That happens, people Incapable of learning. IT people listening to salespeople because these sales people know what buttons to push. Board members pushing for changes so that their peer will see that they are up to speed on the inter-nest of things (no typo) and there are all other kinds of variation and pretty much every company has them. Even as Australia is still reeling from the Optus debacle, Telstra joins the stupid range (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-04/telstra-staff-have-details-hacked/101499920). So explain to me why an HR system needs to be online? OK, you will get away with that and there is a need for some to access it, but in what universe does this need to be so open that EVERYONE can get to it? That is the question we see raised with ‘Telstra data breach sees names and email addresses of staff uploaded online’, a blunder of unimaginable proportions. On the other hand, Telstra will be bleeding staff members left, right and forward pretty soon. You see, this list is well desired by over a dozen telecoms in Europe, North America, the Middle East and Asia. They all need staff all over the place and now their headhunters know EXACTLY where to dig. Even as the article gives us two parts. The first part is “a third party which was offering a rewards program for staff had the data breach in 2017” as well as “Telstra has not used the rewards program since 2017, the spokesperson said” in all this the question that matters are not asked. We get Bill Shorten trying to change the conversation back to Optus with: “get the information so I can stop hackers from hacking into government data and further compromising people’s privacy”. The massive part is “Why was a reward program not used for 5 years still linked to HR data?” It seems that ABC does not ask this and the others do not either. So even if we get “Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus has said he will review Australia’s privacy laws and tighter protections could be brought in by the end of the year” Yet the larger question remains unanswered. How to protect these systems from STUPID people? A reward system that has a direct link to the HR data and was not used for 5 years is stupid, plain and simple stupid. As such this affects their IT and their HR department. Yet the people (politicians and media are not asking these questions are they? They let Labor loser Shorten change the conversation. Oh, do not worry we are not even close to done with Optus, but the setting that the conversation is pushed away from Telstra allegedly implies that Telstra has too large a hold on Media and politicians. So whilst the media allowed Telstra to hide behind “while the data is of minimal risk to former employees” they fail to see the larger picture. In an age brain drains these people are worth their eight in Lithium (more valuable than gold) and it seems to me that an employment database of 30,000 telecom people will be eagerly mined in the three earlier mentioned regions. These hackers were smart, they can get a million easily (over 10-15 customers) and these customers will not care where that data comes from, they need personnel and they needs them now. So it seems that certain people just ill not learn and there is no hiding behind “in an attempt to profit from the Optus breach” Telstra claims to be so superior, of that is so either the hack would not have affected them, or these systems are in a worse shape than ever before and that is also missing from the article. Two competitors successfully hit by the same flaw? It seems that too many people are asleep at the wheel. And no one is asking the right questions, not even the media, why is that?
Tag Archives: Middle East
Things are afoot in the Kay es Ah (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), but to see this we need to reflect on a few items. The first one is (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-10/twitter-former-employee-convicted-of-spying-for-saudi-arabia/101318490) and gives us ‘Former Twitter employee convicted of spying for Saudi Arabia’, the simple setting is that this happens, If Jack Dorsey had played a few items over to the NSA, no one would hear if it, but when a non-American agency gets the key to the Twitter Data Kingdom, it becomes news. So when we see “Ahmad Abouammo, a US citizen and former media partnership manager for Twitter’s Middle East region, was charged in 2019 with acting as an agent of Saudi Arabia without registering with the US government.” And then someone slips, the text becomes “used their positions to access confidential Twitter data about users.” It is ‘their positions’ which is plural, so how many were caught? We get it with “This included their email addresses, phone numbers and IP addresses, the latter of which he used to identify a user’s location. A third man named in the complaint, Saudi citizen Ahmed Al-Mutairi, was alleged to have worked with the Saudi royal family as an intermediary.” So was the second man? We see that in the end when we get “The FBI still lists Ali Alzabarah and Ahmed Al-Mutairi as wanted.” Well, this is 3 years ago, so the other two are optionally celebrating their success in Riyadh. Espionage happens, it can happen where ever we see this much user data. The fact that this had gone on, and we do not see HOW LONG this had been going on should also be reflected on all this, it should see us accept the larger Elon Musk discount for data copied into other places. Transgressed data loses values and as stated “This included their email addresses, phone numbers and IP addresses, the latter of which he used to identify a user’s location.” And nowhere do we see for how long this was going on before the alleged culprit was arrested. I state alleged, because we do not know (or we are not told) what spy one did and what spy two did. The court-case might shed light on this, but he was acquitted of several points, so there.
Then it is time to add vegetables to the soup in the form of a story (at https://www.silkroadbriefing.com/news/2022/08/10/china-saudi-arabia-announce-massive-strategic-partnership-energy-agreement/) there we see ‘China, Saudi Arabia Announce Massive Strategic Partnership Energy Agreement’, it was what I said months ago, they might drill more but that does not mean it goes to the place we hope/expect/wish it will go and now we see this, a larger gain for China and the agreement between Aramco and Sinopec, which showed a fear I expected to come for almost two years, with “The two companies will join hands in renewing the vitality and scoring new progress of the Belt and Road Initiative and Saudi Vision 2030” we see a larger gain for Chinese construction and a loss for western ones. This was the setting I feared, because it means that there is no relief for western construction. The little tidbits thrown at them like scraps are the only ones they are likely to have. In a place that I about to invest well over $1,000,000,000,000 for new buildings in Neom, as well as the line, there is now a decent chance that the small hidden engineering texts will be Arabic/Chinese and not Arabic/English. A station that was always likely to happen, but now it seems it is becoming the passing of a fact.
