Tag Archives: SMH

March 17, 2026 · 18:32

Where is the trust?

That is most of the time the setting, so as ABC gives us (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-17/middle-east-live-updates-march-17-2026/106462358) “A tanker has been struck by an unknown projectile while anchored near the Strait of Hormuz. Earlier, US President Donald Trump turned his ire on European allies who he claimed “weren’t that enthusiastic” about helping the US secure the passage. The threat of Iranian missiles and drones targeting oil tankers in the strait has effectively closed the shipping channel, amid the country’s conflict with the US and Israel.” With the added ‘Rockets and drones fired at US Embassy in Baghdad’ an hour ago. Consider that President Trump gave us (on march 8th, Politico) ‘Trump says Starmer seeking to join Iran war ‘after we’ve already won’’ so, that was 9 days ago? What changed? Then yesterday, the Guardian gives us (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/mar/16/iran-war-live-updates-news-oil-trump-hormuz-dubai-airport-israel-targets) “As Donald Trump expresses frustration with countries declining to send warships to reopen the strait of Hormuz, the response remains muted among those he directly called upon.” And this happened a mere 4 hours ago. Where are the vessels of the United States? Where are their minesweepers? Simple questions and it defies knowledge why this is not front and centre everywhere. So when the Sydney Morning Herald adds spice to the setting (at https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/with-10-damning-words-pete-hegseth-says-the-quiet-part-out-loud-20260314-p5oafr.html) with ‘With 10 damning words, Pete Hegseth says the quiet part out loud’ where we see “US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth believes the media has not been sufficiently effusive about the success of the American military operation against Iran.

He had just finished speaking about the massive damage inflicted upon the regime in Tehran – its leadership, its missile stocks, its navy, its weapons infrastructure – when he turned his attention to the Pentagon press pack.” Now, I am willing to accept that I have not been part of any defence department for 43 years. I can assure you that a certain clarity is required in communication (from the defence side) and whilst I feel ready to blame the press on several matters, they are massively without blame here. The March 8th setting was the first damning setting. Then as I yesterday lighted on the ‘Just for fun’ setting that President Trump gave us and whilst the tactical setting that Kharg Island provides a sea port for the export of up to 90% of Iran’s oil products, as well as supplying storage for up to 30 million barrels. Bombing the hell out of it might have been essential, but it is a mere export point. There are 10 refineries doing the bidding of capturing oil and whilst I was able to device methods of stopping those settings, the clear message is to bomb those 10 locations to really put pressure on Iran. So when were they done? No, As I personally see it, President Trump what’s that oil this is the clear setting that is tactically seen and now that 2,500-5,000 boots are getting on the ground, that setting becomes the pressure point that Iran can put on the United States. So whilst I created IP to close harbours and disable trains, stopping the bulk of oil transits, it was merely one stage that Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE could do to take pressure away from themselves and as such I gave Saudi Arabia and the UAE that IP. I did my thing to stop the war to go towards the gulf states. 

So what are we now left with?

Well, the SMH also takes care of that. We are given “As former CNN Pentagon reporter Barbara Starr noted, it’s possible that Ellison will be none-too-pleased about Hegseth’s implications.

Starr, a 21-year veteran of the defence beat, pointed out on X that CNN has sent personnel to combat zones for decades, with some even losing their lives. “You have a legal and moral obligation to defend the free press, even the ones you don’t personally like,” she told Hegseth.

As a former TV presenter before he was tasked with running the world’s most powerful military, press freedom should be Hegseth’s instinct. His comments today – and his vainglorious move to banish press photographers from his briefings – suggest he sees the media more as a vassal to serve his interests.” I can get behind that thought. As such there are sides to this entire setting that aren’t reported on this enough. The first one was that no formal declaration of war was ever given by the United States. As such we were given: “the Trump administration officials have offered various and conflicting explanations for the war, such as to ward off an imminent Iranian threat, to pre-empt Iranian retaliation against US assets after an expected Israeli attack on Iran” My issue here is that the international courts in The Hague might side with Iran concerning the seemingly unprovoked attacks by Iran (I know that is hilarious), Iran has been waging proxy wars for decades and that is the power of a proxy war. I reckon that the attacks by Israel and the United States give a bitter taste in the eyes of the law. Israel is decently clear because of all the attacks by Iran via Hamas and Hezbollah, but the idea given “to ward off an imminent Iranian threat” is laughable. It is like New Zealand attacking Australia, the Sopwith Camel doesn’t have the range to cross that distance and as far as I know New Zealand does not have an aircraft carrier. The same applies to Iran. There is no way that an attack can result from Iran. Even Lone Wolf attacks are unlikely to succeed and the United States still has their boy-scout organisations (FBI, CIA, DIA) in place, as such they can either do their job or they cannot. 

As such my speculative view was that the United States needed the oil that Iran has (for now). After failing to get to Canada’s rare earths (the 51st state attempt), Greenland resources (through failed annexation) and Venezuela oil (which is seem simply useless to the United States) the United States are now going for the Iranian oil. After that merely Russian oil remains (and Ukraine is doing something about that too) so what is left? I might be wrong in all this and there is a simple way to show me I am wrong. Merely bomb the 10 refineries. Several sources seemed to side with me on this as we are given ‘GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham Brags ‘We Are Going to Make a Ton of Money’ on Iran War’, which was given to us on March 9th. So as we were given “Graham seemingly suggested that the conflict with Iran as well as President Donald Trump’s abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro aim to help the United States take control over major oil reserves. “Venezuela and Iran have 31% of the world’s oil reserves. We’re going to have a partnership with 31% of the known reserves. This is China’s nightmare. This is a good investment,” he said.” As well as ““We’re going to blow the hell out of these people,” Graham said, adding that “nobody will threaten [the U.S.] in the Strait of Hormuz again.” He also said there could be a collapse of Iran’s leadership. “This regime is in a death throe now, it is gonna be on its knees, it’s going to fall, and when it falls we’re going to have peace like no other time,” he added.” It seems that after 9 days he was proven on nearly all fronts and now that it is out in the open that the United States needs oil (because they have so little at present) there is now the setting that the United States are too broke to seemingly pay their bills and as I see it, the moment the boots come on the ground, the media will report on nearly everything and that will put team Trump/Hegseth in a new folly and in the limelight, Because if I can figure this out in the last decade and now we get that Dave Kelly (JP Morgan, as per OCT2025) can figure this out, you should wonder why others couldn’t figure this out. I get that I am a no one in all this, but David Kelly is the Chief Global Strategist and Head of the Global Market Insights Strategy Team of JP Morgan and he is a voice to consider no matter how you slice it. 

So whilst we now get the Guardian (read: recently) give us “March 2026, Hegseth stated during a press briefing that US forces in Iran would show “no quarter, no mercy” to enemies. Analysts and Sen. Mark Kelly pointed out that a “no quarter” order—meaning to take no prisoners and kill them instead—is a direct violation of international law, specifically Article 23(d) of the 1907 Hague Convention IV.” All whilst media like the Conversation give us “Legal scholars have argued that Hegseth’s actions, particularly regarding the Venezuelan boat strikes and statements on the Iranian conflict, could expose him to investigations for violations of international and U.S. criminal law.” As such I reckon that both President Trump and Pete Hegseth fear the international courts. Iran optionally have a case here (I rely on optional as they have done plenty of bad things, among them attack Saudi Arabia without a formal declaration of war), so it makes sense that Pete Hegseth is in the stage that he wants to trivialize the international courts of law in the Hague, which is set through “The International Court of Justice, or colloquially the World Court, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It settles legal disputes submitted to it by states and provides advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by other UN organs and specialized agencies. The ICJ is the only international court that adjudicates general disputes between countries, with its rulings and opinions serving as primary sources of international law. It is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations.” It was established in 1945 and it should now confuse all the readers on why António Guterres remains silent on this. It merely gives my thoughts on the United States being broke seeming validity. The person who attacks Israel at any option he gets, remained silent on too many settings we are seeing here. Even the rebuke on the settings of Pete Hegseth ‘attacking’ the international courts should have put him up in arms. There is the smallest notion that the media had not covered it, but I doubt that. As I see it, the seat that António Guterres hold is seen as one of the 100 most powerful seats in the world. It might not be as powerful as that uncomfortable seat that the pope has, but that would be a buttock conversation. 

