Tag Archives: Oregon

A yellow cap

That is the setting and whether you call it a yellow cap or a golden dome is up to you, but beware, a simple top of mind gives this a weird setting. CBC gives us (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/golden-dome-trump-cbo-cost-estimate-9.7196982) ‘Budget office estimates Trump’s proposed Golden Dome will have trillion-dollar price tag over 20-year period’ and I thought that this was another bleak idea (right along the Trump Gold Card, which apparently is a huge failure with one sell, which was allegedly given as a present) and that was it for me, but then the CBC gives me the one line that opens the debate. 

It was “Somewhat inspired by Israeli defences”, so you think that changing the name from Iron to Golden does the trick? Consider the implications. It works for Israel as it is roughly the size of New Jersey. Consider Texas, that state with Netflix issues (see yesterdays blog) is 10 times the size of New Jersey. It could be attacked from the south by Mexico border, the SouthEast amphibious/Cuba, West/North via Cruise missiles and then we get that Israel is mostly like minded, in the United States the threat of Asymmetric/Internal Threats is decently real. And this is merely one state. As I see it, Texas, Florida, California, Washington State, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia sets a new chapter all together. My (massively inaccurate) setting throws the amount between $3 trillion and $5 trillion and that is when the massive write offs happen, an economy that cannot afford anywhere near that amount. As such that $1 trillion over 20 years will need critical investigations. The setting is simple. Consider that the Israel can fit into the United States 465 times (approximately) and now consider that the Iron Dome is set to United States parameters and not made out of gold (pewter is more like it), that equation doesn’t even get close to do its work when we see the impact on what the Iron Dome would need to do in the United States. I think I am merciful when I think it s a mere 3-5 trillion that bill might be significantly larger. So when we see “The U.S. Golden Dome is envisioned to include ground and space-based capabilities able to detect, intercept and stop missiles at all major stages of a potential attack. Congress has already approved roughly $24 billion US for the missile defence initiative through Republicans’ massive tax and spending measure signed into law last summer.” As such the ability to detect might require an upgrade (an idea that the movie a house of dynamite (2025) gave me). And that is merely attacks from missiles. The setting that the United States faces through asymmetric sets these detection methods on lose wheels. That all requires manpower, construction and a few more kinks can show up. The cyber settings will become almost humongous and for the most they cannot predict what is next, some can’t see what is a threat now, but that is a different story. As I see it, Israel has had decades to create the iron dome settings and they did it will, but to apply this to a nation the size of the United States is rather ludicrous, on a side note, Canada would equally be unable to deploy a system like that, the cost alone would cripple the Canadian economy, only so that “The Boss” can sleep safely at night? Good luck with that idea. 

As such I have no idea what gave the Pentagon (or related people) the idea that this is a workable idea? I get that the united States might want to upgrade its defenses, but to throw it at a gimmick that has no foundation on reality is as I personally see it beyond silly. 

So whilst the article ends with “Sen. Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon, who requested the estimate from the CBO, said in response to the report that the missile defence project is “nothing more than a massive giveaway to defence contractors paid for entirely by working Americans.” Last May, the president said the Golden Dome would cost $175 billion US. The CBO last year estimated that just the space-based components of the Golden Dome could cost as much as $542 billion US over the next 20 years.” I seem to be on the side of Senator Jeff Merkley because it is as I see it more than a massive giveaway to defence contractors. It requires a lot more and it would requires military technicians and a massive monitoring issue on all these missiles and observation posts, Then you get exclude zones for these places and even as some will be the same, it might require a lot more and that is where the shoes become too uncomfortable to wear. As I see it, it requires a total overhaul of a system that was decent to begin with, which will make it prone to overhaul issues and the cyber nightmare that follows to overhaul it all is merely the beginning. There are a few more issues where I have no knowledge, as such I will not know all the issues but when I look at this from the ground at a distance, there is no way that $1 trillion will cover that and as such someone needs to take a critical look at this and I wonder what pentagon involvement was handed to the CBO in this. Just a thought to entertain. Well that is that from me, I will continue tonight on a better fairy tale, one that will grant Abu Dhabi TV the option to give muslim channels a desire to connect to Abu Dhabi TV channels. I can make fairy tales too, I merely hand them to the audiences to gasp at, no fear needed. Merely good feelings. Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

