Tag Archives: the Guardian

Et tu, Guardian?

We all have views, we all have issues and we all have believes. Some are agreed upon, some are debatable and some are just silly. You, I, we all have them in all three categories. I for one do not claim to be any different here. A lot of them involve family, freedom, security, loyalty, intelligence, connection, creativity and humanity. Yet these are the big eight. We have some version of a belief here and it seems that some are not allowed the freedom part. For me this all started a little over two years ago. Piers Morgan got attacked online for a view he had. Now, I had no real issue either way, but the attack was seemingly unrelenting, as such I started to follow him on Twitter to see what made him such a danger. As such I learned that he was not that much of a danger, he came across as reasonably intelligent and a little bit of a clown, a funny one at that. I saw (on YouTube) his views on Monaco, Dubai and Shanghai, three places I was least likely to visit and I saw three often light presented views on paces that were fun and educational to watch. Educational? Well, I knew nothing before and little more afterwards, I also saw a nice side to Dubai which was unexpected. So when the initial interview with a couple was given, with several sides, I backed off, I still haven’t see it (reason to follow). Piers Morgan made personal statements in this as one is allowed and it came with a charade of accusations and no less then 41,000 complaints (in a place that has 68,000,000 people, and he walked off. 

There was something with the wife of Ozzy Osbourne on the Talk and now she is off her show as well. Something did not sit well and I almost regret staying away from that interview. 

The Interview?

No not the movie with Seth Rogan, the interview with Prince Harry and his wife. My issue is that the media to the largest degree uses the Royal family for click bait and to watch flames go up again and again, a distasteful view of the media exercising its right to speech and expression, it has been going on for well over a decade. As such I keep away from most of these events (it is impossible to avoid them all), I personally belief that the royal family is intentionally targeted (beyond the click bait needs). For this we need to see that the media has its own version of the truth. It adheres to shareholders and stake holders and after that it sets the story to the need of the advertisers, only if none of the three are a part, we get the goods as is. That is my personal belief, and I feel that I have been shown correct on a number of events. Yet this is about Piers Morgan, and he had an issue of disbelief on the interview. He stated against it and felt that the setting and the facts presented were incorrect. OK, we has a dissenting voice. I believe it was his right to disagree, yet in all this we see an explosion of opposition against his presence pretty much anywhere. Why is that? I personally belief, and I have had this believe for some time that the stakeholders abhors monarchy. You see, monarchial views are set to the need of ALL the people, non monarchial views are set to the people that matter and that difference is rather big, especially in this Covid age. These stakeholders are there to make sure that their enablers and facilitators have a better view, because that is what they need. A setting to flame more completely, and the media is their number one part in this. 

So any opposition to royal attacks is a danger to their agenda, and Piers Morgan was not having any of it, it was HIS view. So as the Guardian now attacks his view too, isn’t it interesting that a reporter gets top call here? We need to consider the New Daily who gives us ‘Bitter Piers Morgan launches another tirade at ‘delusional duchess’ Meghan Markle’ (at https://thenewdaily.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/royal/2021/04/06/piers-morgan-meghan-markle/). Here we see “In his first TV interview since he departed the breakfast TV show, Morgan told conservative US news personality Tucker Carlson on Monday (US time) that he stood by his comments, accusing Harry and Meghan of the “most extraordinarily disingenuous smear, hit job” on the royal family”, we also get “Morgan accused Meghan of lying in the interview “I’m sorry, I don’t believe a word she says,” he said. “I wouldn’t believe her if she read me a weather report.””. We are given his view and he is allowed them, so far is there any clear support for the statements “she was ignored when raising concerns about her mental health and that racist comments had been made before the birth of the couple’s son, Archie”? Then we get Alex Beresford (a weatherman) giving us “I understand you don’t like Meghan Markle; you’ve made it so clear a number of times on this program – a number of times. And I understand that you’ve got a personal relationship with Meghan Markle, or had one, and she cut you off”. As such we see a little more like “the Sussexes’ Winfrey interview was “tacky, tasteless, disingenuous, and I’m afraid, I believe, in some cases, downright lying on a global scale”” whilst the article ends with “For support with mental health issues, contact Life Line on 131 114 or beyondblue on 1300 224 636”, isn’t that nice?

