Tag Archives: the Australian

December 6, 2022 · 16:06

The other white paper

Yes, there are always white papers, but which one is true? You see, they are all true, they are all a point of view. Yet the truth from a point of view is relative, that has always been the case. This is why we have peer criticism for academic papers. Yet that is not the case for the media, they are all fighting to remain around with some feigned form of value. This has been the case for over a decade and now the BBC gives us (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63869013) ‘Meta threatens to remove US news content if new law passes’, you see the truth of the matter is that the people no longer need the news, the news is no longer if value. It started when the media starting soliciting (aka whoring) for digital dollars. Flamed bring revenue, actual news not so much. The events surrounding Elon Musk, the abstinence around Jack Dorsey and a dozen other cases made it so. The newspapers are irrelevant and they know it, so in a last gesture to remain not completely irrelevant they rely on laws to force funds from social media. Even as the shared instances from places like the Australian link to paywalls, they are all about ‘lost revenue’ And the Australian is not alone, loads of American newspapers and media (like Forbes) do EXACTLY the same thing. They will tell you the scoop AFTER you pay, so how is that lost revenue? Not all papers are like that, but many are and now we get “It would give publishers and broadcasters greater powers to collectively bargain with social media companies for a larger share of ad revenue”, I believe this is to be a false setting and Meta gives it to you in the form of “Meta claims their platform, in fact, provides increased traffic to struggling news outlets.” They are correct. Consider the truth, it I simple, how many times did you go to the news site? How many times was this because THEY shared news on social media? This has been the case for a decade and now that Meta is taking off the gloves, we see how irrelevant the media has become. In the last year alone I highlighted close to a dozen cases of incompetency and a lack of information vetting by the media, so why should they get paid for shortcomings? It is almost like the decapitated chicken. It’s running around, but it is already dead, the rest of its body did not figure it out yet. Is it fair? Does it matter? No, the media had the option to evolve, it merely decided that is was cheaper and more profitable to hang onto someone else’s coattails. It did not work out well for them and now they cry foul, almost like the yellow pages. Their era died and they just never adjusted in time and I am adding to the pain as my 5G seemingly goes to China. Setting a new stage in several ways and taking advertisement power away from all and leave it where it should have been all along, with the advertising people. With the locations of advertising and that is the lesson that they never picked up on, and it is not their fault. A place like Google missed it too and I mentioned it at least twice this year.

A stage that is moving away from them faster and faster and if Meta makes the move it is threatening to a lot of players in the media world will be done for. Such is life, Media Erectus is getting eaten before passing on its whinges. So do not focus on the whinge, consider the place technology had for almost 2 decades and see where the media is not, and they have not been where they needed to be for almost a decade and now that they are about to become irrelevant they cry laws. Bu the way these same people never championed law changes to the environment, law changes to taxation and they simply went for the emotional targets, it had more expected digital dollars, so where are these dollars now?

And when we see “Media companies argue that Meta generates huge sums of money from news articles shared on the platform.” So where is THAT evidence? Meta generates advertisement towards people through free accounts, and this gets me to (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2H8wx1aBiQ) the congress statement April 2018 where the answer is ‘We run ads’ a setting that was in place for well over a decade. The news was never an element and as such the media better be quick with presenting ACTUAL evidence in that case.

When I see how irrelevant the media and Microsoft have become and I see them cry like little chihuahua’s all whilst they screw up options left right and centre, what the actual F*** (censored word) the world around them is doing protecting something this irrelevant is beyond me, it actually is.

We can debate things but look at the numbers. the Paris based World Association of Newspapers, which represents 18,000 newspapers gives us that there are a lot more. The world has 8,000,000,000 people, which implies that there is an average of 445,000 people per newspaper. When you start doing the math, you will see that the numbers o not add up. The newspapers that are still relevant are so as they have well over 2 million subscriptions. The Washington Post has 3 million, and The Wall Street Journal 2.4 million subscriptions. The Dutch Telegraaf had in 2001 807,000 subscriptions, in 2017 it was only 393,000. The larger national newspapers are losing ground and now we see the larger play. There are 195 countries in the world. So why are there 18,000 newspapers? They nearly all rely on Reuters, making at least 17,000 irrelevant already. But these are the numbers no one looks at, and they are all vying for advertisements. Look at ANY newspaper and look how many advertisements they have and how much they charge and you will see their actual loss. They are no longer a relevant advertisement group, digital media replaced them, they lost relevancy by allowing to become a family of 18,000 brothers and sisters and that is before you see the rest of the media relying on advertisement sales to qualify their existence. But no one looks at that side are they?

The other white paper that no one gets to see is the one no one in media wants to look at, it merely shows how irrelevant they have become.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as advertisement, BBC, China, google, Journalism, Media, Meta, Netherlands, Paris, reuters, the Australian, US Congress, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, World Association of Newspapers, Zuckerberg

September 18, 2021 · 18:19

The thin ice

We have all been there, whether it was in early years when you were trying to cross ice that was not deemed safe, or perhaps later in life when you relied on a stage where you could not be certain, we all have been there, and so was I, not merely was, I am doing it again today.

There was no doubt that the AUKUS stage was set, it was set and prepared for, the French never had a chance and we need to realise that. We need to realise two main parts here (well actually a few more, but let’s start with two).

The first is the Guardian (not the only one) who gives us (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/17/france-recalls-ambassadors-to-us-and-australia-after-aukus-pact) ‘France recalls ambassadors to US and Australia after Aukus pact’, some newspapers, not all give us “That deal became bogged down in cost over-runs, delays and design changes”, which is fair enough. Yet the US with the Zumwalt and F-35 fiasco’s will have to button down the hatches very clearly to avoid the same disaster projects. The second one is less clear, it is about a united front towards China. I never stated that China was an innocent bystander, they were not. We might not be in a war or a seemingly hostile environment, but there is an issue and the US who has no hope to counter this alone found a way to add two horses, the UK and Australia to pull that carriage towards the China sea. France was left behind and that will have repercussions down the line, yet in all this, consider the media, who are they serving? Which stakeholder are they servicing? Consider the new Collins class submarines, in all the news (from all sides) who have been giving exposure to “That deal became bogged down in cost over-runs, delays and design changes”? That list is not that big and why is that? It was the Weekend Australian of all places that give us “According to informed sources, the costings for Core Workstate 2 submitted by Naval Group were at least 50 per cent higher than the Defence estimate of $2.5-$3bn. This total included completion of the submarine construction yard being built at Osborne North by government-owned Australian Naval Infrastructure to the functional requirements of Naval Group. Naval Group has declined to answer questions on the funding issue — or indeed on virtually anything else — but is understood to have submitted, without success, a much-reduced figure to Canberra.” They did so on the 22nd of May 2021 (at https://www.theaustralian.com.au/special-reports/funding-threat-hangs-over-future-submarine-program/news-story/827aef23757bef95adc822d7acd696ec), Australia and Submarine give us 74 million hits and we needed to get to page 16 of that search to get this information. Whilst a lot are ‘hiding’ behind “cost over-runs, delays and design changes” it was the Australian that gives us the “at least 50 per cent higher” that is not parts of a glass of wine, that is the entire barrel when you considered that the meek estimate of an annual $3bn was offered. I feel certain that political income trimming will not produce the missing one billion and short change. So what gives?

I do understand that I need to be careful, mostly because this is not my field of expertise. Most of my Submarine knowledge comes from Operation Petticoat (Cary Grant, Toni Curtis), The hunt for Red October (Sean Connery) and Silent Hunter (EA Games). They are not the same, and I do fully realise that. We could hope for the involvement of Paul McCartney and if he gets involved we can paint those 12 beasts yellow, but still, not a real solution, is it?

Oh, and for the reality of it all China has at present 74 submarines, so our chances are not great, they also allegedly have a much better fifth generation fighter (Chengdu J-20), so are we out to rumble or show our teeth? In this we are about to order a set of teeth for the price of $75,000,000,000 so we better get it right, being in a nation with 25,000,000 people, it is not an invoice we should be happy about, I get it, it might be an essential one, but that does not mean we need to be happy.

The thin ice is a dangerous place, it is more than ice that is seemingly missing layers of stability, there is dangerous waters below and even if it is not deep, the hypothermia can be equally deadly as is the deepest ocean. This thin ice we face also hides stuff. It hides stakeholders who decide what we can hear and what we should not be allowed to hear and the media is at fault. Hiding too much for too many, the stakeholders are the media uncontrolled and unregistered set of lobbyists who shape the story we are allowed to see and if fake media wasn’t dangerous enough, filtered information bringers (like breakfast shows) add to the danger, add to keeping us uninformed. I agree with campsite leaders (Mike Burgess, Richard Moore, and William J. Burns) we do not need to know all, I have no problems with that, but they do not respond to stakeholders, the stakeholders are in it for corporate executives and boards of directors, they do not get to dictate us anything. What these people get away with is close to unacceptable and when they dictate our budgets and defence to us, I shiver and I do get worried and a little scared. And the media is helping them!