So I think I have given you something to think about and consider why the bulk of the refineries are left untouched, because that creates the wealth of Iran and isn’t that the superiority of any army? We are given “Sun Tzu’s The Art of War emphasizes that the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting, making the destruction of an opponent’s economic base (or wealth of a nation) a superior strategy to direct physical conflict. Sun Tzu advises that a protracted war exhausts a state’s resources, dulls weapons, and dampens morale, meaning attacking an opponent’s economic ability to sustain a fight is crucial.” And I wrote about that on March 8th (and before that too, at https://lawlordtobe.com/2026/03/08/ones-creative-process/) the story ‘Ones creative process’ gave you the setting that the harbours and railway of Iran should be destroyed and I was happy to hand the IP that could set that in a certain view of certainty to both Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Because I am just that sort of guy. It is never about personal profit in some stage of war and these two countries were hammered with drones and missiles. As such I did more than talk (are you watching this Pete Hegseth), I delivered. 

So you all have a great day and enjoy the day because Vancouver just joined us this Tuesday. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics, Science

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

October 23, 2023 · 05:59

Denial in 3, 2, 1…

That is at times the setting. We know that denials are coming and it is often no more than a shoe drop away, or at least that is how I usually tend to see denials. For the most I do not care about American politics, it is watching someone else’s petulant children in some creche go nuts all whilst most of us, especially those who haven’t fathered any children (to the best of my knowledge) to see this as an opportune moment to massively consider remaining a bachelor. 

Three
Here we have (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-20/sidney-powell-pleads-guilty-donald-trump-georgia-election-fraud/103000142) the first of three events. ‘Former Donald Trump lawyer Sidney Powell pleads guilty in Georgia election interference case’ you see, some will see the simple side which is seen in “Powell admitted to plotting to unlawfully access secure election machines in rural Coffee County in south-eastern Georgia in January 2021”, yet the larger issues is  seemingly evaded. We see this when we consider “a felony involving moral turpitude, forgery, fraud, a history of dishonesty, consistent lack of attention to clients, alcoholism or drug abuse which affect the attorney’s ability to practice, theft of funds, or any pattern of violation of the professional code of ethics” and the only thing we see here is “The plea agreement calls for her to be sentenced to six years of probation” My personal setting is one of anger. That [stricken word for trollop] avoided disbarment? Was it the words? We get it ‘plotting’ is not ‘acting’ and as such we see the larger setting. Lawyers are all tripping over one another to avoid getting disbarred. I reckon that the moment this happens, they become advisors to ambulance chasers and such kind of people. On the other side, Uber is always looking for drivers, or there is the option of a hair salon where she can brag that she was hoodwinked to eager hearing ears there. Perhaps those clients will only listen if it comes with a discount. 

Two
This is seen (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67174576) where we are given ‘Second Trump lawyer pleads guilty to conspiracy’ where we are told that Kenneth Chesebro is linked to “Chesebro pleaded guilty to a single felony count of conspiracy to file false documents. His deal with prosecutors on Friday came as jury selection began in his case. The trial will no longer go forward.” And he too seemingly avoids disbarment. Either the prosecution is weak or they are merely stacking up the plea deals to dump the entire mess on Donald the duck Trump (the writer apologises to Walt Disney for making the reference). 

We need to see that this is merely two out of seventeen. One made a deal last September (that person might have gotten the best deal of all) but the larger stage is no longer what will happen to the former President, but it becomes how much hardship will that former president face. You see when he is thrown in jail and his proud boys are there too, they might not take too kindly to a person who made them look stupid in public. 

One
This one is in the wind, but (at https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/trump-fined-almost-8000-for-violating-gag-order-in-new-york-civil-trial-20231021-p5edz5.html) we are given ‘Trump fined almost $8000 for violating gag order in New York civil trial’ and we are also given “Justice Arthur Engoron said a Trump social media post attacking the judge’s clerk – which was later deleted from the former president’s Truth Social platform – had remained visible on his 2024 campaign website two weeks after an order was issued to take it down”, so only $8000? I reckon he has had lunch meetings that costed more. But the start has begun and whilst I doubt if the judge will impose stricter fines (the past is not in that favour), this is a start and all this took well over 2 years. The insurrection which started on January 6, 2021 is finally getting to the point where the big players are up. Even as this is still in court, I am not holding my breath. You see US history will have to accept that this is the first president that could face jail-time for actions committed. America has shown itself to remain in denial to act on such matters. 

On the upside, as I was reading and watching these parts, I saw something I will not publish here, but the larger stage could be devastating to any party exposed to it and whilst I am happy to hand that over to the Ukraine. I would feel a sense of guilt to do so. Nothing against Ukraine, but it requires a different mindset and I feel uneasy to set it that way.

This relates to the article as it is a mindset that none of the involved lawyers had, as such their probations are seen by me as massively uneasy. You see “an apology letter to citizens of Georgia” is a bloody joke. A nation that prided itself on democracy is playing pussy to the events that destroys that same democracy they hold so high, so proud. Harsh words from a judge are not enough. Actions were required and actions are seemingly at best limited. This is why I will not cheer on the entire Trump case until a final verdict is passed. You see, there is still some chance that he gets off on technicalities and several people will offer their resignation to make up for it, all whilst they know that their future will be well tended too. That is the unacceptable side of democracy. Acting for the presented greater good and that reminds me of an old saying “adding water to the wine”. Yet at what point does one forget the taste of water or the taste of wine? When we forget what either was, what becomes of us? 

A simple question to get you to ponder through the upcoming Monday.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

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

October 10, 2023 · 05:11

The job never evolved

There was an article in the Sydney Morning Herald and it angered me. The article (at https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/recruitment-labour-hire-companies-collapse-amid-worker-reluctance-to-swap-jobs-20231006-p5ea8q.html) gives us ‘Recruitment, labour hire companies collapse amid worker reluctance to swap jobs’ it is there that we are given “the slowing economy makes employers more reluctant to fork out money to external recruitment firms who are struggling to fill job vacancies with qualified candidates.” First of all, the recruitment firms in Australia are a joke. They never learned anything. They keep on playing the same games for resume collections and mass marketing job filling. Over the last 10 years I have had less than a dozen confirmation emails. We are talking in excess of 300 job applications and less then a dozen replied with something like ‘We have received your resume’ or even ‘We regret to inform you that you have not been selected’ Less then a dozen in over 300 applications. That is the recruitment firm setting, a setting that has less credibility than a cocaine pusher in Sydney’s drug capital called Kings Cross.

They are all about cutting corners and all about reducing costs, all whilst they lose more and more credibility. As such there is every chance that employers are more and more becoming self sufficient in this task. There are more and more corporations with talent pages and career pages.

And the stage of “recruitment agencies were struggling with more vacancies than they could find qualified candidates for” is laughable to say the least. Ageism is merely one factor, the other factor is that more and more recruitment agencies have staff members that seemingly have no clue what they are doing. In one event I met the same recruiter a week later by pure chance and he stated that he hadn’t had any time to read my resume. But there he was collecting more resume’s.

So why don’t we give the setting a twist towards the reality of the stage? Perhaps it should be ‘hire companies collapse due to staff competency and repeated outdated actions’, I think that this is a much more to the point reason. In addition we see all kinds of recruitment firms popping up. There is every chance that one person was good at what he or she did and started their own firm. Makes perfect sense to me, but now we have 8 instead of one firm and these 8 firms are not communicative at all, the previous version wasn’t either. 

There are of course valid reasons and the SMH gives it to us via “A broader collapse in the construction industry, including high-profile businesses Porter Davis and Mahercorp, has reverberated through labour hire companies such as Duet Recruitment, ARI Recruitment, Collar Up Recruitment, GRB 365 Recruitment and PG Labour Services, who have called in administrators as their work dries up”. I reckon that in IT similar settings are happening. Google, Amazon, Microsoft and IBM are all shedding jobs. So there would be an impact. Yet the larger issue is that we see dozens of jobs every day in LinkedIn and those jobs are often pushed by recruiters, who keep on doing the same thing again and again and not communicating any of this. So when we see ‘worker reluctance to swap jobs’, the setting might be that these workers do not trust recruitment firms. All promising a calf with golden horns but in the end whatever they promise isn’t set in stone. Firms promising warm calling and inbound calls all whilst the result is that they are cold calling firms and people don’t like cold callers and whatever bonus is promised is a joke. Recruiters haven’t learned their lesson in over a decade and they continue in the trend of  direct mail companies, all whilst that setting is decades old. You either evolve or you become irrelevant. It is that simple.

Enjoy the day.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media

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

April 16, 2022 · 17:33

What’s the name, what’s the game?

