Tag Archives: Rolling Stone magazine

June 19, 2026 · 06:37

There was more

You see, yesterday I came up with a new lore system and it kept my from the real setting of the game, because there was a lot more. The first part was that there was a reason why I felt affinity to Paradroid and Hacker. The idea was that there were two mainlines (I had not chosen yet) the first was that this was a recon setting for aliens, the second was that survivors of this world were working from a separate setting (I fancied that one a little more) and the only way is to interact by invading technology and drones with a nano virus but it needs to be a lot more structured than just invade a server or a combination of systems, But the idea is that these nano bots can only invade systems in combined efforts (like a server and a drone in unison) from there we get to see a larger setting and from one system we can combine systems to invade a CCTV setting, but CCTV settings are often shielded, so you need a path towards that setting. So I has not worked it all out, but there was an evolving setting connected to all this. So whilst we get that any CCTV system has connected systems, we need to combine a larger connected systems to connect to larger and bigger connections, so there needs to be somehow an evolving setting like Hacker, where we connect to a drone and CCTV systems, but how to do that and keep an interesting game? That is the question I was bending over, but not in the way Paradroid did it (it had its own charm) and I didn’t want to plagiarize that. From that setting I merely had the idea that several autonomous systems could be infected, but that is the extend the game had ‘traction’ and I didn’t want it to be too much of a stalking approach, other than the need to find out what had happened to the people of that place (like a viral attack, or simply a air-conditioning defect) So whilst I was focussing on elements of the game, I was designing the game in real time, because that is how my mind works and the setting is that different devices had its own versions of Lore, so they are all stories, often not connected and it gives the overwhelming feeling of data. That is bound to happen in all these settings, so how to focus that? I gave the lore setting a go and from there the lore was bound to all kinds of things and I had to create a decent amount to overwhelm the senses (and the game) with lore that might seem bound to have a connection. So there I was in what some would seem a steady stream of data, but what is relevant? You cannot have a ‘data game’ with no responses and all relevant data, that is not how it tends to work, but I was trying to figure out how to get to the good stuff and an overload of data tends to be the setting in many cases. So whilst we ‘infect’ drones and systems, we need connect elements and find a way to connect to a system, the best option is to infect a drone and see where the connection tends to go, so we get two locations already and the evolving nano system has limits in the beginning, so it needs several of both for the nano system to evolve into a stronger system, it needs to develop, just like a real nano system does. But autonomous nano tech is not ‘up for grabs’ and as such I had to evolve the ideas in my brain on how to evolve these settings.

So whilst I was considering all that, the lore system evolved in my brain and it had many connected benefits and it could benefit the future of larger gaming, because lore tends to be the larger setting for many RPG games and a game about hacking and data has an abundant of that, so while there is a need for the lore, the idea of lore writing itself making the game replay-able has benefits. So does the idea of creating a CCTV mesh of data for an entire city. But that is another mess to consider. What mattered is that I had to figure out how a nanotechnology system could evolve. There is the ‘breeding’ setting where systems provide the resources to breed (like connecting a resource to a router or a dead drone), from there we get more nanotechnology at our disposal but I was still working this out, so when we get more resources we get more nano tech to work with, yet here is also the limitation, although a dead drone could provide thousands of drones, they are stuck un a place, as such we need to connect one to the other and that is part of the puzzle I am working on and how to make this a decent part of any game is the puzzle