So we have a few issues, apart from the US Military construction follies, we have a new stage where we become a buffer opposing Chinese acts. I think that the utter lack of working actions by the UN against the Uygurs is part of this, the blatantly evidentially unsupported actions against a firm like Huawei is another. I see in part the accusation against Huawei and the entire NATO collection of jesters have NEVER given clear evidence on how they are a threat. You think it does not matter, but it does. A market where lazy people want to make claims so that they can get some coins whilst they slept through the motion is an invalid act and that needs to be said. It is a clear setting. Corporate executives used (as I personally see it) stupid politicians so that they could steal work orders and sales. A market that they are still likely to lose comes from sitting on your hands. This taints the China setting, and these stakeholders know this.

If we were to investigate the US national 5G environment, we would learn that 5G at 4G LTE speed is not really 5G. Canada, South Korea and Saudi Arabia have a much better handle on that.

So let’s make sure that OUR National defence is properly set up. Are nuclear submarines the wrong choice? I do not know, I believe that nuclear powered systems have a space and when you see what needs to be done to keep a diesel submarine fed over 3-4 years, a decent case for Nuclear submarines can be made. And let’s make sure the people understand that a nuclear submarine does not mean its weapons are nuclear. I get the distinct feeling that too many people do not realise that. A nuclear submarine means a nuclear powered submarine and we need to see the difference. If that takes away coins from Saudi Arabia, then so be it. We are not here to pay for the existence of Aramco (or Saudi Aramco as it is often referred to).

Yet underneath it all, I recognise that I am on thin ice. I am not an expert on submarines, or an expert on far east tactics. I do however feel that we all have been watching disjointed parts of information because that is what the bosses of stakeholders seemingly want, We merely need to find out who the stakeholders are and who they report to. If you doubt me, consider the actual news sources, the actual news given and the complete news and wonder what was missing from a lot of them (not all) and also realise that a news article cannot give EVERYTHING, but some parts should not have been missed. Should you doubt that, consider a look into Litecoin and how we are now seeing more and more “the Litecoin creator also said that not much can be done by the Litecoin Foundation about bad actors spreading fake news”, as well as “According to the fake press release on Monday (September 13, 2021)”, a pump and dump action involving BILLIONS implies orchestration, so why is the FBI not all over that? Why is the news smothering events there too? This was not some prank, this got past EVERY filter and check of Canadian Global News until it was way too late. So what happens when it is not merely a multi billion hustle, but what happens when it impacts the national security of more than one nation? Consider that when you walk the thin ice too, the thin ice is dangerous because the weaknesses are below the ice and below that is water, and often you do not know how cold or how much water there is.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics

Tagged as and William J. Burns, Aramco, Australia, Canada, Chengdu, China, F-35, Global News, Huawei, Litecoin, Mike Burgess, NATO, Richard Moore, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, the Australian, the Guardian, UK, US, USS Zumwalt, Uygurs

September 3, 2018 · 12:19

As the car industry dies

Yes, today is the nicest day of the week. After the weekend, after all done, it is again Monday morning. So, happy, happy, joy, joy!

I am waking up with the news ‘Shaken-up Aston Martin hopes to stir investors with a public offering‘. When it comes to cars, the Aston Martin is about the coolest car in existence. I would favour it over the Jaguar XF, the Infiniti Q60, the Tesla Roadster (2020) and the Lexus LC500, yet to be honest, I cannot afford any of them.

Now, I have nothing against cars, by themselves they killed each other. It was too much about ego, all about status and too few about what mattered, to get safely from A to B. So even as I have nothing against cars, the setting of those behind them? Yes, that matters a great deal, and most of them fuelling each other, most of them pushing for more models, more options and all financed in a try before the debt phase. Just like the PC industry. Makers having a dozen models every year, the market just could not sustain it and it collapsed. The same is happening here now in a few ways. We will always have a few exotic members (like Aston Martin), or a brand that is unique because of the niche they choose (like Morris Mini Cooper). For some of them, there will always be a market, they are established. The Japanese market made a mess of close to everything and now we see an entirely different kind of fallout. So even as we are treated to the ‘threat’: “Japan’s ambassador has warned Japanese companies will quit the country if a botched Brexit hits profits“, it is not a vague threat, but overall that does not matter and it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit. You see, I discussed this in February 2014 when the Australians got confronted with ‘The last Australian car‘. Here we see: “The world’s largest car maker announced it would stop building cars in Australia by the end of 2017 and would operate in this country only as a sales and distribution company. One additional factor needs to be told, which will have bearing down the road. Namely “Toyota is Australia’s biggest vehicle exporter with around 70,000 of the 100,000-plus cars it builds here being sold in foreign markets”“. What is even more upsetting is the part that Business Insider gave with it and my response to it in the article (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2014/02/12/the-last-australian-car/) ““The car industry is estimated to have received a total of $12 billion in direct subsidies and protections over the past 20 years, including $1.8 billion to Holden in the 11 years to 2012.” is at the heart of this. So basically, 4 car makers have enjoyed an annual $600 million in subsidies a year. This is so off the wall it is not even funny!” In addition, the Australian, via Judith Sloan gave us the overall view: “Australia has subsidised almost $1900 per vehicle produced. If we take that and we add the initial quote I mentioned “Toyota is Australia’s biggest vehicle exporter with around 70,000 of the 100,000-plus cars it builds here being sold in foreign markets” leaves me with the question whether we have been sponsoring that part too“. So here is the crux. This is not about mere profits; this is about subsidies and what I personally see as legalised slave labour. This is about maximised potential without accountability or taxation. In all this, let them move away, let other nations subsidise it all and when their coffers are empty, we will see another ‘Cars from Japan’ setting soon enough. From my point of view, let them move out and lose 65 million potential consumers. When those wells dry up, when they see that the free ride is over, they will suddenly offer some price package, or is that prize package?

The nice part is when those brands fall away; we will see a revitalisation of other brands, those who will grow inside the UK. It might be a harsh reality, but it is a reality none the less. Will consumers miss out? I do not know, their ego’s might, but in the end, if a decent affordable car gets you from A to B, does it matter? This goes beyond the British car brands and who owns then nowadays, Morgan is seemingly the only one still in British hands, but again a niche market. So if the Japanese walk away and Daewoo and Kia walk in, would that be such a hard thing? Then there is China and India. They might actually like having a much better spot in the UK car industry. Many brands left life over time, all killed by the subsidised markets and drowned by subsidised cheap options. Who even remembers the Dutch brand DAF, or the German brand NSU? We have options, there are opportunities and the bottom dollar that japan wants needs to be barred. In all that, the only acceptable conflicts were the ones that Honda and BMW offered, which are about customs delays. I believe that to be the valid part and for the most, it is not merely about custom deals. It is about the EU trying to pressure into a another vote, trying to get Brexit killed, because Europe has no actual solution for the debt now moving towards 3 trillion Euro that Mario Draghi created. Now with the Italian economy is an approaching freefall, unsurmountable debts, Greece still in a bad spot, Europe cannot survive without the UK, now that France is also lowering expectations via: “The French government has revised its growth forecast for 2019 downwards to 1.7 percent from 1.9 percent, Prime Minister Edouard Philippe told the Journal du Dimanche” also implies that the Economy is not really moving forward, creating a setting that the debts of Europe are becoming a much larger issue. All those interests, when they come due there will be no infrastructure. That is the setting and the 1500 voices in charge of all that money are seemingly now scaring 15,000 politicians into pressuring others, because their life of well-being is about to end and someone must pay for their way of life.

That is the setting that is behind the cars, not merely the cars, but when you realise that your taxes were funding cheaper build cars, please show me where you signed up for that part of the equation. You cannot, can you?

I do agree with Dr Paul Nieuwenhuis of Cardiff University. He is correct Aston Martin is making a move at the right time, and when the economy truly picks up, their fortune is set for close to two generations. They are in a niche, but one with a good margin and with the growing of millionaires all over the place, they are also creating demand, because getting seen in the 007 choice of wheels does count (as your ego is able to foot that bill) even as the car looks supercool regardless. And when you consider the quote: “Issues such as Brexit are quite different for Aston compared with mainstream manufacturers because it is not as reliant on the EU for sales as the volume producers“, when you consider transport and other elements, why were they in the UK anyway? With these brands margins were always the case, for well over a decade, so in all that, why were they here? Is the reason merely because there were 65 million optional consumers in the UK or because the EU was all about big business, and a lot less about the people living there? Well, that was a rhetorical question, because Reuters in 2016 gave us: “Compensating carmakers in Britain for any post-Brexit tariffs on exports to Europe could see the government hand the companies more money than they need to pay the salaries of all their British workers, a Reuters analysis of corporate filings shows“, that was exactly the image that we saw in Australia and there is the crux, what is the use of having a company in the UK, when we see that the UK government is paying for the wages? Where was that ever a solution? A flawed presented image on the presentation of great industrial UK revenue whilst hiding some of the costs?