Three privacies walked into a bar

It is not merely the beginning of a bad joke; it has become a distasteful one. Now, for the most I have never really been against social media like Facebook, as it was free and nothing comes for free. Yet in this, I have always advocated and expected certain levels of decency. The Guardian revealed two days ago that large levels of decency have been trampled on to a much larger degree than ever contemplated, and the people remain silent. The people are so uppity uppity on possible transgressions by governments seeking criminals and terrorists, yet they will allow for any transgression towards greed and exploitation, how can we accept any of it?

  1. Show us your tits

It is an old expression, and I heard it first somewhere in the early 80’s. It broadly represents: ‘What have you got to offer?‘ Mostly used by people with absolutely no adherence to either diplomacy or good manners (unless a guy makes the joke to a good male friend). It is the first part in the stage that the Guardian offers in an article (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/19/facebook-shared-user-data-private-messages-netflix-spotify-amazon-microsoft-sony) where we see not merely ‘bending’ the rules; it is the breaking of basic rights towards privacy that is now out in the open. Even as we accept to the smaller degree: “making user data available through loopholes to companies including Amazon, Microsoft and Sony“, can we even contemplate the impact that we would have to face through: “Facebook gave Netflix and Spotify the ability to read and even delete users’ private messages“, the fact that these two were allowed to ‘delete’ messages is crossing a line the width of the grand canyon and the fact that those fruits and nuts on Capitol Hill (aka Senators and Congressmen) are clueless in their interviews, showing one stupidity tainted example after another and questions like ‘giving away rights to delete private messages‘ remained largely undisclosed shows just how useless the elected officials have become towards the larger fields of technology.

  1. Merely the tip, or can I shove my whole penis in there?

A small reference to the comedian Jimmy Carr, who once stated: “I can’t get a word in there, let alone my cock“, and that setting gives us the New York Times view of: “Facebook allowed Microsoft’s Bing search engine to see the names of virtually all Facebook users’ friends without consent, the records show, and gave Netflix and Spotify the ability to read Facebook users’ private messages” (at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/facebook-privacy.html#click=https://t.co/p565d1TX5L). As we contemplate: “Acknowledging that it had breached users’ trust, Facebook insisted that it had instituted stricter privacy protections long ago. Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive, assured lawmakers in April that people “have complete control” over everything they share on Facebook“, we see a much larger field opening up. We can think on one side that Mark Zuckerberg had become clueless on what is going on, or he remains intentionally silent on what he believes are personal rights of privacy, the mere realisation that Facebook acknowledges that not one user on Facebook has any rights to privacy is at the core of this stage. It goes further with: “the deals described in the documents benefited more than 150 companies — most of them tech businesses, including online retailers and entertainment sites, but also automakers and media organizations. Their applications sought the data of hundreds of millions of people a month, the records show. The deals, the oldest of which date to 2010, were all active in 2017. Some were still in effect this year” there is a clear transgression going on, and it is merely speculative on my side when we considered the impact of Bing and Microsoft. They have become so afraid of what Google has become that they are willing to stage new settings of alliances against whatever fictive war they face, the innovations that Google has brought and the innovations that Chinese player Huawei is bringing is scaring these large players beyond belief. If they cannot get up to their imaginative version what it means to be ‘on par’ they feel that they will be considered as derelict and considered as merely trivial in the 5G field. That is a much larger realisation and people need to be aware that as they contemplate of what it means to be a major player in the 5G field, the mere perception that they are not that, that they have lost the trust of the people is a much larger hurdle.

The NY Times shows that part in their article with: “Mr. Zuckerberg was determined to weave Facebook’s services into other sites and platforms, believing it would stave off obsolescence and insulate Facebook from competition. Every corporate partner that integrated Facebook data into its online products helped drive the platform’s expansion, bringing in new users, spurring them to spend more time on Facebook and driving up advertising revenue. At the same time, Facebook got critical data back from its partners“. We could contemplate that this is optionally the Ponzi version of a data scheme, but it is as I personally see it more sinister than that. You see, the lower levels would never advance to a higher level and the data would merely flow up to the tip of the pyramid, leaving the rest as mere exploitable facilitators in all this.

