cause for additional questions. As I see it, these tech giants will work together to maximise profit, but in this, is the death of a person the danger that they cannot face, or will not face in light of the business setting of profit? Even as I am willing to accept the view of “Coroner Andrew Walker said “some or all” of those social media companies could be named as interested parties in the inquest as they would be “best placed” to give technical information for the case”, are they best placed or are we seeing with this case the setting where Social media is now the clear and present danger to the people for the case of extended profits into the largest margin available?

That is a direction you did not see, is it?

We have never seen social media as a clear and present danger, but in case of Molly Russell that might be exactly what we face and there is every indication that she is not the only case and it is possible that the redactions would optionally show that.

Yet in all this, the origin of the materials and how they were passed through social media remains a much larger issue. I wonder how much the inquest will consider that part. You see, for me, I do not care. I am sorry, the picture of the girl in the BBC article is lovely, she is pretty, but I do not care. It is cold, yet that is what it is. In Yemen well over 100,000 are dead and the world does not seem to care, as such, I need not care about one girl, but the setting, the setting I do care about. It is not for the one case, under 5G when the bulk of the people will get drowned in information and all kinds of movies, one girl will end up being between 8 and 20 people. The setting is larger, 5G will make it so ad if you doubt that, feel free to wait and watch the corpses go by.

Suddenly sniping seems such a humanitarian way to pass the time, does it not? 

We need to consider that one process influences another, as such the process is important, just like the processes risk assessors write to lower risk, the stage of what goes one way, also has the ability to go the other way. This translates into ‘What would keep Molly Russell with us?’ Now implies a very different thing, it sets the stage of a lot more. It is not merely who messaged Molly Russell, it becomes what else was send to Molly Russell on WhatsApp, so suddenly the deletion of her account does not seem that innocent, does it? It goes from bad to worse when you consider on how social media links and how links and usage is transferred. Like footprints the links go form one to the other and no one has a clue? It is in my personal view more likely that they all have a clue and for the most it is extremely profitable, Molly Russell is merely a casual situation of circumstance, so under 5G when it is not 1, but up to 20 times the victims, what will happen then?

I will let you consider that small fact, the setting where your children become the casualty of margins of profit, until death deletes the account, have a great day!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,