The third ingredient in any soup is the stock and water. That is given to us through an article (at https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/saudi-egyptian-investment-co-invests-13-bln-four-egyptian-firms-2022-08-10/) by Reuters. There we see ‘Saudi Arabia invests $1.3 bln in four Egyptian firms’. It is not the amount, when you invest 0.1% in companies after you set in motion building bill, we see the appearance of dwarfism. It seems like a speck, but you would be wrong. This event will give larger rise to the final ingredient and here we see “The companies are Abu Qir Fertizilers and Chemical Industries (ABUK.CA), Misr Fertilizers Production Company (MFPC.CA), Alexandria Container and Cargo Handling (ALCN.CA), and payments firm E-Finance for Financial and Digital Investments (EFIH.CA).” And we see nothing weird here, not when you consider the larger building needs, this makes absolute sense and “Saudi Arabia has already provided billions in support since Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi came to power in 2014. The United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Kuwait this year all promised to increase their investments in Egypt” does not change that. But the water and stock are mere building blocks for the vegetables to connect to, it is the beef, the beef completes the picture. This is seen (at https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/mobily-signs-mou-with-telecom-egypt-to-build-submarine-cable-from-saudi-arabia-to-egypt/) and you might think that it does not make sense. How does ‘Mobily signs MoU with Telecom Egypt to build submarine cable from Saudi Arabia to Egypt’ imply beef? Well this started for me at least a little over three years ago, 3 years ago, before the Covid started hitting us that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had, with Neom an uncanny option to become the large (optionally largest) 5G powerhouse of the Middle East, stretching into Egypt and becoming the 5G powerhouse in the Mediterranean with larger options towards stretching into Europe. Now, I do not fear it, telecom powerhouses are often awesome, but this states that the larger players (like Vodafail) are seemingly asleep at the wheel and the KSA has nothing opposing Huawei, it is the foundation of Saudi 5G, so now the 100,000,000 Egyptians will fuel the 35,000,000 5G users all over the KSA and as Neom becomes a 5G hub for Europe, the Middle East and Asia, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia becomes the one powerhouse no one saw coming, and those who did were awfully quiet about it.
A stage that I saw coming 3 years ago is now gaining momentum and optionally they will get a lot more over the next 2-3 years. And Europe with their promises will go nowhere, as someone ones said, a promise and an empty sack are worth the empty sack and with the beef giving fragrance and texture to the soup.
I will offer you the position of the fifth element in an image, it is the soul of tastebuds and it matters, because the place and ownership of the fifth element are not a given, not even how they will become part of the equation, but they are there, not in the tall grass, but out in the open. Someone has a double role to play and I honestly do not know who, where or what they represents, but when you make soup, you can add your own ideal mix, or rely on people to grab the fifth element, and that is what I did. I added little of the spices, so the consumer of soup will add it themselves opening the field for player number five.
Yes, that is what we see, round after round of BS (very expensive BS) we are now, month after month of babbling. We are now (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/20/irans-parliament-sets-conditions-for-return-to-nuclear-deal) where we see ‘Iran’s parliament sets conditions for return to nuclear deal’, which Al Jazeera sees as “an agreement may be reached in Vienna with world powers within days”. ABC voices this (at https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/iran-lawmakers-guarantees-us-leave-revamped-deal-83012473) as ‘Israeli PM: Iran nuke deal will bring ‘more violent’ Mideast’ with the byline of “Israel’s prime minister has criticised an emerging deal over Iran’s nuclear program”, personally I do not think the the Israeli PM is wrong, we could take notice of Arab News giving us ‘Tehran eyes prison swap if Washington offers help on nuclear deal’ (at https://www.arabnews.com/node/2028401/middle-east), yet it is weirdly enough FoxNews who shows us the farce of it all with ‘Iran could supply an ‘initial 1.3 million barrels a day’ to global market if nuclear deal reached, expert says’ (at https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/oil-gas-iran-nuclear-deal). It is a joke (a bad one) and the joke will be on us soon enough, not that much on Israel where its population will start to glow in the dark quite soon. Iran desperately needs the funds for Houthi activities (also against Saudi Arabia) to appease Hezbollah and Palestinians and to complete their nuclear arsenal, so the US who needs cheap oil will provide all of the above providing they get the 1.3 million barrels a day. Is anyone else willing to comply to this charade? You see, Al Jazeera gives us “parliamentarians also asserted all sanctions imposed under “false excuses” must be lifted”, so are we that stupid? Optionally several nations are, because they think that once they give in and Israel is no longer a chess-piece on the board, they are in the delusion that they can muzzle Iran, but they merely open the doors to a much larger field of violence. Houthi and Hezbollah will see it a a sign that terrorism is the way to go and it will topple stability in the Middle East and you think I was stupid to put my idea for melting down their reactors online? It has been clear since 1979 and that was no April fools joke. We have seen issue after issue and Iran has NEVER acted responsibly towards a global world. The evidence is all over the Middle East and worse. Perhaps the Americans need a little history lesson, it was given to them by the subcommittee on counterterrorism and intelligence of the committee on homeland security house of representatives in 2011.