So many questions and in the end, merely a drain on the coffers, so let them leave, let them move to Germany (Mercedes & BMW will love that), or France (at the loving side of Citroen, Peugeot and Renault). So when the subsidies are demanded, will those local brands even accept that? I wonder how long until they move back east and let the reality of the cost of manufacturing hit these players full on. I wonder how many brands will still be around in 5-10 years. A lot less that seems almost certain, but that is pure speculation on my side.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as Aston Martin, BMW, Brexit, Cardiff University, Citroen, Daewoo, Dr Paul Nieuwenhuis, France, Germany, Greece, India, Infiniti Q60, Jaguar XF, Journal du Dimanche, Judith Sloan, Kia, Lexus LC500, Mario Draghi, Mercedes, NSU, Peugeot, Prime Minister Edouard Philippe, Renault, reuters, Tesla Roadster, the Australian, UK

May 2, 2017 · 13:07

Technological delusions

We all have a side we hide, it does not matter how you live and how outspoken you are. It is a truth that we have seen in movies, TV Series and other media. In this I like the outspoken truth of the series House the best: ‘Everybody lies!‘ This is not some extreme form of expressionism; it is the truth in many ways. Whether we are in denial or whether we outspokenly remain silent on the matter, we lie!

Now do not think of this in a too negative a light, marketing is all about lying and they call it specific presentation. Whether this is the launch of the Samsung S8, the upcoming Xbox Scorpio, the iPhone 7, there is misrepresentation which shows itself as non-mentioned facts for now.

Is a known fact, remaining unmentioned a lie?

That is no just at the heart of the matter, it is what makes it worse than it already is. An example is seen in software corporations that state ‘We do not expect any issues with the software upgrade’. Is it a lie? Consider that any change will introduce new unknown factors, so as such, is the person not speaking a party line that is wishful thinking, and as such is it a lie?

You might at this point wonder where this is going, so here we get to “Facebook told advertisers it can identify teens feeling ‘insecure’ and ‘worthless’” (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/01/facebook-advertising-data-insecure-teens), when you consider that a person (especially a teen) needs psychological assessment to ascertain whether insecurity comes from mere angst or whether there are underlying issues, we need to become very careful when anyone offers an algorithm to ascertain that. Big data is nowhere near any level of certainty in this matter. You see, with data and especially with big data the decades old expression ‘Garbage in, Garbage out‘ applies and the ability to sift through these mountains of data per person requires a level of scrutiny that software cannot provide and more important, that data becomes useless if there is no ‘beyond the data box view’. This is not some cheap Mark Zuckerberg app called ‘Snog, Marry, Avoid’ which is basically to the better degree harmless entertainment. This is to set a psychological classification on a group of people who tends to be least secure of themselves in their entire lifespan. In all this the quote “Facebook, which has faced severe criticism in the past over research in which it sought to alter the emotions of users, without their consent, provided somewhat contradictory statements in response to the story in the wake of its publication on Sunday” makes it even a worse joke. Consider in addition the dangers that Facebook no opens with “In its original statement to the Australian, Facebook apologized and said it had “opened an investigation to understand the process failure and improve our oversight”“, which is a joke when you consider that the researchers must have had access to data that only the deepest insiders on DBA cloud levels could have had. To get anything that is even close to the minimum level of reliability the researchers did not just have access to the data, they required assistance from the database system engineers to get anything useful out of that collected mountain of data and that is per person. So, basically I cannot get a job because Australia is in a wave of intentional age discrimination and Facebook casually assists in a system that “can monitor posts and photos in real time to determine when young people feel “stressed”, “defeated”, “overwhelmed”, “anxious”, “nervous”, “stupid”, “silly”, “useless” and a “failure”“, which impacts the job market even further, yet requires accurate parsed data going back many months.

Consider the reality here. to get a Facebook account, you need to be over 13, which means that 3 years of a teenager history is not available. In addition, these kids go through puberty between 10-17 (depending on gender and additional factors), so not only do you need the track of a person, you need to know how a person is socially (not socially networked) is connected to peers, parents and siblings. That data is not available. Now consider that interactions and events that are geographically locked are also an influence. I am not talking about an extreme example like the Columbine disaster, the mere effect of a traffic accident that can start more than angst and in that data will always be missing and more dangerously, data can be wrongly categorised which could result in red flags of psychosomatic interactions, that whilst the person was never there. How many pictures are there in your social media account, which were accidentally wrongly tagged? All basic elements that will give a shift in any assessment that will lead the algorithm down the wrong track. So when we read: “a Facebook Australia executive dismissed the report and criticized the reporter who broke the story, saying the article was “written by a journalist who writes inflammatory articles … every Monday”“, we need to ask a few additional questions. The dangers of social media data that I have been warning about for at least 3 years is now showing us additional dangers of software misrepresenting social media data and could have dire imprints on the actions of anyone using social media and the repercussions of their future down the track. The quote “Facebook declined to rule out whether similar research on the emotional vulnerability of teenagers had been conducted for advertises in markets outside of Australia” could imply that the teenagers that are already getting shot at American High Schools and colleges will soon have additional worries as they approach their exams with all levels of angst. So when we consider on how ‘Facebook has detailed information on mood shifts based on “internal Facebook data” that is not available to the public’ the social media users will have to worry on what data they have and more important has Facebook been collecting and matching other outside data sources to get anywhere near the minimum dataset to get even the smallest of insight.

As I stated before: ‘garbage in, garbage out’, in that I can add that in the past some lovely lady asked me on Facebook if I wanted to fuck her. I know she would never offer it to begin with, so the reliable issue was that someone has quickly grabbed her phone and he offered in her place that her vagina was open for #censored activity#. So at that point, how could Facebook see her as stupid or silly, or even worse: a nymphomaniac? The article has more than a few issues, but in that they should be placed at the doors of Facebook, because with the revelation of data abuse we clearly see announced, there is a growing danger with the Facebook classification system, whether actual, factual or psychological.

Sam Levin at the Guardian is asking the right questions, yet I think that this is not going far enough. I think that the events when we include the ’emotional contagion’ issues that happened some time ago. The fact that is ignored that all this was only possible to the slightest degree by seeding the database with data collections and hidden markers that facilitated the creation of mental properties to collect. A data system cannot facilitate for this without adding hundreds of elements that were never visible and I am not merely talking about the date and time of posting. It required levels of geographical location and social background data that is not part of the Facebook social media system. I wonder if the Guardian article will renew the questions on both European and Commonwealth levels as this American company seems to be swimming in a sea that might ignore this, but it can only do that as long as we are unaware. In this I reckon that it becomes imperative that the Australian political engine makes official enquiries with the two top Australian executives, David Fernandez and Andy Sinn. In this we get one additional part that is very much a danger, if we accept the quote: “The presentation, which the Australian has not published, was reportedly written for one of Australia’s top banks and stated that the company has a database of its young users – 1.9 million high schoolers, 1.5 million tertiary students and 3 million young workers“, which now implies that banks are setting a person’s psychological profile into classifications. This is not merely discriminatory, it implies that we could all end up being seen as bankable or not, so in that it goes beyond mere insurances and credit ratings, the dangers of our freedom of speech and expression will now result in a possible credit rating and job eligibility. How is that fair on any 15 to 19 year old person trying to get anywhere in this world?

In final part, it is the excuse by Facebook on making this a mere ‘process failure‘, if there are enough pieces of evidence (and that seems to be the case), it is a complete ‘institutional failure‘ and in that the Guardian/Australian article might just be the beginning of a real ugly side of social media that will hit the mainstream media on a global scale soon enough.

So how vulnerable are you and is exploitation of that side of you acceptable to you?

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as Andy Sinn, Commonwealth, David Fernandez, DBA, Europe, Facebook, Human rights, Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Levin, the Australian, the Guardian

March 1, 2017 · 09:15

Showing your bad hand

There was an article that nagged me, on the surface it felt like a waste of space, one of those….the government did something that does not affect most people. Now that is not an attack on the press, because that is what they do, they report things. Now, there is nothing about this report that is wrong, there is however a clear indication that a few people did not think this through, even more so, the actions give rise to a tactical blunder that should keep the members of the Special Forces Club in Knightsbridge snigger for some time to come. You see, the article called ‘Man charged in NSW town of Young over alleged missile advice to Isis‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/28/man-arrested-nsw-town-young-alleged-missile-advice-isis) is more than just a tactical blunder. Solar technician Haisem Zahab at present in Junee Correctional Centre after being arrested in Young charged with terrorism offences. So how is this person a terrorist (he is in legal definition)? Haisem Zahab, 42 was according to the info on Facebook a Solar technician. When you see the quote “acted with intent to provide Isil with the capability, with the technical capability, and high-tech capability, to detect and develop missiles“, howls of deriving laughter wash over me. I was trained with NATO gear and I reckon I would be a better fit here (even though I know how uselessly limited my knowledge is). Now consider for a moment the next article (at http://www.iran-bn.com/2016/11/29/us-iranian-citizen-convicted-for-trying-to-buy-missiles-for-iran/), which was last year, when an Iran-United States dual citizen named Reza Olangian was trying to acquire these items, not develop them. So instead of someone alerting someone at ASIS to see if a sting can be devised that allowed for Haisem Zahab to start his ‘mission’, ASIS professionals could monitor him and start setting up the operation to drain the IS bank accounts by introducing IS and Haisem Zahab to a technology salesperson with actual blueprints (perhaps ever so slightly altered) and sell this to Islamic State, the quote “the man arrested has sought to advise Isil on how to develop high-tech weapons capability” is still making me snigger, because the credible part is that he was an ‘electrician’. Oh, the tears of laughter are rolling down my cheeks! I am not sure if AFP commissioner, Andrew Colvin got Nick Warner involved, but when you consider the following quotes it might sound serious: “He said the man was allegedly involved in “researching and designing laser warning devices to help warn against incoming guiding munitions used by coalition forces in Syria and Iraq” and helping Isis develop its own long-range guided missile capabilities“, we will need to take it apart into the components.