I saw the news a few days ago, and for the most it does not matter to me, but there is an awful lot of hypocrisy going around and the media is (as I personally see it) as tainted as anything else. The stage is set to Elon Musk, or better stated is set against Elon Musk. Why? Don’t really know the man, but he seems the modern day Midas. Whatever he touches turns to gold. He made an upheaval in the battery market, the mobile market, the energy market. The man is (allegedly) an inventor like me, or he can see proper innovation just like Steve Jobs. How is this a bad thing? Consider the news that he was getting involved in social media. Why not? I do not know if it is a bad idea. But he has the dough to become part of it. Yet the Sydney Morning Herald gives us ‘Elon Musk launches $58 billion hostile takeover of Twitter’ (at https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/elon-musk-launches-hostile-takeover-of-twitter-20220414-p5admv.html) as such lets take a look at what constitutes a hostile takeover? The definition gives us “A hostile takeover occurs when an acquiring company attempts to take over a target company against the wishes of the target company’s management. An acquiring company can achieve a hostile takeover by going directly to the target company’s shareholders or fighting to replace its management” is this true? CBS gives us ‘Elon Musk offers to buy Twitter for $43 billion’, so who is giving us the truth and who is giving a stakeholder a blow job? You think this is rude? You ain’t seen nothing yet. We can argue until the sun goes down, but the setting of finance is clear. If a company is worth it, or could become worth it, you buy it. This has been the case in many occasions. Yet no one is saying that about Microsoft and Blizzard. There we get ‘Activision Blizzard/Microsoft Deal Discouraged by Letter Penned by SOC Investment Group’, how quaint.

So it was today when I saw (at https://www.reuters.com/technology/twitter-adopts-poison-pill-fight-musk-2022-04-15/) ‘Twitter adopts ‘poison pill’ as challenger to Musk emerges’, it is the Guardian version where we see “The method, known as a “poison pill” in the finance world, suggests Twitter will fight Musk to prevent a hostile takeover. It would go into effect if a shareholder were to acquire more than 15% of the company in a deal not approved by the board and expires 14 April 2023.”You see my issue is with the ‘hostile takeover’ part. The guardian gives us those goods with “Jack Dorsey, Twitter founder and former CEO, noted in a tweet on Friday that such surprise purchases are always a risk for the company. “As a public company, Twitter has always been ‘for sale’,” he said. “That’s the real issue.” Musk is already facing legal action for his Twitter purchases, with one investor suing the Tesla executive in a potential class action lawsuit for failing to disclose his buy-up of shares before the required deadline to do so. The lawsuit comes as Musk faces a number of investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission for his investment activities, including insider trading allegations related to his own tweets.” So we see ‘insider trading’, we see ‘hostile takeover’ but we are given no real evidence of either. Merely the word ‘allegations’ that everyone is overlooking. 

The stage becomes even weirder as we consider the actions that Microsoft unleashed on the gaming industry and it is casually trivialised by too many media outlets. 

In all this the statement “he wanted to release its “extraordinary potential” to support free speech and democracy across the world.” Is trivialised by “Twitter’s board on Friday unanimously approved a plan that would allow existing shareholders to buy stocks at a substantial discount in order to dilute the holdings of new investors”, there is no real setting of who these board members are, the media seemingly forgot about that part. These members that include Bret Taylor (SalesForce), Parag Agrawal (CEO Twitter), Mimi Alemayehou (Mastercard), Egon Durban (Silver Lake), Martha Lane Fox (House of Lords), Dr. Fei-Fei Li (Stanford), Patrick Pichette (Google), David Rosenblatt and Robert Zoellick (AllianceBernstein Holding L.P.) there was a unanimous objection to the purchase by Elon Musk and no media outlet had anything from these members with the simple question ‘Why oppose?’. There might be a very valid reason, but I and all others were not informed, so what gives?

We can speculate on why it was done. Elon Musk sees that the US is going after the billionaires. As such he might be buying anything he can to drop the tax rift, and lets face it, he has been turning things to gold and Twitter is a golden idea. So whilst we see all kinds of objections on how analysts see (and say) things like “KeyBanc Capital analyst Justin Patterson downgraded the social media company in the wake of Elon Musk’s buyout proposal. Patterson cut his rating to sector weight, after being at overweight since January 2021, saying that the potential for the Musk bid to “go up in smoke” will turn investor focus on a more challenging macro environment that elevates downside risk to financial estimates.” I personally honestly do not know what will happen, but when a person buys a company, a person that has transformed several companies into powerhouses, I wonder what really is going on. It could be simple, it could be complex, yet the larger station is that people laughed at Tesla and now we see “As of April 2022 Tesla has a market cap of $1.018 Trillion. This makes Tesla the world’s 6th most valuable company by market cap according to our data.” So as I see it, the joke is on them. What was an idea is now 6th on the most valuable companies on the market and that is behind Apple, Microsoft, Aramco, Alphabet, and Amazon and as I gave voice to Microsoft, there is every chance that it will head of Microsoft in the next 3 years. And that is whilst no one has a clue where Meta will end, because they will become part of the top 7 soon enough (2024), and that too is out into the market. So I have questions and the media is not asking the board members of Twitter, or Elon Musk a clear set of questions. And all that before someone decides to ask KeyBanc Capital a few uncomfortable questions. So what is in the name Twitter, what is in the name Elon Musk and what is in the shares game being played now. No matter what is happening, I feel certain that the media will not properly inform us, that mush seems a personal given. Yet in all this we see the approximation of “to support free speech and democracy across the world”, it seems to me that Elon Musk is giving us options, options in mobile technology and energy technology. Who else has been giving us that? I see questions and no one asking them, it is weird, is it not?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, Media, Politics

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

March 18, 2022 · 21:22

Don’t we have enough problems?

This started this morning. It started when three messages passed by my Chromebook. The first was (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/16/un-aid-drive-to-avert-yemen-catastrophe-falls-far-short) called ‘UN aid drive to avert Yemen catastrophe falls far short’, so in short, the UN cannot get it done, big surprise here (not really). The second one was from a different corner. The second one was Arab News (at https://www.arabnews.com/node/2044566/saudi-arabia) which gives us ‘Saudi Arabia pumps $19bn into Yemeni aid program: KS relief chief’, so if I see this correctly, the UN was unable to get it done raising only $1.3bn at Wednesday’s conference in Geneva, a little short of the $4.24bn they had hoped to get, a mere 30%, so we see the failure of one, all whilst the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is pumping $19,000,000,000 into that place. And of course it comes with “He added that Saudi Arabia would continue to support Yemen through relief and humanitarian programs in coordination with international and local partners.” Yet the other side, the UN did not really give any notice of the efforts of Saudi Arabia does it, even as Arab News gives us “The event was also attended by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, President of the Swiss Confederation Ignazio Cassis, Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs Anne Lindy, UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Martin Griffiths, and Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the UN in Geneva Dr. Abdulaziz Al-Wasel”, I saw no mention in the end in western papers. I did however find something else. 

The Sydney Morning Herald gives us (at https://www.smh.com.au/culture/celebrity/ex-bachelorette-georgia-love-slammed-for-instagram-posts-promoting-saudi-arabia-20220317-p5a5lf.html) the stage of ‘Ex-Bachelorette Georgia Love slammed for Instagram posts promoting Saudi Arabia’ and there we see “Georgia Love and Lee Elliott, who found romance in 2016 on the second season of Network 10’s The Bachelorette, have sparked controversy after the pair posted Instagram photos of themselves promoting tourism in Saudi Arabia.” The article by Robert Moran calls for more, hiding behind commenters whilst the SMH has not informed us on more than one occasion that Houthi terrorists were attacking civilian targets. The SMH also did not inform the people on the $19,000,000,000 event from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia all whilst the UN could not get 25% done, they raised less than 10% of what Saudi Arabia contributed. If we are all bout fair and balanced, we need to start being fair and balanced. Iran executed 280 people in 2021, so where is THAT Sydney Morning Herald article? 

Is Saudi Arabia a perfect nation, no it is not. Neither is Australia, a nation who refuses to do anything about ageism. Two people promoted tourism in a nation we are not at war with, two people are doing something to open doors that others cannot be bothered knocking on. 

I think that the SMH dropped a few too many issues to be knocking on some door regarding promoting a nation. Oh, and before I forget it should I get that notion in similar ways, I would offer the 5G IP I have to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia long before I would EVER offer it to Australia! Although, I would try to sell them some other IP first, including a story on how to assassinate a politician.

See how long it takes people to consider that Telstra is an increasing problem, not some solution. We see mere greed driven responses, instead of catering to the larger setting of the people. The AFR (Australian Financial review) gave us two weeks ago “A major upgrade of NBN services in country Australia will be part of a multibillion-dollar regional infrastructure package to be included in Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s pre-election budget.” And you think this is god for the people. No, it was because ‘Major NBN upgrade planned to fight off Musk’s Starlink’, so why is Elon Musk with his Starlink a negative thing? Is it because it is bad, or because it is bad for players like Telstra and their ‘friends’? If I look at all the issues we face, I think we have more than enough problems. And the anti-Saudi rhetoric whilst WE never did anything in that region when it mattered is just insane, but we are their for Ukraine, it is politically convenient. I reckon the Syrians and the Yemeni’s will have to live with that decision. 