“the Islamic state has used terrorism as an integral part of its foreign and military policies. It provides funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups, most notably those operating in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and other Middle Eastern countries. Iranian-backed political violence has killed more than a thousand people in over 200 terror attacks, including the 1983 suicide bombing of American and French military barracks in Beirut, killing 299 people”, perhaps the US wants to return to those years to cull the population a little. Let’s face it, for them 20 million Israeli’s mean nothing but the global stage is not merely them, it is a lot more people and the setting that Iran becomes nuclear is a big global problem. The age of inaction is over and if these setting continue, the Iranian proxy war with Saudi Arabia will become very real and we are all letting this happen. The problem isn’t merely Iran, it is their lack of credibility and in such a state no one in their right mind can allow Iran becoming nuclear. It will take only the next Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to really make a mess of everything, but perhaps these layers like their oil to glow in the dark (easier to clean oil spills at night), OK if people didn’t recognise it, the previous moment is an example of feigned sarcasm. So, as we are given by ABC “That “leaves Iran with a fast track to military-grade enrichment,” Bennett told the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations. In the meantime, he said that lifting sanctions right away will deliver billions of dollars to Iran to spend on hostile proxy groups along Israel’s borders.” It is possible that this was the intent of America all along. Let’s face it. If they are broken down and bankrupt, the only way they can gain traction if the rest of the world is burning. It is not the best solution, but for them it might just work and there is the Atlantic river between the fallout and America, so they might just have a solution there (a bad one). Yes, there is a lot of speculation here, but the idea to appeasing Iran really appeals to no one, optionally Russia, but I do not think China will be happy about the Middle Eastern changes. Is it too soon for what I am saying? I honestly do not know, but the papers show a different stage, each to its own population as one might expect, but no one is setting the clear message that Iran should not allowed to become a nuclear player, they all seem to accept that near future event. Although in all fairness the Wall Street Journal gave us ‘Rushing to a Weaker Iran Deal’, a collection of idiots racing to get some ‘title’ of being able to get Iran to sign a deal is what we see and they are not realising that a toothless deal is toothless and therefor useless. In the situation we see now, at 1,300,000 barrels a day, Iran only needs to be nice for 5-10 days before resorting to its extremist side and the problems will stack up on all other sides for years to come, enough to finish their nuclear plan leaving Israel and Saudi Arabia as the piggy’s in the middle, so how will that ever be a good idea?
Perhaps it is just me, it could be. Yet consider how much people are complying to idiocy, is that the way we want to go? Is it just me? The newspapers from America, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel imply it is not. I will let you make up your own mind.
It is a thought plenty of people have and I am no exception. I was contemplating things and then I realised in light of the news I covered in the last week that educating people is always better than telling them how it is. Some people are afraid that THEIR thoughts are all, but I am not the most intelligent person on the planet. I am more intelligent than mot and my IQ is around two point short from the setting that Alan Turing had, so I have that to sulk about. But the station to educate others, to teach them where to look and what to look for remains appealing. So there I was sitting and contemplating an old master called the Balance of Power. I had bought the game on the Atari ST and I loved it. The game was a little shallow, but it was new, it had never been done before and as such it kept my attention for a long time.
Wouldn’t it be great if someone picked up that idea and turned it into something serious? No longer a mere US versus Russia, but geopolitical field that included espionage. The US, EU, Middle East (Iran or Saudi Arabia), Russia, China and Japan? Consider that we have ‘quotes’ like “Problem analysis is the process of understanding real-world problems and user’s needs and proposing solutions to meet those needs. The goal of problem analysis is to gain a better understanding of the problem being solved before developing a solution”, and there is massive support to consider. There is J. J. A. Tacq who gave us Social Science Research From Problem to Analysis (1997), there is From Secrets to Policy by Mark Lowenthal which is now in its 8th edition. Foundational materials that makes us think and consider a much larger picture. There are economic works that could help creating understanding. Even if one book gets implemented in that game it becomes a whole new beast and to get the kitty turned into a behemoth that scares every tiger in Asia work needs to be done. But the game that was meant for a 640Kb Computer now gets 10,000 times the resources and has a setting of a massive data warehouse that could enable larger prototyping than ever considered before. I see some bloggers (journalists too) working the same equation again and again, all whilst they could create something much more explanatory and insightful for all readers. Some might not care and that is OK, yet the Balance of power had appeal to a fair amount of gamers and I believe even now in a new generational setting I believe that this appeal will still be there. And the benefit of streaming implies that you can try and you can see how the pawns fall down, the rooks optionally stand up and the political board shows a lot more than you ever considered.
We seem to think that old is gone, but games and simulators were more advanced because they overcame memory obstacles, I reckon that some programs can still make us turn out heads, especially when some of these programs were created with the limitations that 1985 had and considering that my Abandonware gave the game 4.6 out of 5 gives another reason to consider what was out there. And let’s face it, what do you have to lose?
That is the setting isn’t it? We do things, we create things and we create concepts and we all think that we are in control of the right one, we all do that. I am no different, yet when I saw the BBC news, I decided to reconsider my point of view. For me it all started in 2020, I set the setting to an article called ‘The stage moves on’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/02/23/the-stage-moves-on/) I wrote it on February 23rd 2021. And when the BBC gave us ‘Netflix: First Arabic movie sparks morality row’ (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-60091590) I saw the article somewhere this afternoon, and my mind went on a trip. The concept was initially for Amazon (as I have other elements they might want) yet the article gave me “well-known TV journalist Mustafa Bakry said he had complained to the speaker of the Egyptian parliament about the filmmakers. Mr Bakry urged the country’s authorities to halt co-operation with Netflix “since this is not its first movie that targets the values and traditions of the Egyptian and Arab societies”” I see the offence it might give and I do not think that my concept does that, and other than the alleged assassination of Dutch PVV politician Geert Wilders no one got killed, and as far as I can tell, that man is not really accepted in the Netherlands either. With the housing shortage in the Netherlands, one person less, who will notice?
Anyway, the idea that my (aka western) values would collide with Middle Eastern morality and optional Middle Eastern laws did concern me. The idea was a movie that fought and opposed islamophobia was the setup and it had a nice twist at the end (as any decent movie does), I needed the setting so that people might realise that the stage in the middle east was a lot bigger than we think it is, it is not merely about morality and the dangers, it is also about some people want certain other people to hold the bag, if anything Yemen made that clear, and this idea to create something that made it clear to all was my goal in this. The idea that I create something that could be in part filmed and created in Saudi Arabia was also appealing. The rest would be filmed in the Netherlands. There was the small consideration that creating anything that appeals to a large group of 100 million Egyptians, 35 million Saudi’s and 85 millions Turks could be a success story. The idea that a decent chunk of 220,000,000 people might like my concept is off course a really nice idea, I would take any group up to 50%, only the delusional person aims for 100% covering. There would be no chance of that and that is me not considering the 275 million Indonesians, with over 85% Muslim, the numbers would become interesting to say the least.
