Tag Archives: Blockchain

Waking up 5 years late

I have had something like this, I swear it’s true. It was after I came back from the Middle East, I was more of a ‘party person’ in those days and I would party all weekend non-stop. It would start on Friday evening and I would get home Sunday afternoon. So one weekend, I had gone through the nightclub, day club, bars and Shoarma pit stops after which I went home. I went to bed and I get woken up by the telephone. It is my boss, asking me whether I would be coming to work that day. I noticed it was 09:30, I had overslept. I apologised and rushed to the office. I told him I was sorry that I had overslept and I did not expect too much nose as it was the first time that I had overslept. So the follow up question became “and where were you yesterday?” My puzzled look from my eyes told him something was wrong. It was Tuesday! I had actually slept from Sunday afternoon until Tuesday morning. It would be the weirdest week in a lifetime. I had lost an entire day and I had no idea how I lost a day. I still think back to that moment every now and then, the sensation of the perception of a week being different, I never got over it, now 31 years ago, and it still gets to me every now and then.

A similar sensation is optionally hitting Christine Lagarde I reckon, although if she is still hitting the party scene, my initial response will be “You go girl!

You see with “Market power wielded by US tech giants concerns IMF chief” (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/19/market-power-wielded-by-us-tech-giants-concerns-imf-chief-christine-lagarde) we see the issues on a very different level. So even as we all accept “Christine Lagarde, has expressed concern about the market power wielded by the US technology giants and called for more competition to protect economies and individuals”, we see not the message, but the exclusion. So as we consider “Pressure has been building in the US for antitrust laws to be used to break up some of the biggest companies, with Google, Facebook and Amazon all targeted by critics“, I see a very different landscape. You see as we see Microsoft, IBM and Apple missing in that group, it is my personal consideration that this is about something else. You see Microsoft, IBM and Apple have one thing in common. They are Patent Powerhouses and no one messes with those. This is about power consolidation and the fact that Christine Lagarde is speaking out in such a way is an absolute hypocrite setting for the IMF to have.

You see, to get that you need to be aware of two elements. The first is the American economy. Now in my personal (highly opposed) vision, the US has been bankrupt; it has been for some time and just like the entire Moody debacle in 2008. People might have seen in in ‘the Big Short‘, a movie that showed part of it and whilst the Guardian reported ““Moody’s failed to adhere to its own credit-rating standards and fell short on its pledge of transparency in the run-up to the ‘great recession’,” principal deputy associate attorney general Bill Baer said in the statement“, it is merely one version of betrayal to the people of the US by giving protection to special people in excess of billions and they merely had to pay a $864m penalty. I am certain that those billionaires have split that penalty amongst them. So, as I stated, the US should be seen as bankrupt. It is not the only part in this. The Sydney Morning Herald (at https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/how-trump-s-hair-raising-level-of-debt-could-bring-us-all-crashing-down-20180420-p4zank.html) gives us “Twin reports by the International Monetary Fund sketch a chain reaction of dangerous consequences for world finance. The policy – if you can call it that – puts the US on an untenable debt trajectory. It smacks of Latin American caudillo populism, a Peronist contagion that threatens to destroy the moral foundations of the Great Republic. The IMF’s Fiscal Monitor estimates that the US budget deficit will spike to 5.3 per cent of GDP this year and 5.9 per cent in 2019. This is happening at a stage of the economic cycle when swelling tax revenues should be reducing net borrowing to zero“. I am actually decently certain that this will happen. Now we need to look back to my earlier statement.

You see, if the US borrowing power is nullified, the US is left without any options, unless (you saw that coming didn’t you). The underwriting power of debt becomes patent power. Patents have been set to IP support. I attended a few of those events (being a Master of Intellectual Property Law) and even as my heart is in Trademarks, I do have a fine appreciation of Patents. In this the econometrics of the world are seeing the national values and the value of any GDP supported by the economic value of patents.

In this, in 2016 we got “Innovation and creative endeavors are indispensable elements that drive economic growth and sustain the competitive edge of the U.S. economy. The last century recorded unprecedented improvements in the health, economic well-being, and overall quality of life for the entire U.S. population. As the world leader in innovation, U.S. companies have relied on intellectual property (IP) as one of the leading tools with which such advances were promoted and realized. Patents, trademarks, and copyrights are the principal means for establishing ownership rights to the creations, inventions, and brands that can be used to generate tangible economic benefits to their owner“, as such the cookie has crumbled into where the value is set (see attached), one of the key findings is “IP-intensive industries continue to be a major, integral and growing part of the U.S. economy“, as such we see the tech giants that I mentioned as missing and not being mentioned by Christine Lagarde. It is merely one setting and there are optionally a lot more, but in light of certain elements I believe that patents are a driving force and those three have a bundle, Apple has so many that it can use those patents too buy several European nations. IBM with their (what I personally believe to be) an overvalued Watson, we have seen the entire mess moving forward, presenting itself and pushing ‘boundaries’ as we are set into a stage of ‘look what’s coming’! It is all about research, MIT and Think 2018. It is almost like Think 2018 is about the point of concept, the moment of awareness and the professional use of AI. In that IBM, in its own blog accidently gave away the goods as I see it with: “As we get closer to Think, we’re looking forward to unveiling more sessions, speakers and demos“, I think they are close, they are getting to certain levels, but they are not there yet. In my personal view they need to keep the momentum going, even if they need to throw in three more high exposed events, free plane tickets and all kinds of swag to flim flam the audience. I think that they are prepping for the events that will not be complete in an alpha stage until 2020. Yet that momentum is growing, and it needs to remain growing. Two quotes give us that essential ‘need’.