So whilst news dot com dot au “Georgia Love and partner Lee Elliot have deleted their Instagram posts promoting Saudi Arabia but they can’t hide from those tagging them”, it is just another another set of bullies who do not know what they are talking about, because certain media prefers not to inform them. And in the end, do I care? Nope, I never seen of followed Georgia Love. I personally think that the Bachelorette and like minded programs are a waste of my time. But I do care about bullies and that should be on the front of the line. So how much reporting did Robert Moran do on Iranian culture? Their humanitarian efforts? You see it is more likely not his cup of soup and the fact that a person like Georgia Love made the papers (or internet) means that he had nowhere else to look regarding culture. So whilst ABC gave us ‘Women are isolated in sports media, we need more allies for real and lasting change’ three hours ago, the Sydney Morning Herald was all about bully tactics, that is how I personally see it and it is sad that some resort to that, but on the plus side, I can at least make the claim that I tried to better the world by melting down an Iranian nuclear reactor, how is that for cancel culture? In all the issues we face Georgia Love should have been a blip on the radar at present, I personally reckon certain people got upset with the effort and the SMH obliged. That is my take on the matter, but then I could be wrong. You make up your own mind on where I stood, right or wrong?

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Politics, Science

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

December 1, 2021 · 21:37

Covering one another

In light of yesterday, it is equally important that other information is given to you. Remember headlines like ‘South Africa slams ‘unjustified’ reaction as Omicron continues to spread across the globe’? We saw the ‘unjust’ approach and even as we accept that some nations (the Netherlands) apparently have data showing that they had a case before South Africa reported it, the source of that case is still unconfirmed. That does not mean that South Africa is too blame for this issue. And as we are now given (by Reuters) that “the Omicron coronavirus variant detected in southern Africa could be the most likely candidate to displace the highly contagious Delta variant, the director of South Africa’s communicable disease institute said on Tuesday”, do you still think that it is a bad idea to close borders? All borders no less. There is still a lot that the scientists do not know and we get that, but leaving the borders open in a stage where a disease has now killed over 5 million people, that is a stage that should worry everyone and when we see that 263 million have had the disease, we do get that the mortality rate is low. Yet how do you feel when your parents and grandparents are the dead ones? Still think that closing the borders is the wrong move? Mine are all dead, so I do not care, but you might. 

13 people on a flight from South Africa had that variant, so it is being spread and that might not be the South Africans that are at fault. For all we know (I do not know) the people infected were Dutch people visiting South Africa (for whatever reason). We can guess all we want, but the data is limited and it has too many gaps. We also do not know what causes the mutation, so there is a lot that the scientists do not know. And to help them it seems (to me) important to lockdown as much as possible. Am I right? I do not know, but the politicians are seemingly helping one another out and that is an actual flaw we cannot afford. And as some papers (the SMH in this case) gives us ‘Infections in Europe pre-date Omicron’s identification in South Africa’, we still cannot tell where that version came from, or what made it mutate. And before some people want to use the brush containing the blame paint on South Africa. Consider that Germany gives us “German authorities said they had an Omicron infection in a man who had neither been abroad nor had contact with anyone who had been”, as I have a few issues with ‘nor had contact with anyone who had been’, there is too much we do not know, as such the traveller might have sat next to him on a bench, in a mall, behind him in a coffeeshop and so on. But the fact that he had not been abroad still matters. Either this version is massively infective, or there is an element the scientists are still in the dark about. 

The larger problem is that this entire equation has too many captains and not enough crew, which is a generic failing in the EU. As I personally see it, this will cause more and more gaps and less standardisation of data, as well as reporting over the European nations. We get it that there is a global issue, but this issue should not exist in the EU and I saw just how largely this failing tends to be from my (trying) approach to getting some form of clear data. And now, as the amount of nations with Omicron rises, so will the uncertainty, the fear and the economic drawbacks. A stage we all saw coming (to some degree) yet we never thought it would come this fast, or this completely. So as we view the news of more people ignoring lockdowns, ignoring safety and considering that bleach is a much better anti covid solution than a vaccine is, also consider that now with Omicron we might relax as it will be the death of them. Some might argue that the benefit of these actions is that in California 117 jobs a day open up. I get it, it is crude, but that is the setting. Do you think for one moment that Wall Street cares about you (or me for that matter), it sees the revenue needs, and unemployment numbers drive that down, so they are (silently) happy. And this is not some USA push, the UK is in a worse shape, with only 20% the population it has twice the amount of deceased people, and now we all get Omicron and a larger unknown of how effective our vaccine is, because that is unknown, we hear speculations, all lacking evidence at present. 

So as politicians are covering each other on points of view, we see a larger lack of support of the scientific and medical staff. The media is in part to blame, they are all about flames. Yet I personally believe that EVERY newspaper on the planet has a responsibility to make sure that the views of Dr Fauci (and medical experts like him) are shown everywhere and the absolute idiot at Fox who caused ‘Outrage as Fox News commentator likens Anthony Fauci to Nazi doctor’ should be taken off the job, and optionally get treatment from Dr Mengele, so he can feel firsthand how wrong his view was. 

Lets make one thing sure, we need the medical people and its experts. They can wait for us to die and take over all the good mansions on a global setting. We need them, they do not need us to be a risk for them and their family members. Take that consideration to heart. So if you see a medical professional today and tomorrow, buy him (or her) a coffee, a tea and say ‘Thank you!’ We owe them a lot more, but this gesture might take away some of the stress they face on a daily basis and I would like it if politicians take that message to heart, they should be championing that resolve all over the world.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Science

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

January 25, 2021 · 23:18

Perspective

We all need it, you, me and all around us, it is essential to set a stage where we are able to set dimensionality of what we know, what we think we know and how it relates to everything around us. There are to benefits, the first is the ‘blinker’ effect. In the old days (and ever today) horses were given blinkers as to not get alarmed by what was happening around them, we too need blinkers. If we take in everything around us we might get anxiety. Now, we do not need actual blinkers, we day dream, we focus, we set the view to what we (at times) need to see. Some focus too much and get this tunnel view where the larger image would have been useful, but that is not always the case, it is at times arbitrary.

How about an example. There is talk of Google search leaving Australia, so here we see ‘A Google exit could open door for publisher deals with smaller players: ACCC’, a quote by Competition tsar Rod Sims, my somewhat less diplomatic view is “Is this Sims out of his fucking mind?”, you see the media has almost no credibility left, if you need an example of that, consider the news (by Dutch NOS) on December 25th (at https://nos.nl/artikel/2362024-leids-onderzoek-veel-gebruikte-sneltest-minder-betrouwbaar-dan-gedacht.html), I wrote about it in ‘The lull of writing’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/28/the-lull-of-writing/), in that time, which media format gave us any information? In light of todays news (at https://www.smh.com.au/world/oceania/what-we-know-about-the-new-zealand-northland-case-20210125-p56wre.html) a month after the Dutch situation we are given all kinds of filtered information, including a new South African version, with the added “but there’s no evidence to suggest an increase in disease severity or fatality rates”, and there we have it, no mention of ‘False Negatives’ at all, something that was out for a month from reliable sources mind you. In addition, we see the NewScientist giving us ‘Covid-19 news: UK variant may be 30 per cent more deadly’ (at https://www.newscientist.com/article/2237475-covid-19-news-uk-variant-may-be-30-per-cent-more-deadly) and here I accept that one source does not validate the second part, yet Sky News gives us that it ‘may be’ more deadly, which indicates that there is no proof, and other sources do not gives us anything, not even any form of opposition of the two elements, which could be valid, but the news is no longer about informing us, but giving us filtered information (which is their shareholders, stake holders and advertisers version of censorship), as such are we confronted by censorship or scenesoreship? I let you decide, yet the stage that the media gives us in opposition to Google, all whilst they have little to no credibility at present (well most of them anyway) leaves us out in the open wondering why we pay for that level of news anyway, are the shareholders and advertisers not paying them? So whilst Bloomberg gives us ‘Australia Says ‘Inevitable’ Google Will Have to Pay for News’ (at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-24/australia-says-inevitable-google-others-have-to-pay-for-news) people like Australia’s Treasurer Josh Frydenberg better realise that they are now walking with a target on their backs, you see, they might hide behind “it’s “inevitable” that Google and other tech behemoths will have to eventually pay for using media content”, all whilst that pussy refused (read: was unable) to overhaul tax laws, tax laws that impact all (including Apple, Netflix and Amazon), and in that setting, we will hold HIM accountable for filtered content, all whilst these news players give us links on Twitter, Facebook and Google Search that leads to advertisements to pay for reading their news, these advertisements are in the news sections, so where do we get OUR money back? So whilst we see “Frydenberg said Australia could either be a “world leader” in pushing for the code or wait to follow others in passing similar legislation”, or Australia becomes option 3, namely irrelevant. A nation with 25 million people is not that relevant, especially when it is as isolated as Australia is. And in that light, when Google moves out, what will Australia do when it realises that there are cogs to digital advertisement and commerce falls down and down, rely on the yellow pages, or a yellow solution (Chinese e-advertisement options). The news dug its own hole, it catered to Murdoch frenzy who pushed towards glossy pages, which is nice in the UK where there are 25 different newspapers on every corner, that is not the setting in Australia, so when the Australian Epoch Times overtakes any of the Australian papers, I will be howling with laughter, these people dug their own graves, relying on entertainment TV (channel 7, channel 9) to give us the filtered information (read: Australian news) all whilst the people were never considered in the first place. 