So there I was with an idea, but it is merely one of several that could appeal to Amazon, and any chunk of half a billion people could optionally translate to a nice pay day and that is merely one of the IP’s I had up for negotiating. Yet still doubt is still a part of me. Like anyone, I relish the chance to go into early retirement and take up skiing 4 months a year, just to keep busy, yet not at the cost of inciting protest that I would be attacking another persons morality, my goal was completely the opposite. So for me the BBC article was a wake up call and a loud one. Still the ideas go through my head designing more and more IP. Should I stop? I personally do not think so, but like any other person I have flaws, I have weaknesses and I do relish the chance for success, wouldn’t you?
Yes, we all have that and I am no exclusion, ‘what is’ is the first part of a question that is dangerous. The answer that follows tends to be subjective and personal, as such it is loaded with bias, not that all bias is bad, but it defers from what actually is. This was the first stage when I saw ‘Lina Khan: The 32-year-old taking on Big Tech’. Then we get “when it comes to unfair competition, there is one sector that has been singled out by Democrats and Republicans alike: Big Tech”, this is the beginning of a discriminatory setting. There are two sides in this and let me begin that Big Tech is not innocent, so what is this about? Lets add ““What became clear is there had been a systemic trend across the US… markets had come to be controlled by a very small number of companies,” she said”, now we need to realise that there are two parts here too, in the first she is not lying and for the most, she is correct.
So why do I oppose?
The US, most of the Commonwealth and the EU all have a massive failing, they have no clue what they are doing. I have seen that side for over 30 years and it is the beginning of a larger stage. You see the big tech part needs to be split in two elements big tech and those who ‘use’ (or abuse) the elements of big tech. Big tech was more than the FAANG group (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google), in the beginning there was Microsoft, IBM and Sun as well (there were a few more players but they were gobbled up or ended up being forgotten. When we see charts of technology and market capitalisation we see Microsoft in second place, so why is Microsoft left outside of the targeting of these people? Microsoft is many things, but it was never innocent or some goody two shoes, the same can be argued for IBM, IBM have been gobbling up all kinds of corporations in the last 20 years, so why is IBM disregarded so often? It it nice to target the companies with visibility towards consumers, but that puts Microsoft with more than one issue in the crosshairs, but they are ignored, why is that?
Then we get back to the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57501579) where we see “Her general criticism is that Big Tech is simply too big – that a handful of large US tech firms dominate the sector, at the expense of competition”, she is not incorrect, but there are more sides to that story. In 1997 I gave an idea to bosses (in a software firm) on consumers messaging each other and for a firm to be in the middle of that. Being a gateway and a director of messages and giving visibility to people of other matters (I never used the word advertising). It was founded on a missing part when Warner Brothers created (in partnership with Angelfire) a website hub. So fans of Babylon 5, Gilmore Girls and a few other series could Create their own webpage, they got 20MB for free and an address, like in Babylon 5 I was something like Section Red number 23 (I forgot, it was 25 years ago), the bosses stated that there would never be a use for that, it was not their business and there was no business need for something like that and 4 years later someone else created Facebook. Now I am no Facebook creator, what I had was in no way anywhere near that, but that is a side a lot of people forget, the IT people had no clue on what the digital era was bringing and what it looked like, so as they were unaware, politicians had even less of a clue. So when Google had its day (search and email) no one knew what was going on, they merely saw a free email account with 1GB of storage and everyone got on the freebee train, that is all well and good, but nothing is for free, it never ever is.
As such a lot of companies remained inactive for close to half a decade, Google had created something unique and they are one of the founding fathers of the Digital age. Consider that Microsoft was clueless for close to a decade and when they started they were behind by a lot and there inaccurate overreaction of Bing, is merely laughable. Microsoft makes all these claims yet it was the creators of Google who came up with the search system and they got Stanford to make this for them, just look it up, a patent that is the foundation of Google and Microsoft was in the wind and blind to what would be coming. By the time they figured it out they were merely second tier junkyard vendors. And (as I personally see it) the bigger players in that time (IBM and Microsoft) were all ready to get rich whilst sleeping, they were looking into the SaaS world (diminishing cost to the larger degree), outsourcing as a cost saving and so on, as I see it players like Microsoft and IBM were about reducing cost and pocketing that difference, so as Google grew these players were close to a no-show and do not take my word for that, look at the history line of what was out there. In retrospect Apple saw what would be possible and got on the digital channel as fast as possible. Yet IBM and Microsoft were Big Tech, yet they are ignored in a lot of cases, why is that? When you ignore 2 out of 6 (I am not making Netflix part of this) we get the 2 out of part and that comes down to more than 30%, this is discrimination, it grows as Adobe has its own (well deserved) niche market, yet are they not big tech too? One source gives us “As of June 2021 Adobe has a market cap of $263.55 B. This makes Adobe the world’s 32th most valuable company by market cap according to our data”, which in theory makes them larger than IBM, really? Consider that part, for some reason Adobe is according to some a lot larger than IBM (they are 112th), so when we consider that, can we optionally argue that the setting is tainted? In a stage where there are multiple issues with the numbers and the descriptions we are given, the entire setting of Big Tech is needing a massive amount of scrutiny, and when I see Lina Khan giving us “markets had come to be controlled by a very small number of companies” I start to get issues. Especially when we see “there is one sector that has been singled out by Democrats and Republicans alike: Big Tech”. You see singling out is a form of discrimination, it is bias and that is where we are, a setting of bias and to some extent, we are all to blame, most of us are to blame because of what we were told and what was presented to us, yet no one is looking to close to the presenters themselves and it is there that I see the problem, This is about large firms being too large and the people who do not like these large firms are the people who for the most do not understand the markets they are facing. Just like the stage of media crying like little bitches because they lose revenue to Google (whilst ignoring Bing as it has less than 3% marketshare).