  1. The US Army signed a 33-month, $135 million contract with IBM for cloud services including Watson IoT, predictive analytics and AI for better visibility into equipment readiness.
  2. In 2017, IBM inventors received more than 1,900 patents for new cloud technologies to help solve critical business challenges.

The second is the money shot. An early estimate is outside of the realm of most, you see the IP Watchdog gave us: “IBM Inventors received a record 9043 US patents in 2017, patenting in such areas as AI, Cloud, Blockchain, Cybersecurity and Quantum Computing technology“, the low estimate is a value of $11.8 trillion dollars. That is what IBM is sitting on. That is the power of just ONE tech giant, and how come that Christine Lagarde missed out on mentioning IBM? I’ll let you decide, or perhaps it was Larry Elliott from the Guardian who missed out? I doubt it, because Larry Elliott is many things, stupid ain’t one. I might not agree with him, or at times with his point of view, but he is the clever one and his views are valid ones.

So in all this we see that there is a push, but is it the one the IMF is giving or is there another play? The fact that banks have a much larger influence in what happens is not mentioned, yet that is not the play and I accept that, it is not what is at stake. There is a push on many levels and even as we agree that some tech giants have a larger piece of the cake (Facebook, Google and Amazon), a lot could have been prevented by proper corporate taxation, but that gets to most of the EU and the American Donald Duck, or was that Trump are all about not walking that road? The fact that Christine has failed (one amongst many) to introduce proper tax accountability on tech giants is a much larger issue and it is not all on her plate in all honesty, so there are a few issues with all this and the supporting views on all this is not given with “Lagarde expressed concern at the growing threat of a trade war between the US and China, saying that protectionism posed a threat to the upswing in the global economy and to an international system that had served countries well“, it is seen in several fields, one field, was given by The Hill, in an opinion piece. The information is accurate it is merely important to see that it has the views of the writer (just like any blog).

So with “Last December, the United States and 76 other WTO members agreed at the Buenos Aires WTO Ministerial to start exploring WTO negotiations on trade-related aspects of e-commerce. Those WTO members are now beginning their work by identifying the objectives of such an agreement. The U.S. paper is an important contribution because it comprehensively addresses the digital trade barriers faced by many companies“, which now underlines “A recent United States paper submitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO) is a notable step toward establishing rules to remove digital trade barriers. The paper is significant for identifying the objectives of an international agreement on digital trade“. This now directly gives rise to “the American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law also requested that the new NAFTA require increased protections in trade secrets, trademarks, copyrights, and patents“, which we get from ‘Ambassador Lighthizer Urged to Include Intellectual Property Protections in New NAFTA‘ (at https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ambassador-lighthizer-urged-to-include-52674/) less than 10 hours ago. So when we link that to the quote “The proposals included: that Canada and Mexico establish criminal penalties for trade secrets violations similar to those in the U.S. Economic Espionage Act, an agreement that Mexico eliminate its requirement that trademarks be visible, a prohibition on the lowering of minimum standards of patent protection“. So when we now look back towards the statement of Christine Lagarde and her exclusion of IBM, Microsoft and Apple, how is she not directly being a protectionist of some tech giants?

I think that the IMF is also feeling the waters what happens when the US economy takes a dip, because at the current debt levels that impact is a hell of a lot more intense and the games like Moody’s have been played and cannot be played again. Getting caught on that level means that the US would have to be removed from several world economic executive decisions, not a place anyone in Wall Street is willing to accept, so that that point Pandora’s Box gets opened and no one will be able to close it at that point. So after waking up 5 years late we see that the plays have been again and again about keeping the status quo and as such the digital rights is the one card left to play, which gives the three tech giants an amount of power they have never had before, so as everyone’s favourite slapping donkey (Facebook) is mentioned next to a few others, it is the issue of those not mentioned that will be having the cake and quality venison that we all desire. In this we are in a dangerous place, even more the small developers who come up with the interesting IP’s they envisioned. As their value becomes overstated from day one, they will be pushed to sell their IP way too early, more important, that point comes before their value comes to fruition and as such those tech giants (Apple, IBM, and Microsoft) will get an even more overbearing value. Let’s be clear they are not alone, the larger players like Samsung, Canon, Qualcomm, LG Electronics, Sony and Fujitsu are also on that list. The list of top players has around 300 members, including 6 universities (all American). So that part of the entire economy is massively in American hands and we see no clear second place, not for a long time. Even as the singled out tech giants are on that list, it is the value that they have that sets them a little more apart. Perhaps when you consider having a go at three of them, whilst one is already under heavy emotional scrutiny is perhaps a small price to pay.