Laser warning devices to help warn against incoming guiding munition. So how advanced is that? To give you a viewpoint. Israel has the Arrow 2 which took almost 13 years to complete (it had been completed earlier, but the tests were done over a longer period of time). The Arrow 2 is what people call an ABM (Anti-ballistic missile systems), now this was designed by group of around a dozen experts in rocket science, electronics and aerodynamics. It was a multi-billion dollar event. Even if this electrician got to a missile completed to a certain degree, which is actually not that far-fetched, because missiles have become more precise, but like mortars, the foundation goes back a long way and that part is not that complex, yet here a Dragster mechanic will get a lot further than an electrician. Now, to introduce a hidden electronic switch that turns the detector into an attractor is not that large a call, so we give IS 2-3 ‘wins’ and when we see that they implement the detection solution, ASIS throws the switch and the detector will instantly attract missiles, so with one volley their detection system is gone and likely a lot more hardware on the side as well.
as for “helping Isis develop its own long-range guided missile capabilities“, I will now take 5 minutes to roll on the floor, my stomach is giving me waves of cramps from laughter. To help you understand that part, the missile technology is not that hard. You can make a missile in your garage, but consider that HAMAS has been firing (with Iranian help) thousands of actual missiles, which included the FAJR-5, based on the Chinese exported model WS-1 MLRS. A rocket that took close to 13 years to get right and that one has had not one tactical success on Israel, how long do you think it will take to get anything up to scrap? Especially when you consider the Arrow 2 part? It would be a lot easier to develop a high tech mortar. The foundations of the mortar have never changed, to some extent, the 1450 version of the mortar is still the foundation that was used in Vietnam, what changed is that electronics allow mortars to be a lot more accurate and efficient. Now we have computers that help the aim, but it is to some extent still an art to get it right in one shot. To get the missiles correctly aimed takes a lot more and in that regard, the tactical option to have IS waste loads of cash might have been a much better approach, so when I see the photo with Malcolm Turnbull, pictured with AFP commissioners Andrew Colvin and Ian McCartney, I see a mere political quick fix! Now, we need to acknowledge that this is in all legal settings, so in that regard he had been correctly arrested. This we see in the Criminal Code Act 1995, where in 101.2 we see:

101.2 Providing or receiving training connected with terrorist acts
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person provides or receives training; and
(b) the training is connected with preparation for, the engagement of a person in, or assistance in a terrorist act; and
(c) the person mentioned in paragraph (a) knows of the connection described in paragraph (b).

This gives him a maximum 25 year governmental hotel voucher and as I personally see it, the line between consultant and trainer is thin enough to make it stick.

So we know he is going down, yet the quote “charged with two foreign incursion offences which carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment” is different. You see that gives us “prepare to enter, or for another person to enter, a foreign country with an intention to engage in a hostile activity. Recruit persons to join an organisation engaged in hostile activities, or to serve in or with an armed force in a foreign country“, which should be fun, because the expert knowledge he offered (basically consultancy), here the Mens Rea might be satisfied, but the Actus Rea is not. Missiles are set to not need ‘another person to enter, a foreign country‘, which might happen, but is not a given, so the intent to never enter a foreign country could be achieved by the defence of Haisem Zahab, the ‘with an intention to engage in a hostile activity‘ would be proven, yet the text is ‘for another person to enter, a foreign country with an intention to engage in a hostile activity‘, the moment that the foreign border was not surpassed, the issue becomes vague and a legal victory becomes a little blurred, basically Islamic State is already a transgressor in any nation they are in, but if those governments will not speak out against that, the issue might not legally be won.

So we get a lot of press, all cameras with cowboy stories and in the meantime Director General Nick Warner was denied the option to deal Islamic State a severe body blow. Yup, there will be laughter in Knightsbridge tonight. And should you consider that I am awfully wrong (always a valid consideration to have) than take a look at the case of Omar Succarieh, which was set to 4.5 years, the appeal to get him in there longer is being heard (at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-31/omar-succarieh-sentence-inadequate-court-hears/8227068), with the quote “Justice Philip Morrison said the case appeared to be in the middle range for the offence which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment“, which now gives the option of another change. You see, in the case of Omar Succarieh it was mere funds made available. If any defence of Haisem Zahab comes with words like ‘delusional‘ (an electrician making missile systems), or gets any missile expert from Raytheon or Northrop Grumman to show how complex missile systems actually are, the quote “the research he was alleged to have been doing was “credible”” could be thrown out of the window. By the way, this 18 month investigation, what INTEL did ASIS (if any) supply? I still think this was an option to do something long term against Islamic State.

Now, here we get to the title of today ‘showing your bad hand‘. You see, from where I sit, the entire situation gives rise to another matter. If we see actions as given, we are seeing a setting where political players have to admit that there is no short solution. The papers on a global scale, actual newspapers like the Wall Street Journal, The Australian and others have published papers on this and they gave us this in 2015: “But no strategy intended to defeat Islamism can succeed if Islamism itself and its violent expression in jihadism are not first named, isolated and understood“, which is at present not achieved, so this entire IS, is a long term game and there is no end in sight at present. This is extremely important, because as I personally see it, these little arrests with loads of camera’s will not bring resolution, the ability to set up shop and make IS spend their funds in all the wrong places is the first step to prevent IS to set up a successful long term strategy to develop larger weapon systems. And if you think that it stops here in Young, New South Wales, you would be wrong, because at some point, an Islamic State person will meet with dodgy types in Eastern Europe and broker a deal there. There are too many players willing to not care what happens in the Middle East and there is plenty of Russian goods all over Eastern Europe. This now implies that as some people go shopping elsewhere, and in that place they might not get a basket full of junk, they might actually end up with something useful, an idea we need to actively dread.

Because the bad hand shown and the fact that others will also realise that some players have a bad hand, only opens the doors to some places outside of our sphere of influence. I see this as a tactic badly played, but that might be just me. I will leave it up to you to decide how wrong I am and when you get a moment, ask your electrician how good his missile designs are, it could make for an interesting day and that is always a win for any person.

Leave a comment

Filed under Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as ABM, AFP commissioner, Andrew Colvin, Arrow 2, ASIS, China, Criminal Code Act 1995, Eastern Europe, FAJR-5, Haisem Zahab, Hamas, Ian McCartney, INTEL, Iran, Islamic State, Junee Correctional Centre, Justice Philip Morrison, Knightsbridge, Malcolm Turnbull, Nick Warner, Northrop-Grumman, Omar Succarieh, Prime Minister, Raytheon, Reza Olangian, Russia, Special Forces Club, the Australian, Wall Street Journal, WS-1 MLRS

January 25, 2017 · 13:20

Missed it by THAT much?

It started last night. Actually, it started a little earlier, yet I get information from so many sides, that I have to make a choice what I focus on (my final assignment for my master degree being the big number one). So when I initially heard about a missile issue I had no real interest. You see, the things PwC is up to with added narration of missed issues on Tesco, BHS and two others is a lot more interesting to me. Any missile issue tends to be a simple engineering problem. At times it is about other matters, but that is once properly tested a mere 9% of the time, with 91% being engineering or interfacing, which is basically another realm of interfacing. Oh, for the underlying entertainment. I am writing this whilst listening to The Tales of Hoffmann, which is applicable to all this on more than one level.

So back to the Lockheed Trident we go. Let’s start with the BBC (at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38719346) with “Theresa May finds herself under pressure for refusing to answer whether she did, or did she not know that something had gone wrong with our nuclear weapons, when she asked MPs to vote to renew the costly Trident system?”

So when I see “So the simple “who knew” question will keep being asked. And for as long as the opposition parties keep pushing for clearer responses, ministers will keep looking like they are awkwardly, even shiftily trying to evade a straight question“, I feel that asking the question is a loaded canon to say the least. In this day and age, regarding any issue on nuclear facilitation, do you really want the other players to openly know that UK defence does not work, so Russia and/or China only needs to work about each other and the USA? With pressures at present it is not the best idea to say the least.

My issue is with “A missile test involving Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent system ended in failure off the coast of Florida last year, a US defense official with direct knowledge of the incident told CNN on Monday“, so not only are US defense officials sanctimonious on the best of days. It seems that they have no problems revealing certain classified events when it concerns their allies.