My issue remains that Piers Morgan is used as a wave of flammable articles, the interview by Oprah Winfrey isn’t held up to the cold light of day and we see a form of group deterrent against Pier Morgan. The Guardian who gives us “He cast aspersions on her claim that negative press and lack of support from the royal household had left her suicidal, and that a request for help with this had been rebuffed by a senior person in the monarchy” (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/06/piers-morgan-claims-he-has-universal-support-of-the-british-public). So when we look at ‘negative press and lack of support from the royal household’, well when it comes to royalty, all press is for the most in a negative light and what evidence is there agains ‘support from the royal household’, that becomes a she said, she said debate and when does that support anyone except the media needing click bait?

No one is investigating the evidence, not me, I abhor royal interviews, the media can set the pass in too much of a negative view, I believe that Oprah Winfrey is of good character, she has proven that often enough, yet in this the interview is set in an emotional premise and she is universal queen there, there is a reason she is valued at $2.6 BILLION dollars, she is the best and millions flock to her show, emotions get you there and emotions better be real and be valued, I reckon that her pre talks got her the setting she needed and the interview did the rest. I believe her to be real and to be genuine, I am not sure about Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex in this. 

No matter how that pans out, and consider that the media steered clear of evidence towards the ‘lack of support from the royal household’, as well as any evidence regarding the ‘left her suicidal’ part. So when I saw “let me just state on the record my position about mental illness and on suicide. These are clearly extremely serious things that should be taken extremely seriously”, of course Piers Morgan is right, it is serious, and that too gets painted over. So far, outside the realm of interviews, I believe that Piers Morgan is on the money for a lot of things and when his joining new TV startup GB News surpasses Good Morning Britain, I reckon that they will have a larger issue than they ever banked on. 

And consider for yourself, why anyone will have such a go at one reporter with a dissenting voice?  Yet a mere hour ago we see ‘New information exposes a total contradiction in something Meghan claimed – and the revelations don’t stop there’ (source: news.com.au), so how come no one was fired there? Oh, sorry, they didn’t walk off. The fact that we see “the deal did not go ahead and in the later months of last year, the Sussexes announced they had signed deals with Netflix and Spotify that have been estimated to be worth $180 million”, all whilst another source gives us “he’s turned into this whiny brat in his mid-30s complaining his dad isn’t still financing everything he does” shows is 180 million reasons and no one is looking into the matter? One interview sets a 180,000,000 stage? Yes, I reckon something is going on and the more genuine Megan Markle, Duchess of Sussex is, the better return of value that this 180,000,000 becomes, a decent motive right there, yet the media is steering clear from that part, or so it seems and the people are not asking questions, because (as I personally see it) the emotional whirlpool has not been siphoned enough and those enjoying the windfall can live with Piers Morgan becoming a casualty of war, a greed driven war no less.

That I how I see it and watching the interview was not needed, as I personally see it. So feel free to investigate the media and what they present, in that also watch the presented evidence and you will be surprised just how the emotional articles go.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media

An almost funny thing

I saw an article at the BBC and I will get to that in a moment, but it reminded me of a situation that happened in 2010. I needed a new laptop and I was looking in a shop at their Collection of laptops. A man came to me and was trying to convince me just how amazing this laptop was. My inner demon was grinning, I get it, the man was enthusiastic, he was giving the numbers, but in all this, did he realise what he was saying? I am not doubting the man’s skills, he was doing a good job, I was however in IT and had been there for 30 years, so I have pretty much seen it all, and there it was, my little demon, on my right shoulder calling me ‘pussy’. So as the man stated ‘this laptop has a one terabyte hard-drive, can you even imagine ho much that is?’, I could not resist and my response was ‘Yup, that would fit roughly 10% of my porn collection’, his jaw dropped to the ground, his eyes almost popped, the demon inside me stated ‘Nice!’ Actually, it was not quite true, it would only fit a rough 0.32114%. It was the impact of the shock factor. You see, there is a hidden agenda there, when you (appropriately) use the technique, you get to see the real salesperson and that was what I needed. He was thrown, but he recomposed and continued giving me the goods on the laptop, I bought that laptop roughly 132 seconds later.