How nice for them to wake up, I merely lost one day once, they have been playing the sleeping game for years and we will get that invoice at the expense of the futures we were not allowed to have, if you wonder how weird that statement is, then take a look at the current retirees, the devaluation they face, the amount they are still about to lose and wonder what you will be left with when you consider that the social jar will be empty long before you retire. The one part we hoped to have at the very least is the one we will never have because governments decided that budgeting was just too hard a task, so they preferred to squander it all away. The gap of those who have and those who have not will become a lot wider over the next 5 years, so those who retire before 2028 will see hardships they never bargained for. So how exactly are you served with addressing “‘too much concentration in hands of the few’ does not help economy“, they aren’t and you weren’t. It is merely the setting for what comes next, because in all this it was never about that. It is the first fear of America that counts. With ‘US ponders how it can stem China’s technology march‘ (at http://www.afr.com/news/world/us-ponders-how-it-can-stem-chinas-technology-march-20180418-h0yyaw), we start seeing that shift, so as we see “The New York Times reported on April 7 that “at the heart” of the trade dispute is a contest over which country plays “a leading role in high-tech industries”. The Wall Street Journal reported on April 12 that the US was preparing rules to block Chinese technology investment in the US, while continuing to negotiate over trade penalties“, we see the shifted theatre of trade war. It will be about the national economic value with the weight of patents smack in the middle. In that regard, the more you depreciate other parts, the more important the value of patents becomes. It is not a simple or easy picture, but we will see loads of econometrics giving their view on all that within the next 2-3 weeks.

Have a great weekend and please do not bother to wake up, it seems that Christine Lagarde didn’t bother waking up for years.

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Apples, Pears or Fruit?

I got mesmerised not by the news, but by an article (at https://www.inc.com/heather-r-huhman/how-to-recruit-top-talent-3-trends-youll-need-to-know-for-2018.html) giving me ‘Big Changes Are Coming to Talent Acquisition in 2018. Here’s What You Need to Know‘, you see, there is nothing wrong with the article, it is sound and it makes a lot of sense. Two things jumped out. The first was actually the second issue “Know your ABCs: AI, blockchain, and chatbots“. It took me back to the 80’s where aspiring new IT Turks had their little vocabulary of things you need to know and mention. So that ABC would be a decent testing soon enough. It is a decent approach, yet soon after the thought was given we will be finding the highly desired ‘almanac of answers‘ soon enough and without technical representation at such an interview, the HR director could end up feeling slightly too lonely for that interview.

It was the first issue that was a larger concern. Perhaps concern is the wrong word. The need to contemplate the mention ‘Focus on adaptability‘, you see that train requires more thought and depending on your point of view, you feel right, wrong or decently confused. I always focussed on flexibility, they are NOT the same. Here the dictionary was of some assistance. As an example it gave me “rats are highly adaptable to change“, so do you want a firm full of rats? They tend to jump ship when things get dicey or too challenging. It was not the example I wanted to use, but I will happily adapt my flexibility accordingly. There is a second part; the option ‘capable of bending easily without breaking‘ is much better, but here I do not completely agree with the adaptation of ‘easily‘. I believe that a flexible workforce gives strength, at times adaptable applies in the same way, but there are differences. When you are flexible you can always resort to your earlier ‘shape’, and flexibility is presumed to be immediate. When you adapt to the new environment you change your shape, so we can argue that you become a new person, instead of merely a more versatile one. This is an equally wrong view as there is no given that an adaptable person cannot adapt back to his earlier self, in the application of flexible versus adaptable it is merely implied.

Another source gave me: “Adaptability and Flexibility, “Indecision is the key to flexibility!” The world of work is changing at an ever increasing pace so employers actively seek out graduates who can adapt to changing circumstances and environments, and embrace new ideas, who are enterprising, resourceful and adaptable“, here I disagree. You see, the flexible workforce has its own set of decisions to make, but they tend to have an everlasting changing atmosphere in where to score their Key Performance Indicators. This has been nearly forever the situation in customer service and customer care positions. That is from a software point of view. I will agree that such changes would be much less likely in the banking sector and that conservative placement is actually changing rapidly nowadays. From my point of view in these places would fare better with a flexible person than an adaptable one. If only from the presumption that adaption takes time and flexibility does not.