OK, I can accept that, so how about I reserve a little space at the end and let the public at large know on the storage issues that PRISM is still bringing, not the observation part, but the fact that the storage as it had been one and how the list of people with access was a lot larger than anyone realises. With the New York Times bringing the people on June 6^th 2013 ‘U.S. Confirms That It Gathers Online Data Overseas‘ (at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/us/nsa-verizon-calls.html), but that the quote by Josh Earnest “has been a critical tool in protecting the nation from terror threats as it allows counterterrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States.” is missing one important element, which is “it equally allows the better hackers to alert certain people of red flags they can scan for“, which is not something they wanted us to know. I’ll get back to that later.

Let’s focus on those Lockheed cigars named Trident. You see, there is a question why the US spokesperson opened his mouth in the first place. When we consider (at http://www.businessinsider.com/upgraded-trident-ii-missile-being-tested-from-us-nuclear-submarines-2016-9), the quote “This was the 161st successful Trident II launch since design completion in 1989“, now I have no idea how many test launches we have seen, but 161 good strikes sounds like a good deal, so why suddenly this ‘revelation‘? I am all for fair display of facts, including failures, but the air that this one flaw gives give in addition other considerations, so if this US spokesperson thinks that the UK is grateful for him opening his mouth, I think it is time we make sure his bosses make sure he never considers that ever again. This all gets us to the reasoning of that US spokesperson.

Brown University is/was housing a Nina Tannanwald, who had an interesting essay. Titled ‘Renewing a Regime of Nuclear Restraint‘, we get “the non-nuclear weapons states of the world are growing increasingly impatient with the failure of the nuclear weapons states to move toward what are seen as their moral and legal obligations to eliminate their nuclear stockpiles. The humanitarian consequences movement, a globally popular movement barely discussed in the United States, is one reflection of this frustration with the slow pace of nuclear disarmament. A similar tension plays out in the United States, as the Obama administration committed to move towards a world without nuclear weapons while concurrently authorizing a multi-decade, trillion-dollar modernization of American strategic nuclear forces“, there is a truth in this, there is also the realisation that even as most want to move into a non-nuclear era, with Iran and North Korea in the mix, that is a reality that will not come any day soon, if ever. Time has taught us that putting the genie back in the bottle is not an option. If that is not an indication, try to interview Pandora on what happened to hope. Good luck with the answer to that one in this day and age!

Yet when we consider Tannanwald, there is more and more the need to consider Robert McNamara’s presentation to NATO in Athens laying out flexible response doctrine. I think that Robert McNamara is one of those essential Americans that show the American spirit. Serving under both John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, he has been confronted with the need to alter perspective and a dimensional scope that has been almost unheard of ever since. He is almost the founding father of policy analysis. In addition he is the person who consolidated functions that is amongst others now known as the Defense Intelligence Agency.

So you might think of him as a spooks Yoda, with a flair for pragmatism. Which gets us to the opposition in all this, namely Dr Julian Lewis, who in the Guardian stated yesterday (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/24/commons-watchdog-criticises-unnecessary-surreptitiousness-trident-missile-malfunction) “chairman of parliament’s defence watchdog has criticised the government’s “unnecessary surreptitiousness” over the Trident missile malfunction, as Michael Fallon declined an invitation to appear before his committee“, in this we congratulate Dr. Lewis for his ability to employ a 17 letter word, yet the issue in all this is twofold. the first is that as far as we can tell this is a 1 in 161 cases, making it an outlier that could have been addressed outside of the view of the public, second that the Government had already clarified a need much earlier (which I will point out a little further, with a link off course) that there was a certain need, that need is now directly undermined. Perhaps there is a political need to get something else started and scuttling one solution will open up a set of new problems onto which certain people with interests can throw a lot of money at, they would only need to get rid of 4 submarines. We know that a new HMS Dreadnought is coming, but what is possibly less known is that a refit of the Vanguard Class should start in 2019, which will impact the defense budget because an overhaul of this kind really requires a serious amount of coins. Now, the latter part is speculation, but is it far-fetched? It is 2017, these matters take time, there is no doubt about that, so there is a gap where certain actions have a lot of impact and the misfire is just a lucky break for some people. In all this I could be, and I am probably wrong in all this. Yet when you look at the facts as they are clear, as we know that our cold war opponent has satellites, so they know about the event, calling this into the open only serves another platform. I have no idea which one, but the visibility of these events call a lot into question, especially the actions of a blabbing yank. Now, for some this might actually be one of those democratic losers with no prospect considered ingratiating himself to optional future employers in the media as this person could be democratically replaced by the new party in charge if his function was high enough and the CNN quote “US defense official with direct knowledge of the incident told CNN on Monday” implies that he is higher up the ranks to some degree.

So how does this reflect back to Trident? Well, if we accept that regional tensions are made worse regarding nuclear policies by unstable regimes where the mental balance of the one in charge leaves a lot to be desired (examples: Kim Jong-un and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, when he was in office) , we should consider that the solution does not work, tension is not eased, it only invigorates that person to consider pressing the famous red button. This comes mainly from the premise of the thought ‘theirs might not work initially‘, which would only instigate a false sense of ego of that person pressing the button. I am going one step further stating that such a person could call in some simpleton cook, asking him ‘Can you press this button? My hand hurts!‘, so that unsavoury character now has the genuine option of remaining in denial.

Even as we consider that 2 out of 161 might not work, the stats are extremely unkind on the chances for the receiving party. Still the issue remains, what was that US spokesperson thinking off when he/she considered speaking on the matter at all was a good idea? Don’t get me wrong, I am not stating that we should be lied to, but there were clear security considerations in play and I wonder if that person was even high enough on the pay scale to make have this consideration, speaking out regarding an allied nation (read: the UK).

My view?

Well, personally, when I look into the error, I am considering that it was not a simple flaw, you see, when the missile is off by a degree, or even less. When it is that small it becomes an issue because that takes time. When the direction is off by a maximum dart score round (180), it tends to be a simple construction flaw, an interface that was not properly checked, basically, the kind of flaw that requires Lockheed (on average) to send the next missile at $0 (and they also have to pay for postage, packaging, gift wrapping and shipping too). Which would be another reason for some people not to speak, unless officially ordered to do so, as it would start an entirely different debate on the Trident Project. So in this light, as we see that 1 out of 161 went wrong, the dust cloud is very much disproportionate to the events as we see them. Even when we see the connected views on Jeremy Corbyn, who has been for the longest times in the light of ‘Jeremy Corbyn says he will put nuclear disarmament at the heart of his leadership re-election campaign‘. which is what we saw in July 2016, in September 2016 we see: “to put to one side any attempt to reverse Labour’s support for renewing Trident in a bid to reduce tensions with unions and rebel MPs“, yet that ship has sailed, so he can ‘revive’ his lifelong view of being the soul that is anti-Trident. We might see that as a decent view, yet in all that we see evolve is it the correct one? I think that there is no clear answer and this is not on Jeremy, but it all now shows to be a valid political attack, which he cannot be faulted for. Yet how to proceed?

What makes a cigar a cigar?

So this Lockheed device has several elements. I will not some conceded jerk telling you what went wrong. We can speculate that the electronics were wrong, yet what if that is actually not the case? Consider the following sources. the first (at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/98605.htm) gives us at [40]: “‘De-targeting’ and ‘State of Readiness’: The SDR stated that the Trident missiles aboard the Vanguard-class submarines would not be targeted and would normally be at several days ‘notice to fire’. However, the SDR also noted that “we will… ensure that we can restore a higher state of alert should this become necessary at any time”. In the course of our inquiry, we were told that targeting the missiles does not take very long“, in that is it not interesting that an actual metric was not given?

In addition we get “Dr Rebecca Johnson, of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, argued that both de-targeting and the reduced state of readiness were essentially meaningless since they could be could be easily overridden“, which was in the same paragraph and it gave me the part that is soon to come. You see (at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nuclear-deterrence-factsheet/uk-nuclear-deterrence-what-you-need-to-know) we see ‘A minimum and credible deterrent‘, with the quote “we require a fleet of 4 submarines to maintain 1 continuously on patrol and retaining this posture is essential to assure the invulnerability of the deterrent“.

So, this is me speculating, the triviality that we saw regarding the ‘we were told that targeting the missiles does not take very long‘. So what if the targeting could be messed with? In this day and age, is that such a leap? If that is true and if the targeting can be messed with, the issue now becomes that Her Majesty’s Navy now has 4 cigar boxes that could potentially be regarded as useless, making them extremely expensive non-deterrents. Let’s not forget, this is pure speculation, so it becomes only the smallest of options if the missile was not malfunctioning in a normal way.

So how does this reflect on me making some other case earlier and why mention it?

Well, let’s take you through the motions, it will take a few paragraphs. First there is “NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden has denied he committed treason with his revelations that the US had been hacking Hong Kong and China since 2009. He said his revelations did not disclose military targets – a treasonable act – only civilian infrastructure“, try and focus on the red parts in all this. The next part is “Without asking for public permission, the NSA is running network operations that affect millions of innocent people. In a previous interview with the South China Morning Post, Snowden said he was releasing the information to demonstrate “the hypocrisy of the US government when it claims that it does not target civilian infrastructure, unlike its adversaries““, which gets us part of the first part. The source is the IB Times (at http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-479709) and they are only one of several sources.