Now, there will be peope out there that my perspective is wrong, and I am fine with that, so the best thing to do is to investigate, the news that BBC, Reuters and Al Jazeera gives all, whilst we take a look at local newspapers and see what information is missing, as well as from their online versions. I saw the start well before 2012, but in November 2012 the news agents filtered out what gamers needed to know, there we see the larger issue. Trivialising a setting with ‘there is a memo’ whilst the terms of service are a legal setting between consumer and industrial, the memo was not, any meeting could destroy the memo, it could not diminish any agreed terms of service and 30 million gamers were about to get hit, the filtered information bringers left that out, and they have been leaving things out for a decade, the ‘False Negative’ issue as reported  by Frits Rosendaal from the Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum (LUMC) gave us this a month ago, and it impacts a lot more people than 30 million people, so where was this news? If you do not read Dutch you might not know this and you all needed to know this, which is opposing the view of Shareholders, stake holders and advertisers. So why do we pay for filtered information?

It is a stage of perspective, I will let you decide whether a false negative in a corona viral issue could affect you, your mum or nana. Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

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

June 27, 2019 · 12:35

Lap Time

Yes, we heard the term; we see it in athletics, in Formula 1 (and all the other formula races, except baby formula). How did we go after one lap, will lap two be on par, better or are we sliding. The 5G global race is on and even as the US and others are in denial, some facts are open for viewing, so as I got to the page (at https://www.eureporter.co/frontpage/2019/06/26/huawei-dominates-global-race-to-5g-despite-pressure-from-washington/) I was not surprised. The headline ‘Huawei dominates global race to 5G despite pressure from Washington‘ is not really a surprise. Yet one element is a nice verification. when we see: “Currently, two-thirds of global existing 5G networks are powered by Huawei technologies” and that is after a year of BS and fear mongering by the US, if they had not done that the picture would be different, it would be considerably worse for all non-Huawei contenders. So even as Ericsson is building a plant in the US so that they can become the courtesan of choice, reality is a very different stage.

The issue (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/11/10/the-heart-processes/) in ‘The Heart Processes‘ where we see: “This now links it back to Huawei (5G barred), the iterative actions of technology whilst we are being surpassed on every technological side. The full article (at https://www.crn.com.au/news/telstra-fault-takes-down-eftpos-and-atms-515080) gives a few more question, yet I will get to them in another article when I give you all a few more technological jabs against certain Telco players as they presented their ego and not their actual capability“, there are references that go back to 2017 where we saw that the non-Huawei players were already behind. There is Forbes Last April with ‘Huawei’s 5G Dominance In The Post-American World‘, or ‘Huawei’s new Wi-Fi routers solve a serious first world problem‘ in January 2018, Huawei have been showing to be the stronger innovator for well over three years and has been leading the 5G market, now that they even under discriminatory environments are achieving a 66% market in current 5G shows just how warped the situation is, so as I stated it before and do so again, ‘America will soon no longer matter’ and that is the true nightmare that the US is facing, when the silver bullet to survive a $22 trillion debt is meely a dud in your own armoury, you end up with a massive problem.

So as we see the Lap Time, with 5G going commercial in the Middle East, and now optionally Germany as well, we will see the blind followers of Europe, who follow the misguided voice of America, we will see them melt like snowflakes in the summer sun (or the current European heatwave), the economy is their Achilles heel and they will all fold.

And the battle will alter its course even further; the advantage that the Middle East is now showing over America is getting teeth and talons. A month ago we saw that Softbank selected Nokia over Huawei, and that is fine, weren’t it for the fact that we also got ‘Nokia Winning 5G Contracts Despite Delivery Delays, CEO Says‘ two weeks ago. Bloomberg gave us that one, so when Nokia gets pushed to cater to American needs, will they lose their Softbank deal and a cornerstone to the Middle East? It is not a given, but it is a valid question. So even as there is truth in the quote: “A few weeks of delays “is not really much” in the context of a 15-20 year cycle, Suri said. In the first quarter, the Finnish company struggled to book revenue from the contracts it had signed“, we accept that these things happen, yet weeks tends to become one month, then a second month and in a race where being there fast matters, Nokia cannot afford to remain delayed, they had to be ahead of the curve and they are not, they are merely on par at best, this now implies that 42 global contracts will be under scrutiny and not delivering on time will constitute pressures that Nokia will be unable to fully deal with and Chief Executive Officer Rajeev Suri knows this.

Even as we see that Nokia is still on the financial fence regarding booking profits (they will do so, no doubt) Huawei was able to secure a lucrative deal with Russian telecoms company MTS. It might be all under the guise of ‘the enemy of my enemy‘, but in the end ‘gold is gold’ and it is in the end about the acquired currency. So as they get Russia and as the EU buckles towards Huawei, we see a market that is a lot stronger for Huawei and every win in the Middle East will tip the European seesaw in favour of Huawei.

For the most after we check the lap time, there is a clear benefit for Huawei, yet Ericsson and Nokia remain strong competitors, Ericsson made the optional flaw of moving part of their base towards America, it sounds good, but their infrastructure will be undermined in several places more and more, so either Ericsson will push American employment to a much higher degree (Customer Service centres, Customer royalty programs and product infrastructure), or they face a massive blow-back more likely than not before EOFY 2020, a setback that will cost them a whole lot more than they bargained for. There is no given on Nokia at present, they had a strong firm presence in Europe and they can do so again, whilst these rules apply to Huawei as well, when you consider the places they were, they have built strong teams all over the place and with the winning strategies in the Middle East they have grown their ambassador places all over the Middle East, something Nokia and Ericsson did not do to such degrees.

So it is not only the 2/3rd advantage that Huawei has, it shows that their infrastructure is still a lot stronger and in the second hour (59:59 after a mobile phone is sold) the systems of Nokia and Ericsson will be tested and I personally believe that they are not ready, more importantly, the people will not be ready for waves of questions that will hit these centres and that will hammer the successes that Nokia and Ericsson have at present.

As lap time goes, it is a strong race from all three, yet a race is only as strong as the team, the car and the track. Yet in a normal race the track is set, in this race we have seen that America has been considering detour after detour and as such some teams will not be ready for what happens after that and in that race Huawei gets the much stronger advantage as America is not considering them, so that pressure falls only on Ericsson and Nokia. And that is where the issues start to count. When players like Softbank get pushed to the back, they will reconsider and anyone changing its order has the danger of taking more than one other player with them, that is the stronger danger that the other two face as they try to gulp down whatever US contract they can get.

There is supporting evidence for that. In Australia NBN showed the need (source: SMH) “NBN Co spokeswoman said the network was committed to “continuously improving the service provided as internet demand and data needs evolve” including a recent $800 million investment into customer service on the fixed wireless network“, the problem is that to a much larger degree Australian NBN is (diplomatically speaking) a $51 billion failure, the only way to save face is to overhaul it to a much larger degree and in light of ‘9.6 million homes and businesses were now connected to the network with 62 per cent of those customers choosing speed plans of 50Mbps or more‘, all whilst this could grow by another 30% if Microsoft and Google had their way, giving us levels of unparalleled congestion soon enough after that.

The moment that ANY vendor needs to acknowledge 5G and congestion in the first year will be the point that turns the customer base into a churn tidal wave and that will happen if the infrastructure is not in place. The US and some others are massively in denial there, it might be argues that this risk is also present in the Middle East and I would expect this to be the case, yet Huawei has had time to prepare and the others are merely jumping on the revenue wagon as the US pushed for a ‘no Huawei zone’ preferably one that is global.