In all this there it is not same academic debate and in many cases it is basically the same from any point of view. Yet another voice gave the example that one person is talking about oranges, the other one about pears and they all agree that the fruit is peachy. It sounds nice but once we see that certain steps are linked to KPI values, the discussion could impact someone’s career to a larger degree and that is definitely a larger problem for all involved.

In another example we see: “that focuses on a child’s ability to adapt to new situations, improvise, and shift strategies to meet different types of challenges“, it is a view I very much agree with, yet here too there is caution, because flexibility is also set to parameters. It is more clearly shown when we add: “Video games can help improve Flexibility by allowing kids to practice their Flexibility skills while in the midst of a fun and immersive game“. Yes this is true, yet there is a hidden catch here. The hidden catch is that a game has software and hardware. In some cases a game could be played in more than one way, so set this child on a game like Minecraft on a console (PS4 or Xbox One), let the child play for two hours each day for let’s say 4 days, then on the fifth day give that child the same game on a PC or Tablet. Now you get to see the interaction of flexibility and adaptability, the flexibility to comprehend and adjust to another format seems easy enough, but the person adapting from a controller to a mouse/keyboard or a touch panel of a tablet is another matter. We need both and now the two parameters are shown more widely apart.

Yet this is not the only example and even as we can clearly see the interactions, the needs and the optional issues with flexibility and adaptability, the true test is not in a video game, it’s within ourselves, just like with any other new technology, the flexibility to allow adaptation and the adaptability we have to grow as we engage with new and evolved systems, as well as our environment as it changes as well. Blockchain technology is probably the best and clearest example for all involved parties. Parties on several levels are seeing its usefulness and as Mobile G5 is starting to arrive the list of benefits will increase, faster and larger. Moreover, as companies push in a more global way through clouds, Blockchain technology might be the only one that is least likely to hamper growth, even allow for Wild West growth. Yet this push has two opponents. The first is the marketing hype, as the ‘solution’ is oversold, more and more optional implementers will have ‘additional‘ questions and as no clear answers are given, opposition to the new technology will rise. In addition those evangelising ‘be first or become obsolete‘ players are not helping matters because this is a sales pitch that can never be proven, in fact we have seen how some who did not initially race towards the e-commerce side have not ended up dead (or last), in fact they benefitted from the mistakes and costs the early adopters had and avoided loads of hidden traps. In opposition there are those shunning Blockchain. Some seem valid (for now), much more of them are seemingly doing this in fear of loss of control. The latter is more likely to be seen in data and data management as the tools to manage, edit and audit these sources are vast and far away from today’s reality and today’s usage. Yet it does work (as far as it can be observed) and the part that stops some people is to view, depart and give the new format the go is the fear of being left behind with inconsistent data down the track (in case things fall over). Even as the sources can see how powerful this data could be, especially as data is collected for market Research, the fear shown so far seems to be overwhelming. Especially when we look at established brands and their lack of pace and space to upgrade what is into what could be. The people in Market Research merely need to look into the missed options by letting SurveyCraft be vultured, without clear evolution and system continuance, to see how a market was lost to a much larger degree than the players are willing to admit to.

And here we see part of the issue pointed out. We see this also (at https://globaljournals.org/GJMBR_Volume11/2-Impact-of-Employee-Adaptability-to-Change.pdf), in a paper called ‘Impact of Employee Adaptability to Change towards Organizational Competitive Advantage’.

On page 2 we see: “Organizations are now well equipped to switch according to the circumstances that will be sustained the operations in the long run”. When we see this in light of: “Studies by Bishop (1994) and Bartel and Lichtenburg (1987), proved that highly skilled workforce payback to organization in the shape of higher outputs and enhancing adaptability towards change”. Yet in this light ‘enhancing adaptability’ is not the same we see nowadays. Then it was in light of certain values and certain requirements that the masters of their workforce required. When the bottom line is set in light of a mere quarterly growth the short term requirements tend to have a very different impact. It was discussed in 2009 by Daniel A. Mazmanian and Michael E. Kraft in ‘Toward Sustainable Communities’. With: “Applying sustainability criteria to everyday matters of public policy, business management, and personal consumption is fraught with conceptual and moral hazards”. It requires a rare combination of long-range foresight and short- term adaptability, yet that proper usage is as I personally see it no longer ‘adaptability’ it is ‘flexibility’ through our contemplation of proper acts. Proper acts that tend to be absent of morality that the powers to be employ. Their limited care is towards their stake holders, their shareholders and their own bonus within the legal option available to them. The example of PwC in BT Italy and Tesco are merely two of several. The fact that we heard: “PwC has escaped official censure over the Tesco accounting scandal, after the UK’s accountancy watchdog closed its investigation into the auditor’s approval of the grocer’s flawed financial statements”. It is not because there is no evidence, but because it shows that under the most grey of versions of events that PwC cannot be pointed to as a culprit, the fact that no law can be proven to have been broken is central in this. We can argue whether their setting was ‘did we uphold the law’ or ‘will any of this stick to us’, are two very different statements. The flexible person will contemplate ‘did we uphold the law’ and do whatever he/she can without breaking it, which is a valid position to have. Yet the adaptable individual who will be set behind ‘will any of this stick to us’ is more questionable, yet is it wrong?