I need to work on, an idea is nice, but how to work this out is the puzzle a designer needs to focus on, because not every idea makes a decent game and that path is riddles with the carcasses of optional great ideas and it still beats the news junk on how newspapers are trying to voice the setting that a ‘great idea for peace’ is not the setting that Trump got played by Iran and how Israel is set towards inaction against people that are trying to destroy Israel and they will not stop, so all that settings are a bit dreary and not worthy of my time, or at least that was how I felt about that yesterday, all whilst we are getting less than an hour ago ‘Trump’s Deal Sidesteps Key Reasons He Went to War With Iran’ (source: Wall Street journal), as such we will see more ‘news’ on the setting that the USA is too broke to be considered a player on the world stage. You see some claim “According to U.S. Treasury financial statements, total federal liabilities have grown to nearly $48 trillion against roughly $6 trillion in assets, leading some economists and commentators to label the government as technically insolvent.” (Source: Yahoo News) Or the fact that “The national debt exceeds $34 trillion, equating to a debt-to-GDP ratio of over 123%” (source: Forbes) and I have been saying this since ‘About America, chapter 11’ Which I published on August 26th 2014, almost twelve years ago (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2014/08/26/about-america-chapter-11/) as such you have all these economic professors who ‘object’ to that setting whilst the setting of the last year are showing me to be the correct party, even though I have no economic degree, I do know data., I have been dabbling in data for decades. As such the game came to my mind and as such the avoidance of the ridiculous war setting was invading my mind for weeks, because at present ‘Trump lashes out at “fools” who oppose Iran deal amid bipartisan criticism’ (source: CBS News) and ‘Senate Republicans raise alarm over Trump’s deal with Iran’ (source: the Hill) as I see it, soon there is no place for the media but to go and delve into the insolvency of the United States, perhaps this president could use the Epstein files to divert the eyes of the media? (evil grin forming on my face), not to mention the musical acting of ‘Republicans slam Trump for caving to Iran in ‘disaster’ of a deal’ (source: Rolling Stone Magazine) an if you consider that the bulk of the media never really liked President Trump, consider what they will publish now. And this is all before Iran sees its way to cry to the courts of international law in The Hague, so there is that still coming and all this could have been foreseen if someone served the power players coffee in the Pentagon, I think it is spelled ‘Covfefe’ (source: President Trump, first presidency) a setting that was clear from the beginning of March, but now that setting will hit the Republicans squarely in the face, as such it might become the most humorous midterms in November 2026 and I reckon that there aren’t too many Republican fans at present. So whilst those up for midterm elections are bound for the unemployment lines, we will see an abundance of mis-categorisations and as such this might be the turning point where the west is seeking a new player that could align with the Commonwealth and the EU and I personally am putting my money on a larger cooperative with Commonwealth, EU and the Arab states, the other option is that the Commonwealth and the EU will align with China. I think the second one is not readily accepted in the EU and parts of the Commonwealth. Still, the cooperative with the Commonwealth, EU and the Arab states could bring prosperity and optional good times for China and whilst the EU is pulling back from Microsoft and the United States hosting of over 4000 data centers. So when do you think well over 10% will be pushed into bad mortgage setting and written off to a rather large degree. All settings that will end an abundance of revenue and set the larger data settings off limits. I have no data to support this, but the crumbles of data are all over the place, the question becomes how connected are these slithers of data? I will let you decide, I have to put some effort in creating a new game, which is much more enjoyable than any political setting.

So you all have a great day and someone keep an eye on Iran and their connections to Hezbollah and Hamas and when they will ‘miscommunicate’ their intent and it all starts all over again.

To do or not to do

Weirdly enough, the act, the thought and the interest is not new. The ‘wisdom’ has been seen as early as the 60’s in public toilets.

Socrates tells us that “To be is to do”
Jean-Paul Sartre states that “To do is to be”
Frank Sinatra taught us: “Do be do be do”

Socrates, or So Crates as Keanu Reeves called him, started the thought, yet in the 19th century French philosopher, Sartre, who also dabbled in playwrights, novels, biographies, literary criticism was also a political activist. In his philosophical views, he share the view of Existentialism, where philosophical thinking begins with the human subject, hence, we can ask whether he should be on the side of So Crates. Even as Existentialists are often seen as ‘too abstract and remote’ from concrete human experience, we might wonder, because of the actions of Sartre whether he was a true Existentialist. Perhaps he was an academically inclined individual on the path of applied logics in the evolving field of pragmatism. His view on Phenomenology, or over simplified ‘taken intentionally as directed toward something’, as some might see it as ‘the hammering of a nail’, yet in all this, does one consider that the nail ‘just’ is?

So where is this going?

Well this is about a BBC article titled ‘Did Sean Penn break the law with El Chapo interview?‘ (at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35228910).

The quotes that are in question is “In his Rolling Stone piece, Mr Penn talked about the use of burner phones and other methods used to escape detection by authorities. Many people have wondered whether Mr Penn broke the law with his reporting – and whether or not he could be prosecuted“, so is there really a ‘group’ of many people, or is there a select group of some people in specific positions? By the way, burner phones are used in a massive amount of ways by people in many circles, the financial circle for one, the intelligence circle as another side and both have been illuminated by novels, TV shows and movies in a massive way, so why mention this part at all?