So today I saw ‘The Rise of extortionware’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56570862), here I notice “where hackers embarrass victims into paying a ransom”, it is not new, it is not even novel. I will also give you the second game after the people involved get arrested, they will demand anonymity and any bleeding heart judge will comply. I state that these people will be handed the limelight so that the people that faced ransomware attacks can take their frustration out of these people. But that remains wishful thinking. So next we get “Experts say the trend towards ransoming sensitive private information could affect companies not just operationally but through reputation damage. It comes as hackers bragged after discovering an IT Director’s secret porn collection.” I have the question was it a private or a company computer? You see, sone focus on the boobies, just what the advertisers on Twitter hope for, they want the click bitches, it makes them money. It is time that we set the larger stage, you see the entire mess would be smaller if Cisco and Microsoft had done a proper job. OK, I apologise, Cisco does a proper job, but some things slip through and in combination with Microsoft exchange servers it is not slipping through, it is a cyber hole the size an iceberg created on the Titanic and we need to set a much larger stage. So when we see “Thanks God for [named IT Director]. While he was [masturbating] we downloaded several hundred gigabytes of private information about his company’s customers. God bless his hairy palms, Amen!”, it seemingly answers that he might keep it on a corporate computer, or he uses his private computer for company stuff. Yet in that same light the hacker should not be allowed any anonymity, we all get to see who the hacker is. If there is something to be learned it is see with “Hackers are now actually searching the data for information that can be weaponised. If they find anything that is incriminating or embarrassing, they’ll use it to leverage a larger pay-out. These incidents are no longer simply cyber-attacks about data, they are full-out extortion attempts” There are two sides

  1. The station of ALWAYS ONLINE needs to change, there needs to be an evolving gateway of anti hack procedures and a stage of evolving anti hack routers and monitoring software. You think that Zoom is an option?
    Tom’s Guide gave us less than 2 weeks ago “More than a dozen security and privacy problems have been found in Zoom”, as well as “Zoom’s ease of use has made it easy for troublemakers to “bomb” open Zoom meetings. Information-security professionals say Zoom’s security has had a lot of holes, although most have been fixed over the past few year”, so whilst you contemplate ‘most have been fixed’, consider that not all are fixed and that is where the problem goes from somewhat to enormous. Well over 20% of the workforce works at home, has zoom meetings and that is how cyber criminals get the upper hand (as well as through disgruntled employees), a change in mindset is only a first station.
  2. Remember that Australian? (Julian Assange) We were told that soon there would be some leaks on issues on banks (Wall Street) then it suddenly became silent, now some will say that it is a bluff, but in light of the meltdown in 2008, I am not so certain, I reckon that some have ways to show the hackers who they are and they profit by not doing that. Can I prove this? Absolutely not. It is speculation, but when you look at the timeline, my speculation makes sense. 
  3. The third side is optionally the second side as the second side might not be a real side. When we see “Hackers are now actually searching the data for information that can be weaponised. If they find anything that is incriminating or embarrassing, they’ll use it to leverage a larger pay-out. These incidents are no longer simply cyber-attacks about data, they are full-out extortion attempts”, the underlying station is ‘information that can be weaponised’ and the IT sector is helping them.

How did I get there? The cloud is not as secure as some state, and the salespeople need to take notice. Business Insider gave us about 6 months ago “70% of Companies Storing Data With Cloud Companies Hacked or Breached”, see the link we are now slowly getting presented? 

In the OSI model, we see layers 3-7 (layer 8 is the user). So as some have seen the issues from Cisco, Microsoft and optionally Zoom, we see a link of issues from layer 3 through to layer 7 ALL setting a dangerous stage. Individually there is no real blame and their lawyers will happily confirm that, but when we see security flaw upon security flaw, there is a larger stage of dangers and we need to take notice. And here the dangers become a lot more interesting when we consider the Guardian yesterday when we saw “Intelligence value of SolarWinds hacking of then acting secretary Chad Wolf is not publicly known”, what else is not publicly known? How many media outlets ignored the Cisco matter, how come ZDNet is one of the few giving us “it’s not releasing patches for some of the affected devices that reached end of life” less than 8 weeks ago. Again I say Cisco did the right thing by informing its customers close to immediately, yet when we see “More than 247,000 Microsoft Exchange servers are yet to be patched against the CVE-2020-0688 post-auth remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability impacting all Exchange Server versions under support” (source: bleepingcomputers.com) as far as I can see, a lot of the media ignored it, but they will shout and repeat the dangers of Huawei, without being shown actual evidence, and I state here, that unless we make larger changes, the extortion path will evolve and become a lot larger. With 70% of cloud systems getting hacked or breached, a large chunk of the Fortune 500 will pay too much to keep quiet and who gets to pay for that? There is a rough 99.867765% chance that its board members will not, it might be speculatively, so please prove me wrong.