That is in my view the difference. I do admit that adaptable and flexible might be interchanged here, unless you accept that ‘Flexibility is the Thinking Skill’, when we do that the setting is no longer interchangeable. This is where I find myself now. Are we talking apples, pears or is it all fruit? I am no longer certain because the needs of Business Intelligence have changed. It is not about translating the results into ‘a story’ and presenting that. Not transferring the numbers and what they mean, but what it could be ‘seen as’, which is not the same thing. In this the bosses need adaptability.

Yet what are you adaptable or flexible?

And when you learn you were not one, you were the other, will you listen to your inner voice?

So what gives?

You see, I believe that our lives are in transit and to a larger extent our working lives are changing. There has been a push for a new kind of leadership in corporate circles. This has happened for a longer amount of time, but now we see more and more advertisements looking for people with an adaptable nature. The next example is not uncommon; it is appearing in more and more job offers. For example: “First and foremost, you will be a high calibre Business Systems Accountant with a positive, pro-active and adaptable demeanour”. What is central in all this is that the articles around us and there is an increasing focus on ‘adaptable’. This is not a fab or a hype. As I personally see it, it is the sign of the times. Every company is looking deeper and deeper into what is possible. As accountants, General management and members of boards are trying to hold onto their 20% growth they are more and more thrust into the world of Black Letter Law. UNSW had an interesting opinion piece (at https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/business-law/bias-and-%E2%80%98black-letter%E2%80%99-judge-who-dyson-heydon). You might stare at the fact that it is 2 years old, but the issue is that the change has taken 2 years for people to be more and more thrust into the reality of that cold light. With “The Howard government appointed Heydon to the High Court in 2003 following a speech that was billed as his “job application” for the upcoming vacancy. In it, he set out his vision for the ideal judge. The judge should interpret the law “according to the books” and do so “incorruptibly”.” In addition we see: “Heydon called out the antithesis of the black-letter judge: the “activist” judge. The activist judge decides cases not by reference to established legal principles, but to further “some political, moral or social programme”. The activist judge uses cases to right social wrongs in accordance with the individual judge’s worldview.

I believe it is not entirely so the case, even though the phrase is not incorrect. You see, some look at the letter of the low, some look at the spirit of the law. What was that law meant to achieve? As our vocabulary has changed certain standards, the standards have shifted on, but the law did not. An example could be seen in ‘decimate’, which now means “to destroy a large portion”, yet in the old days, when it was originally used (by them Romans), it literally meant “to kill one-in-ten”, which came from the Latin word decimates, we still use this in the form of decimal, and another example in this case is ‘divest’, which originally meant “undressing as well as depriving others of their rights or possessions”, yet not until quite recently when it became “selling off investments”. I see this as a dangerous change, you see when the laws were made there was a different meaning in some cases, and consider that Australia still has the Crimes Act 1900, such changes could be a little more perilous then others. The importance of the spirit of the law becomes more and more evident when we consider certain implications. Even as we cannot fault the direction of those who embrace the black letter law, the impact is slightly too large for comfort. Laird Kirkpatrick gave us more dangerous examples in his book ‘Black Letter Outline on Evidence’, here we see: “in 2003, the UK changed the statutory definition of hearsay, and in Regina v Chrysostomou (mark), 2010. L. 942 (Ct. App. Crim. Div. 2010), the court of appeal concluded that drug enquiries found on the defendant’s cell phone were not hearsay, apparently rejecting the earlier view.”, that is the application of black letter law. So how often will these changes benefit the proper setting of the spirit of that law as it was initially set into law? So now take this headline: ‘The UK accounting watchdog today dropped a misconduct probe into Tesco’s auditors PwC, saying there was “not a realistic prospect” wrongdoing could be proven’, why was the investigation halted? Why was proving certain matters not realistic?