That is the impeding risk, not that Huawei is out of the race, but that the others get stretched too thin. I have seen this happen again and again over the last 20 years and then we get some delusional VP giving their staff an elastic band reference on stretching resources a little more. They ultimately never learned that time is not a factor that can stretch like an elastic band, it is a rigorously set standard that does not budge and against that merely better and larger man power will solve it and Nokia just got rid of a boatload of them, all to cater to 5G, so when they need staff and training them, they will be under the gun 24:7, I do not believe that they are ready at that point and the increased presence in America implies that Ericsson is nowhere near ready, they need well over 500 additional support staff for what comes and they have nowhere near those numbers.

That is all available to the eager eyes and they have not altered that path yet. In their defence, it will not be needed before August 2019, yet there is already enough indication that their growth plan is not set in that direction. As I developed my own IP, I noticed that the Cybersecurity needs for 5G are still in the basement whilst it had to be through the roof almost 3 months ago, so the first cyber security issue will be a devastating one for each of these players. That is merely on a consumer level, on a commercial level the setting is even worse, it is a Nightmare on 5G street waiting to happen and in this there will be no miracle dream weaver, merely some Freddy Kruger that will show now regard for the lives of those victims, as the rewards were just too appealing. An almost perfect cyber storm in the shaping, a stage no likely seen before January 2020, yet even then there will already be victims and loads of insurances that are more likely than not eager to find a loophole not to pay any of them.

As I see it, it is a lap time that is good for all three, yet the setting of lap time is no longer a valid one. When the track definition becomes a flexible one, detours change the stats of everything, changed requirement in mid race will also hamper issues and none are ready, Huawei merely had more time to get ready giving them an additional advantage in this race.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

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

May 23, 2019 · 11:51

The Scott Pilgrim of Technology

There is a moment when we have to take account of actions; we have to push into the direct limelight the ACTUAL dangers. I did some of it when the DJI issues hit the news. With ‘That’s the way the money flows‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/05/21/thats-the-way-the-money-flows/) we see certain actions, but have you considered the actual dangers?

In this case (for a few reasons I move towards the article in the Verge. Here (at https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/22/18634401/huawei-ban-trump-case-infrastructure-fears-google-microsoft-arm-security) we see what transpired half a day ago. With the ARM announcement people are getting worried. Yet they validly ask: “halting its access to current and future chip designs and coming on the heels of similar breaks from Google and Microsoft. Huawei is in deep, deep trouble, and we still don’t have a clear picture of why“.

Yes that is seemingly an issue, if there actually was an issue, in addition we are given “There’s never been a full accounting of why the US government believes Huawei is such a threat, in large part because of national security interests, which means much of the evidence remains secret” and that is where the issue is, it is hidden. There has not been one respectable cyber engineer giving a clear account of where the actual flaws are.

So when we see: “There was never any hard evidence of backdoors in Huawei’s cell towers — but, as hawks saw it, there didn’t need to be. As a hardware provider, Huawei needs to be able to deploy software the same way Apple deploys iOS updates. But as long as there was a pipeline from Huawei’s China headquarters to cell towers in the US, there would be a strong risk of Chinese surveillance agencies using it to sneak malware into the network“. We can accept that to some degree, yet the actual issue stated with: ‘there would be a strong risk of Chinese surveillance agencies using it to sneak malware into the network‘. If it is about risk then that risk is actually zero, you see Cisco solved that problem for Russian, Chinese and North Korean intelligence months ago. The fact that all over the US and now Europe, we see the dropping of Huawei as a consideration is not merely an act of discrimination, it could also be seen as an act of customer being betrayed by their governments.

What is the evidence?

As some experts give us something like: “The vulnerability could allow an authenticated, local attacker to write a modified firmware image to that component. A successful exploit could either cause the device to become unusable (and require a hardware replacement) or allow tampering with the Secure Boot verification process, according to Cisco’s advisory” and make no mistake, routers from Parks and recreation, to the Pentagon right up to the White House are optionally affected at present, the list (at https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20190513-secureboot#vp) shows a list that is impacting vulnerabilities to MILLIONS of devices and the media remains largely silent on it.

And when we also consider: “Other routing and switching gear patches won’t roll out until July and August, with some products slated for even later fixes, in October and November.” we should all realise that Chinese equipment does not make US hardware vulnerable, Cisco (an American company no less) did it for them. The Washington Post is not really covering it, are they? Perhaps because we see (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/brand-studio/wp/tag/cisco-webex) loads of space reserved for partner content, giving us the credo that I have mentioned a few times before. The media has become a whore (or perhaps better stated a person relying on questionable ethics). They cater to their shareholders, their stake holders and their advertisers; there is the real danger and the real vulnerability.

Keeping the people knowingly in the dark from actual dangerous situations, but that is not really what big business wants is it. The dangers that Huawei grew to twice its size was just too dangerous for those on the Wall Street gravy train, and whilst we see these dangers for almost a month, the value of Cisco goes up? Whilst millions of devices are vulnerable with many of them in that state to deep into November, optionally remaining a danger until well into January 2020, for the simple reason that delays are almost inevitable in these situations?

When we realise that we can Google on reported true and false weaknesses that hit Huawei and Cisco, it is shameful to see the following list:

News source

Huawei ‘danger’ given

Cisco vulnerability mentioned
Sydney Morning Herald

Yay

Nay
the Age

Yay

Nay
the Guardian

Yay

Nay
BBC

Yay

Nay
The Times

Yay

Nay
Australian Financial Review

Yay

Nay
Financial Times

Yay

Nay
Washington Post

Yay

Nay
LA Times

Yay

Nay
NOS (Dutch)

Yay

Nay
Dagens Nyheter (Swedish)

Yay

Nay

 

However, in case of the Sydney Morning Herald we do get to see sponsored content for Cisco and the Washington Post gave the readers Cisco Partner content.

As far as I have been able to tell, none of them gave any light to the vulnerabilities in Cisco Routers and Firewalls. Would you agree that a flaw impacting millions of devices is news? Many of them pulled a similar stunt in 2012 regarding Sony in the month before the release of the PS4. In regards to the list, these are supposed to be the more respectable choices for news; the list of absent news giving sources is a lot larger.

Whilst the IT news magazines gave the broader setting (as well as Cisco on their own site), we see that the media is seemingly playing a game of: ‘Let’s rent a hotel room on an hourly rate‘.

When we see Tara Seals in Threatpost giving us: “A critical vulnerability in Cisco’s software-defined networking (SDN) software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to connect to a vulnerable data-center switch and take it over, with the privileges of the root user” (at https://threatpost.com/cisco-critical-nexus-9000-flaw/144290/), I suddenly realise that there is an inner demon with a pitchfork stabbing into my brain telling me that I am a pussy, I disagree! So here it is: “A message for the Pentagon IT department; Do you still have the password ‘Cisco123‘ on some of your routers? If so would it not be a great idea to change it before the Chinese Ministry of State Security and the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation (SVR RF) decides to download your servers at their earliest convenience?”

I know it is an annoyance, but with Cisco flaws the way they were it is merely a small consideration, and let’s not forget that at this stage no Huawei device was required to acquire the information on your servers. I personally believe that it is time to reward those who do not apply common cyber sense to be rewarded with limelight. I have had to clean up the mess of others for well over a decade and now it is time to give those people the exposure they deserve (my findings regarding Credit Agricole will have to wait for a few more days). When you consider that the flaw also hits the Nexus 9000 Data Centre Switch, a device that is according to their own site ‘Built for scale, industry-leading automation, programmability, and real-time visibility‘, as well as “operate in Cisco NX-OS Software or Cisco ACI modes with ground-breaking Cloud Scale ASIC technology“, and lets be fair, there will always be an issue, a device on such scale cannot be flawless, yet when such a flaw is clearly reported on a level this big and the media merely looks at accusations against Huawei and leaves actual dangers unreported, the integrity of the media has become too large an issue on a global scale.

The issue is twofold for me, the first is that Huawei was never a risk and even as I disagree with the dumb headed approach that the US had, I am very much on the side of Alex Younger (the apparent fearless leader of MI-6), he is merely stating that non-British equipment (in this case Chinese) could be an optional threat in the future. His issue is that this level of infrastructure must be British and he is not wrong, no nation is wrong to have high level infrastructure equipment (whether it is 4G or 5G) in national hands. That is the application of common sense (yet realistically speaking not always pragmatic or achievable). so when he stated last February ‘It’s more complicated than in or out,‘ he is actually spot on, no one denies that. Yet the Americans had their big boots, brainless and started accusations that cannot be proven, that is an issue! For the US it was all about the money and American technology is losing more and more headway, they are literally falling further behind on a daily basis. As I personally see it the direct consequence on iteration versus innovation technology. When the best innovative step is Samsung giving the consumer the ability to share power wireless (which is awesome), even me as an anti-Samsung person will admit that they hit the jackpot with that one. How sad have players like Apple, Microsoft, IBM, INTEL et al really become?