A stage where the needs of the consumers changes in a stage where the corporations are not ready to adjust and all whilst the IT salespeople have that golden calf that does everything and make you coffee as well. Adjustments are needed, massive adjustments are needed and we need to make them now before the cybercriminals are in control of our IT needs and that is not mere speculation, when you see flaw after flaw and too little is done as too many are the victim of its impact is a serious breach and it has been going on for some time, but now it is seemingly out in the light and too many are doing too little and as we laugh at “God bless his hairy palms, Amen!” Consider that stage, and now consider that they invade a financial institution, these are clever criminals, they do not empty your account, they merely take $1, perhaps $1 every other month, this implies that they are looking at a $16,000,000 every two months. And this is merely one bank, one in a thousand banks, some a lot bigger than the Australian Commonwealth bank and lets face it, the fact that layer 3 to layer 7 is leaky in hundreds of thousands of customers, do you really think that banks are off-limits? Do you really think that this is a simple hick-up or that the scenery is changing this quickly by people claiming that it will be fixed in no-time? 

We need massive changes and we need them a lot sooner than we think.

1 Comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Science

The joy of discovery

We all get it, there are moments, those ‘aha’ moments when we see something that does not add up. You see, Agnes Callamard (aka eggy calamari) has been going out and accusing the Saudi government and specifically the Crown Prince of all kinds of misdeeds and she got the CIA to help her out. I debunked that report in several articles a few times, the fact that I am a mere recent graduate add to just how stupid the UN has been in the last 2 years, then she was all up in arms because a man claimed that the Crown prince hacked his mobile, a report that was debunked and questioned by a whole range of cyber experts, yes it was the man who is really rich and saves money on shampoo (hint: it rhymes with Beff Jezos), two instances when the UN got involved, the second one is debatable whether the UN should have gotten involved in the first place.

Now we get ‘Saudi accused of threat to Khashoggi UN investigator is human rights chief’ (source: the Guardian), to be honest I was about to let it go, tempers run high and an official is slightly over protective of its Crown Prince. This happens, it is a fact of life, I am no different, I am Australian now, but if someone threatens the life of my previous King of the Netherlands and/or his family, I will kill that person myself, on the spot and if I sit a life sentence in jail I will be whistling dixie. I took an oath in 1981 and I believe that an oath is set for life. So the quote “The Saudi official who is alleged to have twice issued threats against the independent UN investigator Agnès Callamard is the head of the kingdom’s human rights commission” is something that comes by and I think, ‘Shit happens!’ As such no big deal, then I saw “We confirm that the details in the Guardian story about the threat aimed at Agnès Callamard are accurate. After the threat was made, OHCHR informed Ms Callamard herself about it, as well as UN security and the president of the Human Rights Council, who in turn informed the relevant authorities” at this point a thought crossed my mind “This Rupert Colville, a spokesperson for the UN high commissioner for human rights is dotting his ‘i’ and crossing his ‘t’”, it happens, but the stage is reported in a fashion that the media often does not go through to this degree and that is when the revelation hit, not the revelation of Saudi Arabia bashing. It is seen when you see the following image (see below)

The name Stephanie Kirchgaessner keeps on popping up, way too often and if she is as the Guardian quotes “the Guardian’s US investigations correspondent”, the focal points do not make sense, this was an article that an intern could have written and as such more and more question marks on ‘Saudi bashing’ surface and the ring of those doing this is is becoming more and more debatable. Yet in all this, no one is asking questions, no one seems to notice. I did initially in a previous video article with Stephanie Kirchgaessner, but it could have been an editing issue, now I am no longer sure. I am not questioning the stage we see here, yet such a space for a threat all whilst dying children in Yemen get less space, whilst Al Jazeera gives us ‘People in Yemen are not just dying, they are being left to die’ (2 days ago), I start to wonder what the focal point of a US investigative reporter has become, aren’t you?