I would love to speculate here. You see, I think that in the black letter of the law PwC did not break any laws and did nothing wrong. In this Tesco inflated itself for well over £250m, and got fined £129m because of it. Even as some PwC members are still looked at, I believe that to sizzle away. I believe that PwC decided to go Black Letter Law and did EXACTLY what the law told them to do, even as the spirit of the law is nowhere near those actions. This is the age of Adaptable management and the question is will this be a repeat at BT Italy? It is too early to tell, but if we believe the Financial Times, who gave us: “The fraud involved various methods of hiding and minimising operating costs at BT Italia. Some were complex, but others were as basic as moving expenses into the “capital expenditure” column normally reserved for building and acquiring assets. None of it was picked up by PwC, BT’s senior management or its audit committee, which has regularly reviewed the global services unit, which included Italy, since an earlier accounting debacle in 2008-09.” (at https://www.ft.com/content/c633d452-5c99-11e7-b553-e2df1b0c3220).  I reckon that there will be additional questions at some point. Yet the one thing that was never brought to light in case of Tesco was how matters were missed. If you pay £13M that year (including £3M for consultancy), how was there anything left that was not looked at?

If we know from TV that you never say something specific to your attorney, so you say ‘I bought a new carving knife as a present for my mother in law, is that OK?’, instead of ‘my mother in law is rather clumsy, so I got her a super sharp carving knife and I have been lacing her drinks with aspirin so she could potentially bleed to death next Sunday, am I liable if something happens?

I reckon that in the application of accountants similar issues apply. So you would say: ‘We made changes in division X to look better, can you focus there to make sure we are all up to scrap’ instead of ‘for the love of god, do not look at division Y where we inflated the whole bloody lot’. So as the accountant was not ‘aware’, they missed it. It is just a thought, but how far off am I? Consider that the meaning of Nice changed from ‘foolish’ or ‘silly’ to ‘pleasant‘, it does not matter which version I am, I feel perfectly safe with either.

Yet in the spirit of the views that I have, I am slightly damning to the black letter adaptable workload of management, they could undo a lot more than we saw and felt in 2008.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Egotistic Uselessness

Yup, the news has been out for a little while, apart from North Korean rockets flying over Japan and breaking up in three parts, we have another issue to worry the people in Europe. There are now two additional issues. The first one is shown in the Express (at http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/846776/Brexit-news-latest-EU-Michael-Barnier-UK-security-Brussels-talks-negotiations-Theresa-May), yet there it is hidden as a statement of reference. With “Many Eurosceptic have interpreted the proposals as a call to create an EU Army” we see a reference to “The Eurocrat also backed a proposal from the European Commission to gradually combine EU national defences by 2025“, so the largest expense in most national budgets now comes with an added iteration of logistics on a European level. So, how was that EVER going to be a good idea? Is it another snipe at those following Brexit that their defence would suffer if they jump this shark (or is that these sharks)? The Independent (at http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-eu-military-planning-its-own-army-a7916371.html) gives us “the European Defence Action Plan has a goal of reversing around a decade of defence spending cuts by EU states“, so the EU is now setting a course to reverse defence spending cuts, and who is going to pay for all that? Where is THAT money coming from? Because I can tell you now that the nations are getting a hefty bill for whatever comes next, whilst we see a large increase in logistical needs, the overall efficiency of these defence ‘needs‘ will not be getting any better, they will get worse. With defence at present, they tend to be free of communication issues for the most. So, in this new setting, watching a conversation between Dutch General Middendorp, French Colonel Alexis de Roffignac and Italian Naval Admiral Valter Girardelli would become interesting to say the least. I could get rich selling popcorn at that event. It is not merely the language (we hope all three are fluent in one language and some of them will hope that the common language is not German). There is an issue with standards and setting of common ground, which has always existed to some degree between army and navy. No, the issue goes beyond soft skills, the diversity of the armed forces has hardware considerations as well, beyond the hardware (or lack thereof) we see that infrastructure is also a page never properly tackled within the armed forces in any one nation, so overhauling that will be costly on several fronts, which does not merely undo the cutbacks, it forces these defence structures to switch the ways the setting were, making the changes even more expensive. This means that we get a fake growth of economy from some providers, whilst removing provisions from exiting providers, skewing economy numbers and national costs even further, which would force nations in deeper debt. It is totally opposite of what nations should be achieving. So as we see the news from the express (at http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/840804/Brexit-news-ex-Macron-defence-advisor-EU-army-Britain), with the first mention of “‘Now the Brits are gone’ Ex-Macron defence advisor predicts Brexit to pave way for EU ARMY“, which makes Francois Heisbourg nothing short of a raving ‘loon’ in my personal view, the next quote gives us “The EDA, which is a tiny agency headquartered in Brussels, is headed up by EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini and is tasked with fostering military cooperation within the bloc. It has a minuscule budget of just £28 million, which has been frozen at that level as a result of British opposition to any expansion of its operations which could lead to the creation of a euro force“, the sheer idiocy here with ‘minuscule budget‘ is at the core. So how long until (with the removal of the UK) that number would be forced towards £28 billion? The need to rise this a thousand fold, and that is merely the overhaul of European defence logistics and initial alignment of communication hardware, software, encryption and skill sets. Oh and that gives us almost immediately the need for billions more and the alignment and shortage of skills would make these defence players the direct target of cyber criminals from the ‘playful education‘ (read teenagers), the ‘academic probing‘ (read Tech-Uni students) and ‘technological entrepreneurs‘ (read organised crime). The option of keeping data and Intel safe at that point could go straight out of the window. You see, there are a few levels of issues and I reckon the moment this starts happening is about the same time when we can download and admire the new ELF encryption system which is (are rumoured) some kind of block chain encryption method (connected to the new Barracuda submarine). It is a clever way to use SmartTags as the setting for the message; making it pretty much uncrackable as well as almost uninterceptable. Because no matter how you slice it, the present settings on defence communication makes it only interesting to try and hack all of it by some governments with the funds to afford such an approach (Russia, USA, China, UK, France and India), when these European players start uniting their solutions, the entire playground becomes a much more appealing field for a lot more players and this is not about merely the intel, when the interception starts, they would start to get access of third party players and where jobs are awarded. Other players would be aware of the decision of billion dollar jobs almost before the market had a clue and that is where speculators would gain a larger advantage, the sale of that knowledge will be rewarded with high bonuses. It is an entrepreneurial heaven for those with a lower setting to the ethical button.