How much of a Scott Pilgrim must we become fighting all the tech companies in the world before we get told the direct truth by the media? How much shaming must we do to make the media make us the number one directive, not the number four option? and as I have been considering more and more to put my IP vision valued at $2 billion public domain and let them fight it out among themselves, basically I am just too tired to engage in another round of bullshit with these so called executives and VP’s who (with the exception of Huawei and Google) do not have a clue on what they are doing in technology in the first place.

The larger problem is not Cisco; it is security and identity management. Most corporations are close to 5 years late into implementing an actual non-repudiation system and that is partially because there is no real good system or good way to ensure non-repudiation, an issue that should have been addressed almost 10 years ago, but never was, I personally tend to blame complacency there. I personally believe that a drive to iteration prevented innovation to get us there, but that is merely my view on the matter and I am perfectly happy to be proven wrong on this specific part.

Dozens of options (I actually had another idea towards a new solution to applied solar technology) all having larger impacts in larger cities and pilot places like Neom City, what does it take for some of these players to wake up and smell the dangers of corporate death through marketing set towards iterative release?

 

2 Comments

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

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

December 14, 2018 · 13:07

Fight the Future

Mark Bergen gives us a Bloomberg article. The Sydney Morning Herald took it on (at https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/inside-huawei-s-secret-hq-china-is-shaping-the-future-20181213-p50m0o.html). Of course the arrest of Meng Wanzhou, chief financial officer of Huawei Technologies is the introduction here. We then get the staging of: “inside Huawei’s Shenzhen headquarters, a secretive group of engineers toil away heedless to such risks. They are working on what’s next – a raft of artificial intelligence, cloud-computing and chip technology crucial to China’s national priorities and Huawei’s future” with a much larger emphasis on “China’s government has pushed to create an industry that is less dependent on cutting-edge US semiconductors and software“, the matters are not wrong, yet they are debatable. When I see ‘China’s national priorities‘ and ‘Huawei’s future‘ we must ask ourselves, are they the same? They might be on the same course and trajectory, but they are not the same. In the end Huawei needs to show commercial power and growth, adhering to China’s national needs are not completely in line with that, merely largely so.

Then we something that is a lot more debatable, when we get: “That means the business would lap $US100 billion in 2025, the year China’s government has set to reach independence in technological production” and by my reckoning, China could optionally reach that in 2021-2022, these three years are important, more important than you realise. Neom in Saudi Arabia, optionally three projects in London, two in Paris, two in Amsterdam and optionally projects in Singapore, Dubai and Bangkok. Tokyo would be perfect, yet they are fiercely competitive and the Japanese feel nationalistic on Japanese and at times more important, driven towards non-Chinese goods. In the end, Huawei would need to give in too much per inch of market share, not worth it I reckon, yet the options that Huawei has available might also include growing the tourist fields where they can grow market share through data service options, especially if the can Google to become part of this (in some places). In the end, the stage is still valid to see Huawei become the biggest 5G player in the field.

Then we get the first part of the main event. With: “It started working on customised chips to handle complex algorithms on hardware before the cloud companies did. Research firm Alliance Bernstein estimates that HiSilicon is on pace for $US7.6 billion in sales this year, more than doubling its size since 2015. “Huawei was way ahead of the curve,” said Richard, the analyst.” we see something that I have tried to make clear to the audience for some time.

June 2018: ‘Telstra, NATO and the USA‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/06/20/telstra-nato-and-the-usa/) with: “A failing on more than one level and by the time we are all up to speed, the others (read: Huawei) passed us by because they remained on the ball towards the required goal.”

September 2018: ‘One thousand solutions‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/09/26/one-thousand-solutions/) with: “we got shown 6 months ago: “Huawei filed 2,398 patent applications with the European Patent Office in 2017 out of a total of 166,000 for the year“, basically 1.44% of ALL files European patents were from that one company.”

Merely two of several articles that show us the momentum that Huawei has been creating by stepping away from the iterative mobile business model and leaping technologically ahead one model after the other. If you look at the history of the last few years, Huawei went from P7, Mate 10, Nova 3i and Mate 20 Pro. These 4 models in a lifecycle timeline have been instrumental for them and showing the others that there is fierce competition. The P7, a mere equal to the Samsung Galaxy 4 in its day, yet 43% cheaper for the consumer, and now they are at the Mate 20 Pro, which is 20% cheaper than the Samsung Galaxy Note9 and regarded as better in a few ways. In 4 cycles Huawei moved from optionally a choice to best in the field and still cheaper than most. That is the effect of leaping forward and they are in a place where they can do the same in the 5G field.

We are confronted with the drive with the statement: “Huawei is throwing everything into its cloud package. It recently debuted a set of AI software tools and in October released a new specialised chip, called the Ascend. “No other chip set has this kind of capability of processing,” Qiu said.” This viewed advantage is still a loaded part because there is the fact that China is driven towards growing the AI field, where they, for now have a temporary disadvantage. We might see this as a hindrance, yet that field is only visible in the governmental high end usage that there is and consumers like you and me will not notice this, those who claim it and create some elaborate ‘presentation’ into making the water look muddy. When your life is about Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook, you will never notice it. In the high end usage, where AI is an issue, they are given the cloud advantage that others cannot offer to the degree that is available to non-governmental players (well, that is what it looks like and that is technologically under consideration, yet it does look really nice).

When we look towards the future of Huawei we clearly see the advantages of the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia, UAE and optionally Qatar if they play their cards right. Latin America is an option, especially if they start in Argentina, where they could optionally add Uruguay overnight, branching out towards Chile and Paraguay will be next leaving the growth towards Brazil. Yet in that same strategy add Venezuela and Colombia first would enable several paths. The business issue remains, yet being the first to have an additional appeal and if it pisses off the Americans Venezuela gets on board fast often enough. The issue is more than technological. The US still has to prove to the audience that there is a 5G place for them all and the infrastructure does not really allow for it at present, merely the metropolitan areas where the money is, driving inequality in the USA even further.

If visibility is the drive than Huawei is very much on the right track and they are speeding that digital super highway along nicely. Yet in opposition to all this is the final paragraph in the SMH. When we see: ““As long as they stick to the game plan, they still have a lot of room to grow,” he said. “Unless the US manages to get their allies to stop buying them.”” This is a truth and also a reassurance. You see the claim ‘Unless the US manages to get their allies to stop buying them‘, gets us to an American standard. It was given to us by the X-Files in the movie with the same name, or perhaps better stated Chris Carter gave it to us all. The end he gives us: “He is but one man. One man alone cannot fight the future“, it equally applies to governments too, they might try to fight the future, yet in the end, any nation is built from the foundation of people, stupid or not, bright or less so, the larger group can do arithmetic and when we are confronted with a Huawei at $450, or an Apple iPhone at $2350, how many of you are desperately rich enough to waste $1900 more on the same functionality? Even when we add games to the larger three (Facebook, LinkedIn & Twitter), most phones will merely have an optional edge and at $1900? Would you pay for the small 10% difference that 1-3 games optionally offer? And let’s not forget that you will have to add that difference again in 2 years when you think that you need a new phone. The mere contemplation of optimised playing free games at $77 a month makes total sense doesn’t it? So there we see the growth plan of Huawei, offering the top of the mountain at the base price and those in denial making these unsubstantiated ‘security risk’ claims will at some point need to see the issue as Verizon is the most expensive provider in the US, So when I see $110 per month for 24 GB of shared data, whilst I am getting 200GB for $50, I really have to take an effort not to laugh out loud. That is the 5G world, the US faces and whilst there was an option for competitive players in the US, the Huawei block is making sure that some players will rake in the large cash mountain for much longer and there others are making fun of my predictions, and now that I am proven to be correct, they are suddenly incommunicado and extremely silent.

As such, when I predicted that the US is now entering a setting where they end up trailing a field that they once led, we will see a lot of growth of Chinese interests. In all this, do you really think that it will stop at a mere 5G walkie talkie? No, with 5G automation and deeper learning, we will see a larger field of dash boarding, information and facilitation to the people and Huawei will optionally rule that field soon enough, with a few non Americans nipping at their heels for dominance because that is the nature of the beast as well. Progress is a game for the hungry and some players (specifically the US) have forgotten what it was like to be hungry. Australian Telstra made similar mistakes and moved their Share price of $6.49 to $3.08 in the stage of 3 years, a 52% loss of value, and when (not if) Huawei pushed the borders all over the place, those people with a Verizon Protective State of Mind will end up seeing Verizon going in a similar setting, because that is also the consequence of adhering to what I would consider to be a form of nationalistic nepotism. The UK already had its ducks in a row for the longest of times (and that island has less ground to cover, which is a distinct advantage), so there BT has options for now and over time they might adhere to some of their policies as is required, the US is not in that good a position and Huawei merely needs to flash a medium purse of cash to show the people in the US that a place like Buenos Aires can offer the masses more and faster than those on better incomes in the US, because the pricing model allows for such a shift.