Let me paint you a picture (not the girl with the pearl earring mind you): “As I was sitting in the CIA office in the US Consulate in Sydney, I was talking to a man, let’s call him Hugo. Another man walks in and scans the room with an advanced version of the TM-196 3-Axis RFFSM. I ask him to give it to me and turn around, he does both, I scan his ass and tell him “Please inform NASA that the CIA can say with high probability that there are no bugs on Ur Anus”, so what will be the news after that?” The absolute truth is one thing, the way it gets ‘altered’ by those through what some would call ‘intentional misinformation’, it is one of the tools that too many have been using and the matter is getting worse, it has been  dwindling into politics and the media for decades, but we see more and more stages where technology and business are relying on misinformation and it hurts the bottom line. Forbes stated it as ‘To Gain Money, Lose Money’ (at https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisreining/2020/03/11/to-gain-money-lose-money) there we see “volatility is the nature of the market. Whether you’re investing in indexes or stocks like Netflix you’re going to spend time losing money. Most days it’s immaterial. Some days it’s not. But it’s how you react to losing money that ultimately determines your gains”, I am not debating that part, it is well explained in more words then I am giving here, but some are transferring this to the real stage of actual life and that is where it goes ‘tits up’ as some say, a long term stage cannot be set to economic stages of equilibrium. This is why I hate the hypocrisy that is shown too often and for too long regarding the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. When we hold these people to account some will hide behind ‘an unnamed source’, others will use the miscommunication line, but they all hide behind the same wall of hypocrisy. It is time to wreck-ball that wall, because it is costing us way too much and when the others realise just what the costs were, the people invoking the actions will claim to be non-accountable and it all started with a missing journalist 99.9% of the global population never cared about, that too I brought to light, and as we saw 41 minutes ago that “European Union leaders are ready to boost cooperation with Turkey if a “current de-escalation is sustained”, they said in a video summit on Thursday following a spike in tensions”, all whilst Turkey moved away from the Istanbul Convention, so when are these so called politicians holding Turkey to account? I reckon never, but that is how the cookie crumbles as some say. Stages of denial, all whilst those are all happy to bash Saudi Arabia a little longer and there we see the article on threats whilst we also get “The Guardian independently corroborated Callamard’s account of the January 2020 episode”, I personally wonder how much of that corroboration was done by Stephanie Kirchgaessner in the first or second degree. Aren’t you curious of that part too? 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

The broken record

That is how I feel at times, all the instances that people come and parrot like repeat the accusations left, right and center. All those times I feel like I am in a losing war, a shouting match and my voice is gone, but here I go again and this time two events took place, but the BBC set them off and it starts with the interview with Ian Murray giving us the headline ‘Meghan racism row: Society of Editors boss Ian Murray resigns’, at first I was not that interested, to be honest, in the world of journalism, or what some call journalism, the value of a journalist tends to be lower than the value of a crack pusher. Yet this interview gave me a few nice parts. It starts at 00:53 (at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56355274), when questions are asked on the headlines, yet Ian Murray deflects it all, changing the conversation (or trying to), in the end he never answered the question, he tried to change the conversation. This is the larger problem with the media, the media is not here to support and to inform you the reader, the listener or the watcher. Here we see the dangers of the Society of Editors. These people have a charter, an unspoken one. They protect the share holders, the stakeholders and the advertisers, after that it becomes as emotional as possible, so that flaming will ensue more and more revenue. The actual journalism is left to a chosen few and that group is exceedingly shrinking. It is the most clear example, but it is not the only one.

The second part is the Jamal Khashoggi joke. This senseless form of humour gives us headlines in nearly all papers, with live interviews with UN essay writers, but not any evidence, or better stated quality evidence that could be regarded in a court of law. CNN gives us ‘White House won’t punish Saudi Crown Prince for Khashoggi murder’, all whilst there is no evidence at all, there is a source (the one that promised that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq), but they water it down to highly probable to probable that it happened. The factual stage is that something most likely happened to Jamal Khashoggi, but there is no evidence, mere speculation. And in part it (optionally) helps me. I will happily take the $6,800,000,000 revenue and courier the papers between Riyadh and Beijing for a nice fee (the 3.75% commission I mentioned in previous articles). I already have the dream house I deeply desire lined up. You see there needs to be an actual cost to doing business and the media is due its invoice too.