The who? The what? Why?
This part is a little more complex, to try to give my point, I need to go back to some Google page that gives me “What is Google’s position on this new law? We are not against being regulated by a Code and we are willing to pay to support journalism—we are doing that around the world through News Showcase. But several aspects of the current version of this law are just unworkable for the services you use and our business in Australia. The Code, as it’s written, would break the way Google Search works and the fundamental principle of the internet, by forcing us to pay to provide links to news businesses’ sites. There are two other serious problems remaining with the law, but at the heart of it, it comes down to this: the Code’s rules would undermine a free and open service that’s been built to serve everyone, and replace it with one where a law would give a handful of news businesses an advantage over everybody else.”
This is about that News bargaining setting. Here we get ‘by forcing us to pay to provide links to news businesses’ sites’, and I go ‘Why?’ A lot of them do not give us news, they give us filtered information, on addition to this is that if I am unwilling to buy a newspaper, why should I pay for their information? If they want to put it online it is up to them, they can just decide not to put it online, that I their right. In addition some sources for years pretty much EVERY article by the Courier Mail get me a sales page (see below), this is their choice and they are entitled to do so.
Yet this sales pitch is brought to us in the form of a link to a news article. It still happens today and it is not merely the Courier Mail, there are who list of newspapers that use the digital highway to connect to optional new customers. So why should they get paid to be online? In the digital stage the media has become second best, the stage that the politicians are eager to ignore is that a lot of the ‘news bringers’ are degraded to filtered information bringers. In the first why should I ever pay for that and in the second, why would I care whether they live or die? Do not think this is a harsh position, Consider the Daily Mail giving us two days ago ‘Police station is branded the ‘most sexist in Britain’ after investigations find officers moonlighted as prostitutes, shared pornography with the public and conducted affairs with each other on duty’, so how did they get to ‘most sexist in Britain’? What data do they have and hw many police stations did they investigate? There is nothing of that anywhere in the article, then we get to ‘after a series of scandals’, how many is a series of scandals? Over what time frame? Then we get to ‘Whatsapp and Facebook groups used to exchange explicit sexual messages and images have been shut down’, as such were the identities of the people there confirmed? How many were there? What evidence was there? All issues that the Daily Mail seems to skate around and ‘In the latest scandal, PC Steve Lodge, 39’ completes the picture. Who else was hauled to court and is ‘hauled’ a procedural setting in an arrest? When one rites to emphasise to capture the interest of the audience it becomes filtered information, it becomes inaccurate and therefor a lot of it becomes debatable. Well over a dozen additional questions come to mind of a half baked article on the internet, and they get paid for that? And as we consider ‘He was alleged to have’ we get the ‘alleged’ part so that the newspaper cannot be held liable, but how accurate was the article? That same setting transfers to Lina Khan.
The article gives us ‘or rather a perceived lack of competition’ as well as ‘markets had come to be controlled by a very small number of companies’, they are generalising statements, statements lacking direct focal point and specifications. In the first ‘perceived’ is a form of perception, biased and personal, ones perception is not another ones view of the matter. It is not wrong to state it like that, but when you go after people it is all about the specifics and all about data and evidence, as I see it evidence has been lacking all over the board.
And when we consider ‘markets had come to be controlled by a very small number of companies’ I could add “PetSmart has 1650 shops in the US, they could set the price for tabby’s on a national level, is that not a cartel foundation?” Yet these politicians are not interested in a price agreement of pets are they, it is about limiting the stage of certain people, but by doing so they will hurt themselves a lot more than they think. On November 14th 2020 I wrote the article ‘Tik..Tik..Tik..’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/11/14/tik-tik-tik/), where I wrote “if HarmonyOS catches on, Google will have a much larger problem for a much longer time. If it is about data Google will lose a lot, if it is about branding Google will lose a little, yet Huawei will gain a lot on the global stage and Apple? Apple can only lose to some extent, there is no way that they break even”, and a lot ignored the premise, but now as HarmonyOS has launched (a little late), the stage is here. When it is accepted as a real solution, Google stands to lose the Asian market to a much larger degree and all because a few utterly stupid politicians did not know what they were doing, more important Huawei still has options in the Middle East and in Europe. So the damage will add and add and increase to a much larger degree, especially if India goes that way, for Google a market that could shrink up to 20%, close to 2,000,000,000 consumers are per July 1st ill have an alternative that is not Apple or Google, that is what stupidity gets them. My IP will connect to HarmonyOS, so I am not worried, yet as I see it the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) better start getting its ships properly aligned, because if HarmonyOS is indeed a decent version from version 2 onwards the US tech market could shrink by a little over 22.4%, the US economy is in no way ready for such a hit, all because politicians decided to shout without evidence and knowhow of what they were doing, a nice mess, isn’t it?
The stage of ‘What is’ depends on reflection and comprehension and both were lacking in the US, I wonder what they will lose next.
This is a question that has been forming in my mind for some time now, and today the question rose again. The article that started it all is “Oil tanker off Saudi Arabian port hit by explosion caused by ‘external source‘’’ (source: the Guardian). The setting is not new, we have seen it a few times in the last year. We all want to point fingers and blame people left right and center, but the truth of it is that the problem goes deeper and the west is largely in denial or refuses to acknowledge the events. Less than a decade ago, an attack on Saudi Arabia was for the most unthinkable. Even as we see the crying blame game, this is not a Houthi issue. You see, the Houthi’s are firing drones and missiles on Saudi Arabia, but everyone is in denial and refusing to look at Iran. There is no Yemeni infrastructure to create and optionally test drones and missiles, there is no quality control, there is no technology available in Yemen for any of this and that has been shown by different sources over the last 2 years. Even as the New York Times gives us an opinion piece that gives us “Saudi Arabia is not entitled to U.S. military or diplomatic support. It’s not a treaty ally like Japan. Its importance to U.S. security has dwindled as the United States seeks to reorient its foreign policy away from the Middle East. And if Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s tutelage is any indication, the kingdom is proving to be a wildly destabilising force in the region”, Saudi Arabia, for the most has been the stability the Middle East (outside of Israel) needs, feel free to give it to Iran, but in this, the next time they elect another Ahmadinejad, all the linked nations will target Israel AND the United States AND Europe, is that what you want?