From that same source we get “Internet companies – including Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Apple and Microsoft – were reported to have given the NSA “direct access” to their servers under a data collection programme called Prism” as well as “US government agency had access to the raw databases of these companies. “They can enter and get results for anything they want [such as] phone numbers, email, user id, cell phone handset id,”” and “Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. At GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed.” now we need to consider that “He was employed by several outside contractors including his current employer, defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton“.

Now I make one step back to a statement I made some time ago. You see, there is a part that never rang true, especially as the amount of data he allegedly took with him, yet this data never saw the light of day. In addition, for one person to have this level of clearance and access is something I always questioned! On the 23^rd June 2013 I wrote ‘Who are the real watchers?‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2013/06/23/who-are-the-real-watchers/), in there I wrote “his account is broken down and thousands of dollars on internal communications, price agreements, customer’s details and many more details are now duplicated. It would be worth quite a few coins for the right competitor. As such the quiet student will have all his University debts paid off long before he gets his degree. So, what is this about?“, which I bring on January 18^th 2014 in ‘Diary for a wimpy President‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2014/01/18/diary-for-a-wimpy-president/) with “The government will no longer store the phone call information of millions of Americans. But he did not say who should maintain the information, instead giving the intelligence community 60 days to come up with options” as well as former Presidents Obama quote “What I did not do is stop these programs wholesale, not only because I felt that they made us more secure, but also because nothing in that initial review, and nothing that I have learned since, indicated that our intelligence community has sought to violate the law or is cavalier about the civil liberties of their fellow citizens“, the point in all this is not just the traitor Edward Snowden, who decided to become the judge, what also happened is that several sides of this went to private contractors, some of them very much greed driven. It is my belief that one event is linked. It was given on October 5^th 2016, I wrote about it, but I will not give the link. The Telegraph (at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/05/nsa-contractor-charged-over-alleged-theft-of-secret-us-governmen/) gives us the parts we need. “Harold Thomas Martin, 51, was secretly arrested by the FBI in August for allegedly stealing classified information. The US Department of Justice says it found Top Secret documents in Mr Martin’s home, vehicle, and two storage sheds on his property in Glenn Burnie, Maryland during a search on August 27^th” as well as “Those documents were reportedly “source code” developed by the NSA to hack its adversaries. The codes would allow the NSA to covertly place malware in the computer systems of foreign governments and to monitor or even attack the networks“. Now, the part that comes next remains speculation!

I think that is exactly what has been happening. I think that whatever Harold Thomas Martin did get out before the NSA/FBI could lock down on it. I think that these contractors have been doing their job, but I also believe that someone has been getting access because part two gave access to part one and those people aren’t sworn in executives of agents of any government. What if we consider when we combine the ‘claimed facts‘ as published, where other parties have been gathering information from selected mobiles, and where users have been interfered with. You see, we all got the messages as seen (at https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html), where we see “At least one computer system belonging to the D.N.C. had been compromised by hackers federal investigators had named “the Dukes,” a cyberespionage team linked to the Russian government“, so even if we question whether this is a Yay or a Nae, the issue is that the DNC is not the gemstone. Yes, most foreign governments want to see in what direction policies are likely to go. Which is why people like Marine Le Pen are getting monitored and not just by the French. You remember the earlier quote “giving the intelligence community 60 days to come up with options“? What if that has been rolled out, don’t you think that both the Russians and the Chinese are a lot more interested in access to those systems (read: that data)? Now we see the dangers that Harold Thomas Martin brought to America, the fact that these intrusion tools are in the open and possibly in Russian hands. We now see that tools can be used against their collection points. They only need to open one port and slowly siphon data away. How much damage do you think that this brings. In addition, and this last part is pure speculation, as those Tridents rely on ‘targeting the missiles does not take very long‘ yet if the specifications come from the outside, can these tools interfere with that? Do not forget that “would normally be at several days ‘notice to fire’” implies that there is a track that the targeting goes through and only the final step is the most secure one. Can we even know how secure those previous steps are? Which tools have been pushed to less controlled civilian hands due to the entire Snowden debacle? What dangers has he placed us all in? We now see via the Wall Street Journal and The Australian that what is now published in 2017, I already covered to some degree in 2013, I was correct to the largest degree all along. We see the quote “According to a unanimous report declassified on December 22 by the house permanent select committee on intelligence, the investigation showed Snowden had “removed” 1.5 million documents“, with added “based on, among other evidence, electronic logs that recorded the selection, copying and moving of files“, another issue I raised due to my knowledge of SE-UNIX. The fact that he had done this over a period of 6 weeks implies that there is a level of what should be regarded criminal negligence concerning Intelligence matters which is truly unsettling. The fact is that this stuff went into the open void, the question was who else got a hold on that stuff? The Wall Street Journal gives one part I never had (due to a lack of specific knowledge). That part is seen in the quote “Since the NSA was created in 1952, Russia and other adversary nations had been trying to penetrate its Level-3 secrets without great success“, he fact that they clearly have access to some degree, both Edward Snowden and Harold Thomas Martin have made that a near certainty.

This now reflects back to the Lockheed devices. Consider that the UK has a different methodology regarding its missiles. If a test was performed through the normal track and if we accept that the Russians have to some degree Level-3 documentation ‘access’, when we also accept that they have a clear understanding on the PRISM system now and we already know that both China and Russia can interfere with data packages (read: transmitted data) whilst in motion, is it really far-fetched that they intervened (read: corrupted) the data meant for the failed Trident test? Let me reiterate, I am not stating they retargeted that missile as there are too many components they do not control, the package just needed to be corrupt to the smallest degree, which would get the missile into a wrong destination and then self-destruct. Now, as stated, this is speculative, yet based on data which after 3 years is now proving to be utterly (read: mostly) correct. Is the speculation that far-fetched? And Russia has every reason to scuttle the UK Vanguard units now before the newer and totally unknown entity HMS Dreadnought comes into play, as stated by other academics in this field that it is ‘essential to assure the invulnerability of the deterrent‘, when that invulnerability is gone, what remains?

I can tell you that I might not be entirely correct, but I can tell you that based on 3 years of data coming true that my aim is a lot better than the latest Lockheed Trident missile, which was allegedly off by almost 180 degrees.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Apple, BBC, Brown University, China, Cigars, CNN, Defense Intelligence Agency, Dr Julian Lewis, Edward Snowden, Facebook, GCHQ, Glenn Burnie, google, Harold Thomas Martin, HMS Dreadnought, Jeremy Corbyn, John F. Kennedy, Julian Lewis, Kim Jong-un, Lockheed, Lockheed Trident, Lyndon Johnson, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Marine Le Pen, Maryland, Michael Fallon, Microsoft, New York Times, Nina Tannanwald, North-Korea, policy analysis, Presidents Obama, PRISM, Robert McNamara, Russia, SIGINT, Tales of Hoffmann, the Australian, the Guardian, Theresa May, Trident II, UK, US defense official, Vanguard Class, Wall Street Journal, Yahoo

March 4, 2014 · 13:09

What goes up…..

The next blog has been bumped to the next blog, mainly because Sky News was kind enough to show the snivelling cry story (me now playing the world’s smallest violin), by the ACTU secretary Dave Oliver, yes, the text in the background ‘join for a better future‘ reads nice, but the story he is giving is intentional misdirection. Holden and Toyota did not leave overnight (which was discussed in my blog on February 12th called ‘The last Australian car‘), this was planned for a long time, as such, what he now calls ‘the opposition’ was at the centre of this entire mess.

When we hear statements like ‘everything is on the table‘ then that person is already deceiving us all. So let’s take a look at some of the things stated at http://www.skynews.com.au/businessnews/article.aspx?id=955273.

“Qantas has asked the government to change the Qantas Sale Act to allow more foreign investment arguing the strings attached hampered its ability to compete on a level playing field with its rivals“, which makes me wonder how this remains an Australian icon to begin with.

“Some aviation analysts argue the best option for Qantas would be to split the company into three separate companies: domestic, international and ancillary services such as the Frequent Flyer program and freight“, which reads a lot like the ‘bad bank’ solutions we have seen all over the global financial sector, which in the end leaves the taxpayers with an unfair bill.

The Australian gave us (at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/pm-failing-australian-workers-on-qantas-actu/story-e6frg95x-1226844413018) the following statements.

the headline is already a first “PM failing Australian workers on Qantas: ACTU“, this is followed by “How did it get to the stage where our Prime Minister won’t even stick up for Australian jobs?” and “Australian unions will meet with Qantas CEO Alan Joyce this week to seek a commitment to minimise job losses, following the airline’s announcement last week it would slash 5000 jobs“.

So, let’s take a look at this all. From the first moment, with all due respect, This Dave Oliver comes across as a man born not too bright and he stopped evolving after birth. Why is this my personal view? You see, one should always keep an eye out for the reasoning. Without that, we have nothing but noise.