In this the problem is not a short term one, even as US giants are supposed to have the advantage, we also see that the workforce is not properly adhered to, the US (and the UK) have a massive, not a large, but a massive disadvantage when it comes to STEM students, a disadvantage that China does not have. The AI field is not something that is solved over the next 3 years, so as those with educations in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics is dwindling to some degree in commonwealth nations and America, China can move full steam as the next generation is pushed into high end ambition and careers. As such the entire AI shortfall against America can be overcome much easier by places like China and India at present. It is not merely the stage of more graduated students; it is about groups of graduated students agreeing on paths towards breakthrough solutions. No matter how savant one student is, a group is always more likely to see the threat and weakness of a certain path and that is where the best solution is found faster.

Will we ‘Fight the Future’?

The issue is not the American polarised view, it is the correctly filtered view that Alex Younger gave us initially, it is not incorrect to have a nationalistic protective view and Alex gave the correct stage on having a national product to use, which is different from the Canadian and Australian path proclaimed. We agree that it is in a national required state to have something this critical solved in a national way (when possible that is), in this the path to have a Huawei 5G stage and then reengineer what is required is not wrong, yet it is optionally with a certain risk and when that path is small enough, it is a solution. The UK is largely absolved as it had BT with the foundations of the paths required, just as Australia has Telstra, yet some countries (like Australia) become too complacent, BT was less complacent and they have knowledge, yet is it advanced enough? We agree that they can get up to speed faster, yet will it be fast enough? I actually do not know, I have no data proving the path in one direction or the other. What is clear is that a race with equal horses provides the best growth against one another, the competitiveness and technological breakthroughs that we have seen for the longest time. That path has largely been made redundant in the US and Australia (I cannot say for certain how that is in Canada).

Even as Huawei is gaining speed and being ahead of it all is still a race by one player, the drive to stay ahead is only visible on the global field, and it is an uncertain path, even if they have all the elements in their favour, what is clear is that this advantage will remain so for the next 5 years and unless certain nations make way for budgets growing the STEM pool by well over 200% their long term disadvantage remains in place.

The versusians

In this stage we need to look in the pro and con Huawei field. In the pro field, as Huawei set the stage for global user growth, which they are seemingly doing, they have the upper hand and they will grow to a user base that grows from servicing a third of the internet users to close to 50%, that path is set with some certainty and as such their advantage grows. In the opposition of that, players like need to step away from the political empty headed failure of enabling the one champion stage of Verizon and Telstra, diversity would give the competitive drive and now it is merely Telstra versus Vodafone/TPG, is means that there will be a technological compromise stage where none of the two surges ahead giving players like Huawei a much larger advantage to fuel growth,

How wrong am I likely to be?

So far I have been close to the mark months in advance compared to the big newspapers only giving partial facts long after I saw it coming, so I feel that I remain on the right track here. The question is not merely who has the 5G stage first, it will be who will facilitate 5G usage more complete and earlier than the others, because that is where the big number of switchers will be found and players like TPG and Vodafone have seen the impact of switchers more than once, so they know that they must be better and more complete than the other brand. Huawei knows it too, they saw that part and are still seeing the impact that goes all the way back to the P7, and that is where Apple also sees more losses, We were informed a mere 9 hours ago: “Piper Jaffray cuts its Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) price target from $250 to $222 saying that recent supplier guidance cuts suggest “global unit uptake has not met expectations.”” another hit of a loss to face, optionally a mere 11.2% yet in light of the recent losses, they faced, we see what I personally feel was the impact of the ridiculous stage of handing the audience a phone of $2369, optionally 30% more expensive than the choice after that one, even if the number two is not that much less in its ability. The stage where marketeers decide on what the people need, when they all need something affordable. It personally feels like the iMac Pro move, a $20K solution that less than 0.3% of the desktop users would ever need, and most cannot even afford. That is driving the value of Apple down and Huawei knows that this egocentric stage is one that Apple et al will lose, making Huawei the optional winner in many more places after the first 5G hurdles are faced by all.

Do you still think that Apple is doing great? A company that went from a trillion to 700 billion in less than 10 weeks, which is an opportunity for the IOS doubters to now consider Huawei and Samsung, even as Huawei will statistically never get them all, they will get a chunk and the first move is that these users moved away from IOS, and as Android users they are more easily captured towards user hungry players like Huawei by its marketing, that is the field that has changed in the first degree and as people feel comfortable with Huawei, they will not consider getting more Huawei parts (like routers for the internet at home) and that continues as people start moving into the 5G field. You see, we can agree that it is mere marketing (for now), yet Huawei already has its 5G Customer-premises Equipment (as per March 2018). this implies that with: “compatible with 4G and 5G networks, and has proven measured download speeds of up to 2Gbps – 20 times that of 100 Mbps fiber“, that they can buy their router now, remain on 4G and when their local telecom is finally ready, 5G will kick in when the subscription is correct. It is as far as I can tell the first time that government telecom procedures are vastly behind the availability to the consumer (an alleged speculation from my side).

Do you think that gamers and Netflix people will not select this option if made available? That is what is ahead of the coming options and that is the Future that some are fighting. It is like watching a government on a mule trying to do battle with a windmill, the stage seems that ridiculous and as we move along, we will soon see the stage being ‘represented’ by some to state on the dangers that cannot (or are ignored) to be proven.

The moment other devices are set towards the 5G stage, that is when more and more people will demand answers from industrial politicians making certain claims and that is when we see the roller-coaster of clowns and jesters get the full spotlight. This is already happening in Canada (at https://www.citynews1130.com/2018/12/13/huawei-and-5g-experts-clash-on-the-risk-to-canadas-national-security/), where City News (Ottawa) gives us: “I can’t see many circumstances, other than very extreme ones, in which the Chinese government would actually risk Huawei’s standing globally as a company in order to conduct some kind of surveillance campaign“, something I claimed weeks ago, so nice for the Canadian press to catch up here, in addition when we are given: ““This can be used for a lot of things, for manipulation of businesses to harvesting of intellectual property,” Tobok said. “On a national security level, they can know who is where at any given time. They can use that as leverage to jump into other operations of the government.” those people knowingly, willingly and intentionally ignore the fact that Apps can do that and some are doing it already. The iPhone in 2011 did this already. We were given: “Privacy fears raised as researchers reveal file on iPhone that stores location coordinates and timestamps of owner’s movements“, so when exactly was the iPhone banned as a national security hazard? Or does that not apply to any Commonwealth nation when it is America doing it? Or perhaps more recent (January 2018), when Wired gave us: “the San Francisco-based Strava announced a huge update to its global heat map of user activity that displays 1 billion activities—including running and cycling routes—undertaken by exercise enthusiasts wearing Fitbits or other wearable fitness trackers. Some Strava users appear to work for certain militaries or various intelligence agencies, given that knowledgeable security experts quickly connected the dots between user activity and the known bases or locations of US military or intelligence operations.” So when Lt. Walksalot was mapping out that secret black site whilst his Fitbit was mapping that base location every morning job, was the Fitbit banned? Already proven incursions on National security mind you, yet Huawei with no shown transgressions is the bad one. Yes, that all made perfect sense. I will give Wesley Wark, a security and intelligence specialist who teaches at the University of Ottawa a pass when he gives us: “Still, Canada can’t afford to be shut out of the Five Eyes or play a diminished role in the alliance, and if Britain decides to forbid Huawei from taking part in its 5G networks, Canada could not be the lone member to embrace the company“, OK that is about governmental policy, not unlike Alex Younger there is a claim to be made in that case, not for the risk that they are or might be, but the setting that no government should have a foreign risk in place. This is all fine and good, but so far the most transgressions were American ones and that part is kept between the sheets (like catering to IBM for decades), or leaving the matter largely trivialised.

It is pointless to fight the future, you can merely adhere to swaying the direction it optionally faces and the sad part is that this sway has forever been with those needing to remain in power, or to remain in the false serenity that status quo brings (or better stated never brings). True innovation is prevented from taking grasp and giving directional drive and much better speeds and that too is something to consider, merely because innovation drives IP, the true currency of the future and when we deny ourselves that currency we merely devaluate ourselves as a whole. In this we should agree that denying innovation has never ever resulted in a positive direction, history cannot give us one example when this worked out for the best of all.

 

Leave a comment

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

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