So whilst the New York Times is slamming Saudi Arabia, or seemingly so, it is actually proving the opposite. Saudi Arabia is entitled and worthy of support. It’s events into Yemen was done by the elected government of Yemen, and that is also ignored most of the time, just like the setting that Houthi forces are getting direct support from Iran, the Houthis are getting Iranian hardware, missiles and drones. They seemingly smuggle it by all naval intelligence operations. It is almost like the EU and the US are keeping the Middle East destabilised. That is at least what it looks like, you see, for the last two years someone is feeding the Houthi forces drones and missiles and that needs to stop. I would venture that the involved parties like the price of oil to go up, up by a lot.
In this I will tell you right now that this is my speculative view, I cannot prove the latter part (other than the Iranian support which has been proven by several parties), yet the media is silent on that part, why is that?
My mind has been busy considering an anti drone option, but as I see it, the larger part of Saudi Arabia is an empty sandbox, so how to go about it (without creating ecological and environmental devastation), a setting that needs thought, because the cure cannot be worst than the disease. The Brookings institute (at https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2016/03/16/six-ways-to-disable-a-drone/) give us 6 methods, but to deploy them in any rural situation (which is the bulk of Saudi Arabia) is not a good thing, yet it did give me an optional idea, not a great one mind you, but one that might work.
They had Radio waves (3) and Hacking (4), This gave me an optional idea. What if we create a wifi network, one that actively pushes. Consider 4 jeeps, each jeep is a network node, and as you can see, moving the second jeep to another location sets a larger and a different curtain. Now, consider that the latest Iranian drones can fly up to 250KM/H, now the Houthis will not get those (and they lack monumental amounts of skill to operate them), but the older ones are slower, as the jeeps get a lock on a danger, the remote operator uses the created network to disrupt drone operations. I reckon that a setting of 8 jeeps might be a good start, but how to deploy them? I see the need to create 3-5 clusters of up to 4-8 jeeps, it gives the remote operator a decent amount of time to crash the drones far away and safely, optionally (and harder) is to land them so that the evidence can be collected. A secondary option is to fry the electronics, so that the drones would return to the point of liftoff, giving Saudi Intelligence a place to work from. This is the drones, not sure yet how to stop (in a cheap way) Iranian missiles, but I reckon Raytheon has something they eagerly want to sell. I merely want it to cost Iran the farm, not Saudi Arabia, like in Charlie Wilson’s War, there Charlie Wilson provided the Afghans with stringers to stop the Russians, Stinger $38,000, Russian Hind (Mil Mi-24) $36,000,000, so almost 1000:1, those are numbers to work with and that stage needs to be found to top Iran as well. So as I was looking into the Shahab-1, Shahab-2, Shahab-3, can the same network be used to create a false image, or a setting to fool the missile?
It is one of two systems, and any Go-Onto-Target missile has three subsystems (or so I am told), they are :
We are told that the target tracker is also placed on the launching platform, yet is that so with the Iranian version? If that is true, then we need to find a way to infect both, or find a way to disrupt the link.
This is where it is, I asked the missile, but it had no sound system installed, hence, I watched a USAF training tape and I learned “The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn’t, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn’t, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn’t be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error”, this seems effective and simple, I merely wonder what if we could find an automated way to mess with the error so it will assume wrongly where it was, and if this accumulative, it will crash ahead of schedule, optionally in a place where there is only sand.
Guidance computers are in the missile and in the target tracker, it has the same setting as the Target Tracker, we cannot intervene in time, but what happens if we flood the missile with both disrupting and false information? (At the same time mind you)
This is where I found myself, my only reference to missile technology is pointing my own missile at a biological silo (me, as a once proud teenager), I just had to go there to make this story not too serious. Yet there was corroborating materials (not on the Silo though), it is seen in Northrop Grumman’s Patent US4589610A, the Guided missile subsystem. Here I see a little more, but it also gave me a thought. The patent gives us “The IMU driven Kalmanised radar track loop accommodates the use of a high performance radar, like a synthetic aperture radar, for example, which operates to measure radar data at a low rate on the order of 1 Hz, to generate estimates of relative target and missile kinematics to drive the control loop at rates compatible with high performance missile kinematics”, I believe that Iranian missiles are not that advanced, but the groundwork matters. The idea that we have “operates to measure radar data at a low rate”, so it reads signals to differentiate, what is we mess with that instance to create a different error in the Shabab missile? Radar is basically a radio signal, a specific one and specific signals are more easily messed with, yet can it be done efficiently and not expensive, or can we create a setting where on system can impact the next 200 missiles fired?
The second system is a GOLIS systems (go-onto-location-in-space), it is autonomous and created for targets that do not move (for example the IRS building at 300 N. Los Angeles St.), I would presume a building almost everyone hates, especially in Hollywood. I will not go into all the details, but it had one option I recognised, it was the Hyperbolic navigation, DECCA. Maritime uses (or used) it. It requires 3 stations to operate and if that is so, that is something we can use. We can actually guid a missile when we alter the signal of any two out of three elements. The nice part, as it is obsolete, there is a decent chance the Iranians are till using it, the DECCA system was pretty decent as a concept and for maritime navigation (before we had satellite navigation) was the most precise way to find ourselves in the ocean, it was precise up to 7M2, when you are 2432 KM from shore, that is pretty awesome. So as we see “Hyperbolic navigation is a class of obsolete radio navigation systems in which a navigation receiver instrument on a ship or aircraft is used to determine location based on the difference in timing of radio waves received from fixed land-based radio navigation beacon transmitters”, that is one principle, there is every chance that if we can intercept and relay 2 of the signals, we can create a different error and as such the missile becomes a lot less reliable.