First the income side as it was reported by the Herald Sun last September 7th (at http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/qantas-freezes-pay-of-chief-executive-alan-joyce-but-offers-him-1m-in-bonuses-and-shares/story-fni0dcne-1226713613053), where we see the following: “Mr Joyce’s base salary for the year to June remained unchanged at $2.109 million. But a cash bonus of $775,200 and $387,000 worth of deferred share payments bumped the total remuneration package up to $3.3 million for the year. Mr Joyce gave up his bonus the previous year when Qantas reported its first annual loss since privatisation. The airline, which last week reported a wafer-thin full-year net profit of $6 million, said a general freeze on executive management pay would apply over the coming year“.

So basically, an airline, this large, reports (according to the Herald Sun), a full year Net profit, twice the amount the CEO made in a year. So, the income of the CEO was 50% of the NET profit. This was in the era of labor and this is not inviting any clear statements of outrage or disgust? Let us not forget that the tier of high executives would have been less, but still substantial, which in my view becomes that the Net profit of Qantas was in 2013 a lot less than the income of the board of directors alone. which makes us wonder on how 7 high executives are save whilst 5000 jobs are forsaken to other areas. The positive news was 11 days before the Liberals came into office, and within three months, Qantas analysts ‘suddenly’ misplaced (or lost) a quarter of a billion dollars, how convenient. So Mr Dave Oliver, why do you not stop crying and take a long gander towards this obnoxious fact?

It is not the job of the government to provide for free slave labor (through financial incentives to big business for keeping jobs), mainly because this is Australia!

This all takes another tumble when we see the news (at http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/qantas-to-cut-1000-jobs-as-ceo-alan-joyce-takes-pay-cut/story-e6frfq80-1226775800430), where we see the following “Mr Joyce’s $3.3 million pay will be cut by at least 38 per cent this financial year because of the airline’s poor performance – which would leave him with a $2 million pay packet” this was on December 5th 2013, in less than three months they went from plus 6 million to: “Qantas said it expected to report an underlying before tax loss of $250-300 million for the first half of the 2013-14 financial year“, which gives us two points at this precise moment. The first is that in my view, the September report was feigned positivity as we were set up for the bad news blows. When you go from +6 million to minus three hundred million you better believe that we the readers and we the workers are getting played. So at this point Mr ACTU, would you like to please change your view from Australian Icon to Australian joke? When a company makes this fast a tumble, there is clear mis-management, mis-representation and mis-organisation, whilst the labor government was run by Miss-NotAllThatInformed (in those day referred to as ‘prime minister’). So whilst Dave Oliver is presenting under the veil of violins speaks out for all those poor poor workers, he should better realise and change his tune to make it sure that this was bungled by labor, for big business and 5000 workers are about to pay a hefty price for such levels of negligence.

So what about Tony Abbott?

Should a government give out a debt guarantee, whilst there is a decent amount of clear evidence that this money could be lost overnight? It is not for the Australian tax payers to lose this amount of money whilst the Qantas top will walk away with millions and with new foreign investors there is still a likely chance that many jobs will go overseas (why else would they invest in the first place). It is also the case that in that same news message (from December 5th) that former Qantas Group Chief Economist Tony Webber left the message that it was too late to help the ailing airline. Is he correct? I am not sure, but I feel certain that he would know a lot more of the Qantas finances then either the ACTU, the ATO or the other interested parties in forcing the hand of government to sign a debt guarantee. The fact that Tony Webber is now managing director of Webber Quantitative Consulting and Associate Professor at the University of Sydney Business School, gives more weight to the value of his statements then the feigned spoken outrage from some of the other players (even if he is not a UTS professor) ;-).

This situation as we ‘suddenly’ see the Qantas debacle was not grown overnight. This has been a failing business dimension for well over a year, because $300,000,000 is not lost overnight, it had to have been known for some time.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as ACTU, ATO, Dave Oliver, Herald Sun, Labor, Liberals, Qantas, Sky News, the Australian, The last Australian car, Tony Abbott, Tony Webber, University of Sydney Business School, Webber Quantitative Consulting

February 19, 2014 · 20:45

The bad and the worse

I have had several views in many directions, but two issues are rising that require us to take a critical look at us. Some will agree, some will disagree and many will not know where they stand in these two issues. The first is again about labour, both work and politics.

Of course, it does not help when Bill shorten starts to ‘rant’ on the issues that hit many. The first issue is Alcoa. It is an Aluminum smelter. The first quote is “Aluminium manufacturer Alcoa has contradicted federal government claims that the carbon tax led to the decision to shut the company’s Point Henry smelter and two rolling mills in Geelong and western Sydney” (at http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/alcoa-contradicts-joe-hockey-on-reasons-for-smelter-shutdown-20140218-32yir.html)

In addition we see the quote from Bill Shorten where is said “It’s clear that a global oversupply of aluminium, dramatically falling aluminum prices and a high Australian dollar made the continuation of these operations impossible” he said.

Shall we take a small step back to the 12th of February 2013 where we see the following quote (at http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/2/12/resources-and-energy/alcoa-vic-pass-carbon-tax-liability-federal-govt)

“The plan addresses a long-standing issue whereby decades-old agreements between Alcoa and the state government included guarantees of cheap power that left Victoria holding the responsibility for the carbon tax due to an inability to pass on those costs to the aluminum giant.” as well as “Under the deals, the state will pay an increased power price and pass most of that through to Alcoa.”

So, taxation is up, power costs are up and prices are down. Mr Shorten needs to take a hard look at his own party and the shortages of his own Labor government where we see that these issues were known for over a year. The fact that Labor decides to park the issue until after the election means he now needs to remain quiet. Yes, it will be an issue, but for him to nag like a little girl is what happens when his predecessors decided to ignore the issue. The liberals warned about the dangers of the carbon tax, the people were hit massively hard by the carbon tax and now hell is to pay and in my view, the Labor party better foot that bill real quick. This is however not the first instance. In Feb 2012 a similar newscast was made by the Australian. The quote “ALCOA says a carbon tax will make life harder for the company as it reviews the future of its Victorian smelter and the jobs of up to 600 workers.” (at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/national-affairs/tony-abbott-seeks-to-blame-threat-to-alcoa-smelter-jobs-on-carbon-tax/story-fn99tjf2-1226265695323), So Labor was aware for almost 2 years in their reign that the Carbon tax would have a definite influence.

The last line of that article by the Business spectator states “If we got all that right, it is no skin off Alcoa’s nose, is it? But it does take a significant burden off the Victorian taxpayer.” Well, see the result! It was apparently more than just skin of the nose of Alcoa and as such it becomes a different kind of burden on the taxpayers.

The final quote from the Business Spectator article was the one the article started with “Aluminium giant Alcoa and the Victorian state government have designed a complicated set of deals intended to place the liability for rising power costs onto the federal government, according to The Australian Financial Review.” So an American Company is deciding that the rising risk of higher power costs should be carried by our government? Alcoa reported (at http://www.alcoa.com/australia/en/news/releases/2014_01_09_4Q_Earnings.asp) on January 2014 the following:

Revenue of $23.0 billion whilst reporting a Net loss of $2.3 billion, or $2.14 per share

Let us not forget that this was a better result than 2012, so Labor KNEW that there were several issues here. When you ‘service’ an American corporation who loses well over 2 billion whilst reporting revenue at 23 billion, there are issues plain and simple. I can agree with some that there claim made by Joe Hockey is not completely accurate (in regards to the carbon tax being the reason), but there is no doubt that at a 2.3 billion dollar loss, the carbon tax might have been the proverbial straw that broke the American Smelter Camel’s back!

We should however not just blame Bill Shorten (even if some feel that this is a more comfortable choice). The Honourable Kim Carr (seen in newscasts bearing a slightly less waxed chin then Bill Shorten) has been in both the foreground and background in more than one occasion. So it is only fair we take his actions in account as well. If we consider my blog article ‘The last Australian car‘ from February 12th we see a few more angles that gives worries to the Labor side of it all, especially in light of the quote “writer Judith Sloan brings a case that Australia has subsidised almost $1900 per vehicle produced.” I mentioned. Is it a good deal when we see these costs and support numbers go out? If we take $2,000 subsidy per car and if we consider that Toyota made 100,000 cars last year, we see the costing of $200 million a year in subsidies, which is a lot more than what the workers would cost every year. So, no matter how good it looks, $200 million is way too large a bill to just handover to a car giant. Is there an alternative? Perhaps the Dutch alternative where VDL Nedcar, who was initially in the news in 2012 with the headline “Mitsubishi Motors to sell NedCar plant for 1 euro to VDL” was the beginning of a new plant, completely refitted for 24 hours a day automated manufacturing. They are now starting to build the new MINI Hatch as per this summer. Is there an opportunity for Australia? Yes!
With an upcoming customer base of 22 million (deserted by Ford, Holden and Toyota), VDL Nedcar might see Australia as the opportunity of a lifetime.

It is however not just the car industry. Sky News is just now showing another iteration of job losses in Victoria (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/19/victoria-promised-federal-funds-as-alcoa-shutdown-adds-to-job-losses), so as Sky News and the Guardian shows us, what I would see as the hollow words of Bill shorten were he states “Spend the money this year, then you can save hundreds of jobs, you can keep excellent world-class naval construction skills in this country.”