  1. Supply Filofax’s to the Russians, it is very organised crime

There is one additional part in all this that could be the beginning of the end for Facebook, as the NY Times gives us: “Facebook, in turn, used contact lists from the partners, including Amazon, Yahoo and the Chinese company Huawei — which has been flagged as a security threat by American intelligence officials — to gain deeper insight into people’s relationships and suggest more connections, the records show“, we are introduced to a much larger issue. Not only has the US been unable to prove the lie (read: non-truth) that Huawei is a National Security danger. We see the makings of the fact that American Corporation (read: Facebook) has been handing over the data voluntarily. As a business solution, Huawei had been able to see where the interactions were the largest and also predict where hardware and software would make it a much better regarded update for consumers, the fact that this data became available gives the first rise (after shown levels of non-comprehension) that technology firms are replacing politicians, politics and policy making them useless as these technology firms have been setting the beat of who gets what data and at which price, yet the US government is not allowed access, not when it can be sold at $14.99 per kilobyte of raw data.

This remains an evolving field and it is not until we get to the part “Apple devices also had access to the contact numbers and calendar entries of people who had changed their account settings to disable all sharing, the records show. Apple officials said they were not aware that Facebook had granted its devices any special access. They added that any shared data remained on the devices and was not available to anyone other than the users“, so not only does the new iPad pro bend under the smallest pressure, which Apple claims is normal (something the consumer was not informed about), we see that the ignorance of their own technology is now a much larger issue all over the playing field. the mere fact that disabled sharing of data still allowed for sharing is an architectural failure of much larger proportions than ever contemplated. In all this data sharing in Huawei devices remains unproven and in all this it seems that Google is not the black sheep some proclaim it is, all whilst Facebook is showing to be without ethics, without regards and without morals, so at what point will we relabel Facebook to Faecesbook?

So as the article ends with: “How closely Facebook monitored its data partners is uncertain. Most of Facebook’s partners declined to discuss what kind of reviews or audits Facebook subjected them to. Two former Facebook partners, whose deals with the social network dated to 2010, said they could find no evidence that Facebook had ever audited them. One was BlackBerry. The other was Yandex” gives a much larger rise to the lack of privacy that up to two billion users have not had for the longest of times. We could argue that it is in the interest of Google, to fix Google+ and allow people to port away from Facebook. When we look at the two players, it seems that Google+ is not nearly as dangerous as Facebook is more and more showing to be. Even as we are considering that Washington DC is suing Facebook, the realisation we get from: “Washington DC has sued Facebook for allowing the political consultancy Cambridge Analytica to gain access to the personal data of tens of millions of the site’s users without their permission“, when we set it against the stage that the guardian, the Times and the New York Times have shown the people. We merely have to print the log of all data shared and number all instances of data transgression will optionally show Facebook to be the most reckless and unethical corporation in the history of technology, that is quite the achievement, and it works for Microsoft as they might proclaim themselves to be saints in a tar pit.

When we consider the quote: “According to a letter that Facebook sent this fall to Senator Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democrat, PricewaterhouseCoopers reviewed at least some of Facebook’s data partnerships“, we see a massive failure by Facebook to police and protect the data of others, and as we already know, those who have the latest mobile phone, we need to realise that this is no longer a mobile phone, the latest phones and the ones for 5G are no longer merely mobile phones, they have become personal data servers and as we are seeing the impact where Facebook has made most of all that data shareable, with people you never agreed on having access, in how much anger will you be from January 1st 2019 and onwards? For me it works out nicely, it merely increases the value of my new IP, which is currently on the rise to a much larger degree than even I contemplated. 2019 might be finally be the year where my life turns largely to the better and at present I feel a lot safer handing that IP to Huawei than to anyone else, that is one reality that Washington DC has shown to the largest of degrees (Mountain View remains a strong contender for now).

The only part in all this is why large parts of all this was not shown clearly in the senate hearing of September 2018. Just contemplate this weekend, what else did that so called Senate hearing not figure out, and how unsafe would you like your personal data end up being in 2019?

 

Leave a comment

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