These are merely a few thoughts and they should be seriously considered (except targeting the IRS building, these people have lives too), if we can change the game for Iran we can support Saudi Arabia in creating more stability, less stability is to adhere to Iran, I wonder if the New York Times considered that part that they are voicing, whether it is opinion or not.
OK, I knew about DECCA from my days at the. Merchant Naval Academy, so that might not be completely fair, but this is me thinking out of the box (and out of bed), which implies that this was another day, another dollar, and all done in less than 2 hours. I wonder what more Iranian stuff I can screw up this week, we all need a hobby at times.
Apart from the continuation of the IP I promised as public domain for Sony exclusive products, I was in doubt of some information on ISIS I got my fingers on. This is besides the information that is out in Israel where we see: ‘ISIS urges attacks on westerners, oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia’, the danger of the nfrmaetion I saw is that they are merely parts of something. I need to painty a picture. In one courtyard there is a person selling sweet fruits, they are orange in colour and in the other courtyard there is a person selling sweet fruits but red in colour. Now, I cannot tell if the first one is selling oranges, tangerines or perhaps nectarines. The other person is selling cherries, strawberries, red currant or even tomatoes (are tomatoes fruit). Some will set the stage that fruit sellers are in these two courtyards. Yet I do not know are these sellers an outlier, is fruit all they sell, can I confirm what exactly they sell and what do they call themselves? Even the issue if the two sellers are related is in question. But some intelligence is set on too little data and too often dubious data. Then there is the stage what do they call themselves? Are they actual sellers, or merely two people in a closed setting where they have something for sale? All questions on the stage we see here, so when I see “An Islamic State spokesman called on the terrorist group’s supporters to target westerners, oil pipelines and economic infrastructure in Saudi Arabia”. This set a few issues. In the first the reliability of it all, the western media has actively avoided a few settings in these places, so there is little to go on and for the most they merely copy one another. In the second Saudi Intelligence is pretty efficient in Saudi Arabia, as such ISIS is calling for activity in a place where they do not have any, so is it a hollow threat, is it a call to arms or a red herring to mess with Saudi Intelligence. The additional problem is that any attack could only happen with a much larger support from Iran and ISIS and Iran do not really mix, which gets me to a slightly inappropriate joke. Two hooligans, one Swede one Dane have an argument over Football, they both grab their knives and stab each other in the chest, instantly killing one another. What is the Score? Answer: Norway leads by two points.
OK, not the nicest joke, but the issue gets across (I hope). ISIS is leaking and making claims, yet the stage is not set and there is debate on how effective ISIS is in Saudi Arabia, and that is the larger truth here. ISIS might have followers in Saudi Arabia, but that is hear say, there is speculation, but no active data supporting this. Iran has activity (to some degree) in Saudi Arabia, but there is still debate on how much and how effective it remains.
In a stage where we see: “Saudi Arabia has stressed the need to step up efforts to reach a lasting and sustainable peace agreement among the Palestinians and the Israelis” we see one side, we see ISIS in opposition, yet no one is looking on where Israel Hayom got its data (at https://www.israelhayom.com/2020/10/20/isis-urges-attacks-on-westerners-oil-infrastructure-in-saudi-arabia/) from. This was not some leak, this was not intelligent by Mossad, the article given to us is from Reuters and ILH Staff, OK, we can accept that, so why doesn’t Reuters have this as front page news on their Middle East section page? And as such, who at ILH had this and more important when did they have it? An article by Reuters not on their website, especially one involving ISIS is a larger set of weird, and guess what, it was about Saudi Arabia, another reason to have it, and the only other source I saw pushing this was oilprice.com. That and the stage of ‘Offshore Oil & Gas Poised For A Major Rebound’, as such, in light of all this, I have questions, don’t you?
I took an interest 2 days ago when the news of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia came across the screen. Yet that is not the part that got to me, it felt like an element, not the main beef and I was proven right with ‘Pakistan’s balancing act may be failing’ (at https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/pakistan-balancing-act-failing-200828164701825.html), which gives us in the by-line “Pakistan’s strategy to keep good relations with everyone is no longer working in an increasingly polarised Muslim world”, that makes sense, polarisation is found almost everywhere. Pakistan is in an almost impossible situation, I want to blame Pakistan for their own situation and I would likely be right, but there is no real evidence of it, merely a long line of political choices that Pakistan went with and that makes sense from a Pakistani point of view. Yet we are also given “Qureshi said Islamabad expects the Jeddah-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to convene a meeting on Kashmir. Otherwise, he said, Pakistan would be “compelled” to “call a meeting of the Islamic countries that are ready to stand with us on the issue of Kashmir”. Qureshi’s comments have widely been viewed as a veiled threat to create a new bloc that would rival the Saudi-dominated OIC”, Saudi Arabia responded and it was not good for Pakistan, but they did this to themselves. From my (limited) point of view, we need to acknowledge that Kashmir is a much larger issue and it makes sense for Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations to not rush to conclusions ahead of time, because it either leads to the alienation of Pakistan or India and I reckon that the Islamic countries do not want to alienate an optional consumer base of 1.3 billion people. This does not mean that the Islamic nations are against the Pakistani stance in the Kashmir region, but that situation is a lot larger than we imagine, no matter how we turn it, it is either an Indian choice or a Pakistani choice, yet I wonder what the Kashmiri choice is, the media tends to report little on that (or so it seems to me).