The weird part is that people like Francois Heisbourg should be aware of that as he is also the chairman of the foundation council of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy. This now implies that he is very aware of the need for stability and security, two elements that would actually diminish to some degree. Keeping that up beyond a certain level would require a lot more than £28 billion. Consider the smaller European players, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia and Latvia. They would be required to adhere to stringent communication rules and equipment, and that is only the communication part. When we go towards supply and the need to adhere to some European standard, the reshuffle becomes truly a nightmare. So as we are ‘lulled to sleep‘ with the fact that I am (according to some sources) overreacting, we will see politicians making new speeches (read: rewriting prognosis of requirement) around 2022-2024, stating that to grow the efficiency of European defence, new changes must be introduced and that is where the list will become a lot larger than I am showing you now. I am merely showing the small places that have had their settled way of dealing with their defence. When the list becomes complete a few players will rake in the billions, billions none of the governments have and none of these governments have certain levels of skills at present. At present they have nothing (read: very little) to fear as they are just a small fish in the data world, when the national defences align they all become a target for data acquisition, far beyond they have ever been before. It will be a game changer on several levels and at present no one has the ability to counter what attacks them. You only need to look at the Sony, who again merely a week ago got hacked again. A company where digital security is their essential bread and butter, we see: “On Sunday evening, hackers claimed to have breached PSN and stolen database information. The group, named “OurMine,” was able to overtake Sony’s official PlayStation-branded Twitter accounts to announce the alleged hack“, so in how much danger will less enabled players be? The entire system of ‘open to a certain degree‘ engineering is the spinal cord of cyber dangers, it becomes a spinal tap of information and there would be a decreasing chance of stopping it, with additional chances of merely endangering its own systems, making the concept of a ‘Spinal Tap Hack‘ a lot more realistic in describing the danger it represents.

There is one upside, when it all collapses, these governments might make a deal with Alphabet to arrange for Google Cyber Security on all European nations (speculative sense of humour in action). So not only could we all have the same security, it might for once, for a short time all remain secure. Did I oversimplify the problem here?

Consider that part. What data has been secure so far and why was it secure?

Now consider what supplies have ever been safe? When we consider that in Portugal merely two months ago we see “Defence officials in Portugal say they are compiling a list of weapons and ammunition stolen from the national armoury in a brazen daytime raid“, so consider that Portugal has its own procedures, which implies to some degree that the perpetrators would have gotten some inside information, now consider that the EU nations will comply with certain procedures. How long until this stops being an isolated case and becomes a little more common place? You see, when we see “Defense Minister Azeredo Lopes described the robbery Wednesday at Tancos Air Base, 100 kilometres (60 miles) north of Lisbon, as a “very professional” job and a “serious” breach of security“, so when we consider the truth of it (and I accept it to be true), what information would these professionals have been given? There needed to have been some leak, because you usually cannot just enter an airbase and go snooping until you get lucky. The issue would escalate when certain security procedures become harder as there will be more compliance to certain standards. Of course there is still security, but as intelligence on certain matters become more ‘readily’ available, security becomes much harder and more essential, so any hole in any ‘fence’ would result in loss of goods. Now, when it is cabbages no one cares too much, yet when it becomes stingers, grenades, ammunition and weapons, will people stay indifferent?