The quote ““Simply having contact with a known narco-trafficker is not the basis of prosecution,” said Daniel Richman, a professor of law at Columbia University and a former federal prosecutor” is equally important, because as is, why place this article in such light? Because some people are as the quote gives “his interview has made people uncomfortable“, really?

Why is that? You see, many people (many thousands) in the UK have been extremely uncomfortable with the Tesco affair and the involvement of Pricewaterhouse Coopers, how many people have shone a light on this within the BBC, or any other large media outlet for print or multimedia?

Would the answer be Zip or Zilch?

The last quote in the article is actually interesting “As Cesar Diaz, a former senior special agent who worked on investigations of Pablo Escobar, a Colombian drug trafficker, said: “If I was a Mexican authority, I would want to know: How in the heck did Sean Penn know where El Chapo was and we didn’t?”“, most likely he is deceiving the listener with his statement, you see, very likely El Chapo knew exactly where Sean Penn was, not the other way around and as such, one was brought to the other, Cesar Diaz actually knows this. Perhaps he is steering away from the issue that CNN gave light to (at http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/15/americas/mexico-corruption-el-chapo-escape/) on July 16^th 2015. Where we see “but a series of scandals in the past year already had top Mexican officials in the hot seat. And Guzman’s escape, experts say, shines an even harsher spotlight on a problem that historically has stretched from police on the streets to the highest halls of power“, which is nothing new really, we have seen it in many sources, now, we might agree that not all sources are reliably honest, yet when we see a ‘random’ 3465 articles regarding corruption, how many would we need to show that there is a massive issue in that regard? In that view, is it equally far-fetched that El Chapo got a phone call from the airport where a young lady with a warm voice states “Senor, your movie star friend from New York La Guardia has arrived 10 minutes ago, tener un día maravilloso!” That would have been the start for a mere pick-up job. Cesar Diaz knows this, there is little mystery here.

Yet as we see all the speculation and worded effort to try to show that something is here, how come that the BBC and all other players are taking a wide berth around the issues of Tesco and the 3 billion drop in value? I gave a little light towards this yesterday, there is little to no action, what scares them?

Now it is time to get back to my slightly lower than basic feel of philosophy. If we accept that Phenomenology is ‘the study of the structures of experience and consciousness‘ how would the press be valued as we see the structure of ‘morality and values‘ regarding the interview of one person regarding another, let’s say, a person with an arts direction and his observations and interactions with an escaped drug baron, perhaps ruler of a drug empire would be better, yet in that same light, the professional press will not step anywhere near Pricewaterhouse Coopers regarding their involvement in a scandal that broke Tesco in little pieces, an involvement as shown by their peer Deloitte we see a version that forces us to ask additional questions regarding the acts that PwC was involved in, so in all that, the press stays away? How can we remain conscious, or better evolve consciousness whilst the press, regarded historically as the evolving factor of our opinion of events, how can we rely on that press who can to a larger extent no longer be trusted in their assessment of what is an issue?

In a similar light, as we see Existentialism as a view where we see that humans define their own meaning in life, and try to make rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe. As such, is Sean Penn defining meaning in life? Is he giving us a view where we get to see how the world in some places are managed and arranged? Is that the view that scares Cesar Diaz? Is that the view that scares the ‘uncomfortable’ people? Many know the reality that life for some people in some continents are very different to the one we face.

In that same view, as Existentialism believes that we are free to do, to be and as we must take personal responsibility for ourselves (and our actions), which act is the most immoral one, the path Sean Penn took, or the path the UK press at large refuses to take as they seem to cater to the need of their advertisers and not regarding the path the people are entitled to be informed on? When did the newspaper become the projection of presentation, when did it stop to be the critical informer of events as they happened? So as the press answers that their Existentialism comes with angst, we need to ask regarding the type of angst, angst regarding their income, their career, or their boss. How many of these flags would it take to see them not as journalists, but as mere cowards with some writing skills and decent punctuation? I am just asking!

No, as I see it these facilitators ignore the outside sources, deny angst and move to the music and dance (off the beat) as Sinatra sings ‘Do Be Do Be Do’.