So when we get to “Soon after General Bajwa landed in Pakistan, Qureshi left for China, sending a clear message to the kingdom that Islamabad is diversifying its alliances and re-evaluating the value of its strategic partnership with Riyadh”, we see that Pakistani wants options, it felt threatened by the pressure on Saudi Arabia that backfired, and in this China was not a solution, merely a trade opportunity as long as China allowed for it, because China has too much to gain from deals with India, they too see 1.3 billion consumers and China wants them, 221 million Pakistani does not add up, especially as the poverty line in Pakistan is 25%, India is at 22%, but with a population base that is almost 6 times larger, China sees a larger interest in India, which doesn’t help Pakistan much.
There is more, the article also gives us “Today, Saudi Arabia has several reasons to value its deepening partnership with India more than its historic ties to Pakistan. While the annual trade between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia stands at around $3.6bn, Saudi-India bilateral trade is worth more than $30bn. This trade differential partially explains, despite persistent Pakistani requests, why Riyadh has avoided raising the Kashmir issue beyond mere tokenism. Unlike Pakistan, Saudis do not take a zero-sum view of their growing economic cooperation with India. In fact, economic overtures towards India are part of MBS’s post-oil economic diversification efforts”, it is like I stated, India is increasingly important, the diversification efforts are increasing in Riyadh and that is seen all over the globe and China is part of that, all whilst India is already a larger part of it. You do not toss overboard 900% of trade so settle one issue, an issue that is increasingly difficult to set, one might argue that both Saudi Arabia and China might prosper even more if Kashmir became an independent nation.
Whatever happens next, Pakistan has a much larger issue in play, if we are to believe Al Jazeera with “Pakistan’s criticism of Saudi-led Muslim bloc OIC for its inaction on the Kashmir issue has threatened their ties” (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/08/pakistan-saudi-rift-happened-200827175219872.html), where we see “Pakistan accused the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a bloc of 57 Muslim-majority countries that is led by Saudi Arabia, of inaction over the Kashmir issue – a key policy issue for Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan”, there is of course the idea to get all 57 views on Kashmir, but that is merely me considering the larger field.
So in all this, the larger Seesaw is not Pakistan on one side and Kashmir on the other side, it is a stage where we see the needs of Pakistan one one side and the other side we see the needs of either Saudi Arabia or China, with Kashmir at the centre setting the stage of balance, optionally their inaction. Pakistan is not in a good place and it will get worse, as they alienate more Islamic nations, we will become witness of some sort of isolation of Pakistan, that might not be the best diagnosis, but it is the best I can do for now. No matter how I phrase it, it seems to me that the setting in the Middle East will partially be represented by the views of the OIC and their views towards Kashmir might be more important than we realise.
We have seen the issues that the US faces and it is time for the application of a little balance in all this. To do this, we need to look at some sources. As such On August 20th (06:00) we get Reuters with ‘U.S. economy rebounding strongly; fresh aid coming to unemployed: Kudlow’, to some there is nothing wrong with the title, yet, what has the US done for others to be treated to the ‘economy rebounding strongly’ part? The current administration did everything to scuttle the nation, so what economy is rebounding strongly? We can see different sides in economy, but for the US we see the need to export and import. The US destroyed their import option and to some degree diminished their export turnover as well, so how did the ‘economy rebound strongly’? Then we see the cost part, revenue is down, but cost are up. So when we consider the news “Total non-farm payroll employment rose by 1.8 million in July, and the unemployment rate fell to 10.2 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today” and this was June 2020, one in 10 does not have a job, all whilst between February 2020 and July 2020 9,530 jobs were added and 22,160 jobs were lost. Over the millions of jobs in the US it does not add up to much, but the news (source: the Guardian, May 2020) is also giving us ‘US job losses pass 40m as coronavirus crisis sees claims rise 2.1m in a week’, so when we distill the bad news, because yes, it is bad news, how come we see ‘economy rebounding strongly’ in all this? So in this, the quote “Kudlow, speaking to reporters at the White House, defended a reduction in the unemployment supplement to $300 from $600, saying stimulus measures should be reduced slowly as the economy strengthens” (at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-kudlow/us-economy-rebounding-strongly-fresh-aid-coming-to-unemployed-kudlow-idUSKCN25F2KL) we get to consider “The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Wednesday reported 5,460,429 cases of the novel coronavirus in the country, an increase of 39,318 from its previous count, and said the number of deaths had risen by 1,172 to 171,012”, the stage is debatable, I agree that it does not solve the puzzle, but there is a larger stage that for millions the corona stage is still not clear, the total amount of infected could go up, it could go up be a large amount and this also means that free clinics will be swamped, inoculations and other cost will go up, it will impact the US in a huge way, so where does this ‘economy rebounding strongly’ come from? The US has squandered technological progress in the Huawei fight, and this is merely the beginning in all this, as the US loses 5G grounds we will see larger and faster growth in both the Middle East and Asia, for the US their view of the Middle East in 5G is like giving a native American a gatling gun whilst you give them no ammunition or a manual, what they forget is that the data laws and privacy laws allow for the larger tech companies to move to the Middle East and be isolated, no taxation and large data grazing fields, the Middle East is catching on and Asia is already on track. As the balance of the seesaw of technology changes, the infrastructure in the US will be delayed again and again and as I personally see it, in 2023 we will learn through managed bad news that the US went from a first position in technology to fourth if not fifth position. In all this, the message of ‘economy rebounding strongly’ might be seen as one of the larger jokes and that is all before we realise that the US has amassed a debt of $25,000,000,000,000. Twenty five trillion is a lot of money, the interest alone can fuel most EU nations, yet this interest will now go to the banks and financial institutions underwriting this, as such some might consider that the US economy is in shambles and when the FAANG group starts pushing for a protectorate of a true global corporation, that is the final news you need that the US economy is an illusion that can no longer be maintained.