Yes, Labor is all about SPENDING money! Let us not forget that the treasurer has been presenting the massive bill that Labor left Australia. The National debt went from 58 billion in 2007 to 257 billion in 2013, all under Labor. So perhaps the irritating quote by Labor leader Bill Shorten on “Tony Abbott and photo opportunities” should change. He should ask how his own party had been spending money they never had in the first place. When we see the $200 million in slave labour bonus (oops, I meant subsidy) for Toyota we have to wonder how long until we are all at the mercy of whoever owns these debt markers (most likely the banks). Labor does not get to nag on the cost of living whilst overspending a little over $11,000 per Australian resident. So when we hear another whinge by Bill Shorten on the deficit, consider that his party had been spending it, making it all a lot harder for many Australians in the upcoming time-span 2014-2016.

The issue of the car makers as well as Alcoa were already known issues in the Labor era and shouting now, whilst not securing these markets (which was in all honesty not a realistic option) is just plain wrong.

In addition there is one strong factor, which has been a known weakness was not dealt with in the Labor era either. It is the energy shortage, which is at the heart of several factors (especially Alcoa). If we accept the ABC transcript (at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1796094.htm), then it is only fair that we point part of this blame at the Liberals as well. The issue was known since 2006 (even though Labor got to power in 2007). From several texts, I myself come to the conclusion that something had to be started in 2005, which was not done. Labor ignored it for 2 whole terms making the issue just a lot harder and now the Liberals MUST address this issue. If you are wondering how correct or how wrong I am than just take a look at your Australian energy bill. My bills have grown, whilst remaining a stable user, by over 100% in less than 6 years. This makes it a hike of over 16% a year. In addition, the carbon tax really pushed up the prices. Focusing on cheaper energy would have made a real difference for all parties concerned. In addition, this is not a local issue, it is not a national issue, but it is almost a global issue. The same issue can be seen in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (very clearly), as well as America. So, it is nice to keep making cars and Aluminum, but if it is not financially viable, the tax payer ends up footing the bill no matter which road we take. So, the dollar, our work conditions and other factors will always remain an issue, but if energy prices are not solved, the one part that will drain any options we might have had. Consider the Business Spectator quote “Point Henry alone represents almost 7 per cent of Victoria’s annual electricity consumption“, so one plant needs THAT much? How could this issue have been ignored for almost 3 administrations? I see that there is a manufacturing issue in Australia, but if the energy prices are not dealt with, we will see a national shift from bad to worse.

Perhaps this will be the moment of innovation; perhaps we should focus on other areas. It only takes one innovator to come with that golden idea that brings income (not costs) to our states. I just hope that politicians on both sides of the aisle will listen to that person.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as ABC, ALCOA, Bill shorten, Business Spectator, Joe Hockey, Kim Carr, Labor, Liberal, Point Henry, SMH, Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, the Guardian, The last Australian car, Tony Abbott, Toyota, VDL Nedcar

February 12, 2014 · 19:13

The last Australian car

Australian news has been all over the place. The one thing that is so expected is now on the fritz. Car makers are moving away from Australia. The events have not been out of the air, but what has been a revelation, is the amount of ‘subsidies’ the government had thrown into that direction to begin with. What can we (me, myself and my sources) tell you? First, the four big car makers in Australia were Ford, Holden, Mitsubishi and Toyota.

1. Ford
Last year, Ford announced plans to shut its two Australian plants in October 2016, blaming strong currency as well as high production costs that are hitting the manufacturer. These are all decent reasons, but I personally do not think that this was the whole picture. In addition Ford is cutting 300 jobs this June, which has some worried that Ford will leave before the 2016 announced point of departure.

2. Holden
Holden will be leaving Australia in 2017. Holden’s 2017 exit from its automotive assembly operations in Elizabeth put 13,000 jobs at risk in South Australia. (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/21/holden-exit-2017-sa-needs-330m).

3. Mitsubishi
Mitsubishi shuttered its assembly plant in 2008.

4. Toyota
The world’s largest car maker announced it would stop building cars in Australia by the end of 2017 and would operate in this country only as a sales and distribution company. One additional factor needs to be told, which will have bearing down the road. Namely “Toyota is Australia’s biggest vehicle exporter with around 70,000 of the 100,000-plus cars it builds here being sold in foreign markets” (at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/toyota-to-make-major-announcement/story-fn3dxiwe-1226822810074).

So, by 2017 all carmakers will have bailed out of Australia. Why is this all a big deal?
Many will go directly for the job losses. ABC stated “The Australian Council of Trade Unions has warned the decision could cost as many as 50,000 jobs and wipe $21 billion from the economy as the impact rolls through the associated components sector” (at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-10/toyota-to-pull-out-of-australia-sources/5250114).

Is that all the truth? No! Listening to Labour leader Bill shorten is to hear a lot of misinformation and tweaked wordings. Labour had messed up a lot of issues. In my personal view, I personally think that Bill Shorten is not telling the whole truth because his lips are moving! Let’s not forget that the Liberals are not blameless either, the entire situation has covered both sides of the political aisle. Part of the disgrace can be read in the Business insider (at http://www.businessinsider.com.au/australias-car-industry-out-of-gas-after-billions-in-subsidies-that-were-always-going-to-lead-to-a-dead-end-2013-12) the quote “The car industry is estimated to have received a total of $12 billion in direct subsidies and protections over the past 20 years, including $1.8 billion to Holden in the 11 years to 2012.” is at the heart of this. So basically, 4 car makers have enjoyed an annual $600 million in subsidies a year. This is so off the wall it is not even funny! So our taxation goes to an industry who advertises a dozen times a day that they are so great? How can we take either the car industry, or the government in this regard serious? Let us not forget that Labour was part of this all as well. This also links back to the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership). An interesting link we find is a Japanese site that had the following to say (at http://www.jama-english.jp/publications/tpp_pr_mar2013.pdf) “Japan’s auto market is completely open to other countries’ products. No restrictive customs or other regulations apply to imported vehicles.”

What about the exported vehicle side of all this? If we see it in that light, we see that the TPP is opening up borders as it should, so, that from now on Japan (Toyota and Mitsubishi) as well as USA (Ford and Holden) have a dire reason to return to their home flock. The TPP is giving options to get these brands all home build. Whatever assurances we see now on support and spare parts will soon be removed too (like in the month as they leave). Yes, there will be a few ‘exclusive’ distributors, but as the TPP comes to full power, the entire online experience will not just hold books, movies and video games. they will likely include car parts soon enough. If you doubt this all (which would be fair), then consider the following article (at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/lies-damn-lies-and-car-subsidy-statistics/story-fnbkvnk7-1226824091831#), where writer Judith Sloan brings a case that Australia has subsidised almost $1900 per vehicle produced. If we take that and we add the initial quote I mentioned “Toyota is Australia’s biggest vehicle exporter with around 70,000 of the 100,000-plus cars it builds here being sold in foreign markets” leaves me with the question whether we have been sponsoring that part too.

Is this just the story? No! I think that there is more at play. Even though several sources are not making any mention of it, Ford and General Motors (Holden) are American companies and i think it is not just about removing plants, I personally think that members of the US government have had talks with all the big boys of industry. The American situation cannot continue. If America is to survive (which is slowly becoming less and less likely), they need taxable incomes. To get this done they will have to get the industry back. This will soon become an era of in-sourcing. This is not a new or a novel thought. It had been on the mind of many in 2012 and several articles had been written in 2013 that in-sourcing would grow big in USA. One of the people outspoken in that area had been Charles Fishman. Even though no one took him that seriously, the man appeared to have been right on the money. I personally think that it was the dumb spending sprees by both Japanese and American governments that forced the in-sourcing hand. This is also part of the pressure we saw in December as President Barack Obama spoke out for a quick closure of the TPP (it still think that the pharmaceutical patents are the largest part, but that I will cover at a later date).

Is it all a bad idea? No!

It is for us, but can you blame these two nations for thinking of themselves? It will however be important for us to find another solution. I already mentioned this on December 11th when I wrote about ‘The Holden circus’. If Toyota is leaving Australia too, then my thoughts on this are not just validated to some extent, they become a lot more important to follow up on. A nation of 23 million needs its own car industry. I do believe that it should not be subsidised, the designers just need to become really clever and we the people of Australia will need to support our own industry. If the Japanese and the Americans are all about nationalism (as we have seen on many occasion), then why not the Australians? If Japan and America walk away from a 23 million customer base, why should we keep any level of loyalty towards them?

We must all realise that we need to adjust our focus, we must change our way of working and thinking. We need to walk away from subsidies and sponsoring. We must move to an age where we design in a more clever way, we must bring to market in a brighter way and we must adhere to a different customer collective. The 4 brand approach to 12 models a year is just not sustainable. If these makers claim so, ten let them refund the subsidies!

When the last car is built in Australia, the eager beaver that launches their brand in Australia will start with the audience of a lifetime!

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as ABC, Australia, Barack Obama, Bill shorten, Charles Fishman, Ford, Holden, Jama, Judith Sloan, Labour, Liberals, Mistsubishi, the Australian, The Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Guardian, The Holden circus, Toyota, TPP

Tag Archives: the Australian

Recent Posts

Archives