There are the two largest issues and the fact that the ‘blasé‘ response from Francois Heisbourg with ‘Now the Brits are gone‘ is largely beyond short-sighted. A politician with Euro signs instead of pupils is the most dangerous greed driven threat to security that any nation could face. I hope that the EU-army players in this upcoming game wake up before it is too late and too much is spend on something that is as I personally see as largely counterproductive for any nations defence. That is merely my personal view and the current situation makes me regard the European Union as a collective of Egotistic Uselessness.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Military, Politics, Science

Mayoral income £73,000,000

Yes, it is a grand day. A I see it, an optional first sign to some real life justice. As it is, some might remember some time ago, a holiday photo with three obese losers looking like they owned the world, with mention of sex parties (always a first to notice), cruises all due to high consultancy fees. They did not get away with it and now, one of its victims is claiming that large amount from the Lloyds Banking Group, more specifically due to the actions of its HBOS Reading arm. The victim here is the now former Mayor of Crinkley Bottom, the honourable Noel Edmonds. The only person who could be the look alike of Richard Branson, even more so when he wins his case as he will end up being in the same income and tax bracket.

The man who perfected the big pork pie, a meal that was designed by Sweeney Todd using politicians. In all this, we see the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/10/noel-edmonds-compensation-hbos-fraud-lloyds) give us the goods in all this. A 10 year wait that ended up lowering our former mayor in a lifestyle that most people dread to get into. Lost speaking options, the dissolvent of the Unique Group, pain, suffering, additional damages and legal fees. Yes, it must be a real win for the HR of Lloyds to see what the consequence is of hiring people like Lynden Scourfield, whilst applicants like myself were not seen as dynamic and assertive enough. That might be true, but as Lloyds is now having to post close to 200 million pounds because some people had a quarter of a billion lifestyle over several years, that part must feel really good for the HR that signed them into that lovely life style. To be quite honest, I hope Mr Edmonds will end u with way more than that as a message to the Lloyds banking group to clean house and have a strong and hard look at their hiring policies. If only to avoid giving away 60%+ to litigation and payments for really bad form of banking and investment, which with the upcoming US Financial Choice Act will be even more important, because as the victims there might not have a case in the US, any UK or EU bank involved will suddenly see a growing list of claimants on claims that they were connected to, but never instigated. I hope that they remember that in Torts, the claims end up on the desk with the party that is the richest. It might not be fair, but that is the rule of thumb in torts. I especially like the quote: “A sex worker told the court that Scourfield resembled the actor Danny DeVito”, which seems to be fair as they both played with ‘Other people’s money’, however M DeVito played a role and he did so brilliantly (some might go weak at the knees hoping that he got the girl in the movie, the lovely Penelope Ann Miller), yet in all this he played an honest game of setting the stage of profit. In real life (played by the despicable Lynden Scourfield), the truth is that he willingly left people in a state of destitution without a second thought, merely to have the lifestyle he knew he wasn’t entitled to. In this case drug dealers are much higher on my list of people to have regards for. So as we get back to one of the best liked mayors in the United Kingdom. In all this when we see “Edmonds’ move comes as Horta-Osório prepares for Lloyds’ annual general meeting on Thursday, days before the government will be able to claim that the 43% shareholding bought by taxpayers to rescue the bank in 2008 has been entirely sold off”, we need to acknowledge that the timing is pretty awesome. You see, António Horta Osório, AKA, the man with the Julio Iglesias smile gets the opportunity to set in motion a massive overhaul of morally reformations that have been overdue in banks ad financial institutions for the longest of times. As the business world it trying to move faster and faster, we will see new technologies in these financial places. Having blockchains in testing phases might sound nice, yet when we consider that there are others like Lynden Scourfield, the ante is upped by a lot because the damages will move from millions to billions. Consider that this was a six-year investigation by Thames Valley Police. Consider what happens when the Blockchain issues start tumbling, a technology that is barely understood to the degree it needs to be, if such technologies are pushed in too fast, the consequence would be that the Crown Prosecution Services might not end up having a prosecutable case at all. That is the upcoming next stage and even if we want to remain in denial, under the guise of ‘the technology is not here yet’, consider that the happy victims of Tesco ATM’s where they got double the amount that was withdrawn. Now, I am really happy for those people, yet what happened if it would have been the other way around? How could a person prove that they only got 50%? By the time the tellers were corrected, whilst no one could prove anything, the CPS would not be there either, because it will be about the evidence (lack thereof), as evidence is central, getting any of it in any new tech is increasingly more complex, will take years and not always will the victim get actual justice. It is in that light that we need to look at the banks too. I am not blaming technology for any of the crimes, yet when the people get to abuse a system too often without any consequence or accountability (read: the acts of certain Wall Street people), how can we move forward with any financial system?

Hence I am happy and hopeful for the Mayor of Crinkley Bottom, yet in equal measure I hope that António Horta Osório sees this as a moment to reflect on actual changing the mindset of the bankers in his corporation and adjusts the mindset of those that his HR department appoints a position to.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Science