The Guardian in July 2019 reported (at https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jul/09/most-uk-news-coverage-of-muslims-is-negative-major-study-finds) ‘Most UK news coverage of Muslims is negative, major study finds’, and as the arms industry is a buyers market, I am happily willing to facilitate towards China, did you think that all the BS and negativity is accepted? At some point buyers will look at the other delivering parties and what the CAAT did not screw up, the Yanks themselves did, as such 2 slices of cake (a yummy multi billion dollar one) will go towards other hungry players. A setting that the media and politicians staged. So whilst the Conversation gave us a little over a week ago ‘Jamal Khashoggi: why the US is unlikely to deliver justice for the murdered journalist’ (at https://theconversation.com/jamal-khashoggi-why-the-us-is-unlikely-to-deliver-justice-for-the-murdered-journalist-156165) with the part that is essential “the White House has tried to send signals to Saudi Arabia and may not favour Prince Mohammed, it is likely he will take over the throne from his father and rule the kingdom for decades to come. The Biden administration may dislike Prince Mohammed personally, but they will probably need to work with him if the US is to maintain a working relationship with Saudi Arabia”, in this the US has no options, they have the option of releasing actual evidence, but I would not hold my breath on that one. They need to find a way to restore billions in optional lost revenue and I hope they lose out so I can get my dream house. You see in a commercial world it is about who has the goods and who can deliver the goods and at present Saudi Arabia has the cash. So whilst we see more and more visible BS on a whodunnit level whilst the evidence is a lot less than the one Ellery Queen ever had to work with. 

And in all this the media has a much larger role to play, a lot more than you think. And if one would ask Miqdaad Versi of the Muslim Council of Britain today, I wonder how the stage has negatively reverted. Even as we saw then “The findings come amid growing scrutiny of Islamophobia in the Conservative party and whether its roots lie in rightwing media coverage.” It is a much larger setting, it is the media in general, for them Islam is an easy mark to have, a mark that upsets the least and that is where the shareholders and stakeholders are most likely to be, the creation of emotional flames and the Khashoggi flame was one of the brightest they had seen in a decade as such Saudi bashing continues. We see an alternative/additional version in Judith Escribano article “In The role of the media in the spread of Islamophobia Sam Woolfe argues that “the media uses bold and harsh language to promote this kind of fear because bad news sells”. This constant drip feed of bad news focussed on Muslims and Islam merely “propagates and reinforces negative stereotypes of Muslims (e.g. that Muslims are terrorists, criminals, violent or barbaric)”” (at https://www.islamic-relief.org.uk/islamophobia-in-the-media-enough-is-enough/), I disagree in part. You see the media never had their ducks in a row and to sell advertisements, they need to turn the people into ‘click bitches’, the more emotional an article is, the more enflaming an article is, the better the changes of a click and a click translates to roughly $0.01-$0.03 per person per visit, as such the media flames as much as they can every day. They never realised the setting has no long term benefit and I reckon that is why the Australian one is crying like little bitches against mean mean mean Google (and its papa Smurf Sergey Brin). 

So how do Prince Harry and Meghan relate to Saudi Arabia and Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman? Emotion! Emotion is the stage that levels the playing field for the media, a stage that enraged millions, make them click on their website, the ultimate click bitch paradox that is as close to a perfect digital storm as we are likely to see in the next decade, that is until Iran does something extreme again, but I set a new stealth weapon system online for the innovator to turn into something factual and sink their navy, I roll like that.

The problem with the stage we see is that for the most, the media refuses to investigate the media and the moment they figure out that they are under investigation, we will see all kinds of barricades. Even the Guardian (one of the more reputable ones) gave us a day ago ‘What is journalism for? The short answer: truth’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/11/journalism-truth-strong-regulation-us-media-uk) there is nothing wrong with the article, but consider the stage they start up with “Who, what, where, when and why? Five questions that are at the heart of our trade. Answer those questions in relation to any news story, and we’re doing our jobs as journalists” and that stage is not wrong, but there is a setting between editor and journalist that is missing and that accounts for filtered information versus news. In this filtered information is news that has been approved by the shareholders, the stakeholders and the advertisers. That difference is at the core of Islamophobia, the false accusations against Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, the continued covering of a columnist that vanished years ago and almost no one cares about. It is smitten with the essential need for digital revenue. That is at the heart of it all and whilst the royal stage might depose Saudi Arabia from a number one digital bashing position it is a mere temporary one. In 2009 James Murdoch gave us “The only reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit”, and how can the news be profitable? When the news is filtered and for the most (and more secure way) to the extent that meets with the approval of share holders and stake holders, yet how independent is that exactly?