Dumping costs

I saw the news two days ago, but I left it on the side as I was looking at other issues (like Euro leaders enabling Greece and so on). Yet, the article ‘Taylor Swift criticises ‘shocking, disappointing’ Apple Music‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/21/taylor-swift-criticises-shocking-disappointing-apple-music) is a lot more important than you think. I was unaware for two reasons. One, I do not use streaming services. I go to the shop and buy those silver coloured circular contraptions. I think that they are called CD’s. For all the ‘security’ claimed to be, I do not trust online providers. If someone ever wipes their records, whatever I owned will be gone. There are other reasons, but they do not matter at this moment. What is the real price now is the light that Taylor Swift throws on big business.

You see the quote “Swift has joined independent labels in attacking Apple’s plans not to pay royalties during the three-month free trial of its new Apple Music streaming service” is pretty important. The richest corporation in the world decided to attempt a new business model. So this corporation, the wealthiest one in the world basically will not pay royalties to new and starving artists (the 99.9999943% who are not Taylor Swift or successful).

How come, it takes one artist to open her mouth whilst the media and so many others remain quiet? One artist speaks up and suddenly we become aware. Can anyone explain to me how it is possible that Rolling Stone Magazine (at http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/apple-introduces-apple-music-streaming-service-24-7-radio-20150608) did not lead with this fact when the article was published on June 8^th 2015?

It is also very interesting how Taylor Swift opened the door for everyone to suddenly give voice, where none were saying anything at all (in this I am referring to the larger news outlets, not the smaller and small digital reviewers who seem to have been asking questions as early as the first week of June, perhaps even longer.

The sheer audacity that a third party seems to have to pay for the cost of a trial business model is plenty of reasons to ask Apple some questions, especially as they are already using tax havens to a planetary maximum. In all this we also see the Wall Street Journal where they (at http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/15/apple-to-pay-common-royalty-rates-for-music-service/) that initially the quote “Apple is offering a three-month free trial from June 30. During that period, Apple won’t pay music owners anything for songs that are streamed” (on June 15^th), whilst the people at the Wall Street Journal seem to be devoid of opinion in that article. Consider that this is the Wall Street Journal, and the used business model, a clear model of exploitation is not raising any clear questions on an editorial level is even more astounding.

I am on the fence for two reasons, as I will concede that I might have missed it until it came to the Guardian or BBC, the fact that pages of newspapers in online searches are only now catching on is equally disturbing to me. Why did this issue remain below the radar for so long? I have mentioned before that too many newspapers seem to ‘appease’ (read cater to) their advertising base (read large corporations), this event only seems to enforce the unacceptable trend.

The WWDC2015 did not seem to have any information at all (June 8^th). I understand that Apple might have steered clear from mentioning it, yet that others had not considered these events is equally questionable. The last part is visible in the Guardian article at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/08/apple-streaming-music-regulators-beats-music-spotify. This was on May 8^th, where we see that several questions are being asked, yet not the royalties part, moreover, when we consider those involved, we must take a look at the quote ““Apple has been using its considerable power in the music industry to stop the music labels from renewing Spotify’s license to stream music through its free tier,” claimed its report, which also alleged that Apple had offered to pay major label Universal Music a fee “if the label stopped allowing its songs on YouTube”“, whilst the royalties part was overlooked. Now, it is very valid that royalties issue is initially overlooked, yet consider that Dr Dre (Beats Music) is gunning for Spotify, was he also unaware, if so, keeping many in the dark from that date onwards, does that not point towards another set of questions? Even though the competition Commission was taking a look (at http://nypost.com/2015/04/01/competition-commission-probing-music-streaming-services/), where we see “a probe of Apple and other premium music-streaming services to see if they are working with music labels to unfairly squash no-fee streaming services” yet the fact that Apple in addition would not pay royalties for the first three months is an additional worry, was it not?

So in light of all this, The Wall Street Journal article does not ask questions regarding that business mode and Rolling Stone Magazine, seen as the one place for performers and music lovers refrained from illuminating that issue, so why are questions not asked, more important, why are the bulk of reporters only now shouting their articles regarding all of this? At least as a non-journalist (that be me), who focusses on non-musical issues has a decent excuse, what about all the others? All this illuminates a silent acceptance of events, just like the people seem to respond to FIFA. In that light it seems that the legal field who should be all about justice and social legality should have been a lot more protective against these large corporations a lot sooner, where were they?

Tag Archives: Rolling Stone magazine

There was more

To do or not to do

Dumping costs

Recent Posts

Archives