I apologise for sounding like a broken record, but this stuff is important, and when the escalations start you will see why, which is why I hope you are on the ball before that happens. Have fun!

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

Reprieve the explosives

The Guardian woke me up this morning with ‘MI5 policy allowing agents to commit crimes was legal, say judges’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/mi5-policy-agents-take-part-crimes-lawful-appeal-court-judges). Here we are told that Maya Foa, the director of Reprieve is challenging the case that “The idea that the government can authorise undercover agents to commit the most serious crimes, including torture and murder, is deeply troubling and must be challenged”, now, I agree that this is probably an ideological approach to the matter, but this is not some scuffle with the local constabulary, when you are active enough for MI5 to look into the matter, you are an actual optional problem (read: danger) to the British people. 

We look at the example “Home Office sources cited the case of Naa’imur Zakariyah Rahman, who was jailed for life in 2018 for plotting to kill the former prime minister Theresa May. He was caught following an undercover operation in which he was provided with what he thought was a jacket and rucksack packed with explosives.”, or as one might say, he went to the target holding a block of grey putty, 5 wires and an egg timer. The issue is not what they do, the issue is for MI5 agents to get into the fold and those folds are extremely paranoid of the people they allow in but do not know, they tend to demand extreme examples of their commitment. Some sources in the political field give us “Ayman al-Zawahiri isn’t trying to plan another 9/11 attack—because he doesn’t need to.” Yet in this MI5, if not all the people in the UK cannot take that lacks a standing, What if the next time it is not the World Trade Centre, what if it becomes the Shard? That building is visible to the largest part of London, right in front of a train station. The chaos would be visible for months, and it is for that reason that players like MI5 need as large as possible a leeway to get their job done. We will never hear of their successes, but any failure will be front page news for years to come and the stakes are only getting higher. OK, I admit by creating IP that could sink the Iranian fleet, I did not help any, but I am not some Reprievalist, I created a solution to get things done (that’s how I roll).

Yet the article is not all ‘problems’, there is validity in “a limit to what criminality may be authorised”, I get it, there should be some form of limit, but that also means that the players will go that far in finding a solution to weed out any legal interference brought to them by MI5 (and like minded opposition) and that is definitely not a good thing. We might think that this is ‘common’ ground, but the Dutch AIVD, French DGSE and let’s not forget the American bringers of fairy tails, the CIA. They are all wielding their limited bat because of similar restrictions. In opposition to the FSB, GRU, the Inter-Services Intelligence of Pakistan, Iranian VEVAK (now VAJA), as well as the Chinese Ministry of State Security (MSS), aka Guoanbu. These 5 players do not have such restrictions. The best way to lose a war is to state that you can only play soldier with a M1 Garand, a rifle with a range of no more than 500 metres. All whilst the rest have the equivalent of a Druganov, or the Chinese QBU-88 both have an effective range well over twice the distance, as such it is like sending your own troops to get slaughtered. Yes, there is appeal in the moral high ground, but how high is that moral ground when you worship your convictions like a golden calf? A stage where we say, this is how it is and this is what our troops (read: intelligence operatives) need to adhere to, isn’t that just another form of targeted killing (in the most negative way)? And the politicians waving it away with ‘Our people are just so much more intelligent’ they are required to put their own children in the field, in harm’s way so to speak. I wonder how long it takes for them to get off that high moral horse. So when we see a person like Maya Foa take the limelight with a big eyed smiley face, consider who she is willing to lead to the slaughter in this. 

And that is when we consider state actors, Terrorists have access to much of the needed hardware and none of the governmental restriction and that is what MI5 faces. She is not alone, we are seeing the CAAT now limiting British economy (a setting I am happily willing to take advantage of). We see more and more of these moral high ground settings, all whilst the people around us have no such restrictions and they are all helping the abyss creep up closer to our way of life, in a time when no one can afford such changes. Even now (read: two weeks ago) as we were told “Salini Impregilo has won a contract in Saudi Arabia: a project worth about $1.3 billion in Riyadh with the Saudi Arabia National Guard”, the setting not mentioned is that the project was a lot larger and other construction players (read: Rusian/Chinese) are getting a slice of that. The size of that slice is not known, but as they become more and more adept in negotiating, the slices of WeBuild (Salini Impregilo) will get smaller and smaller in an economic setting that the EU cannot afford. WeBuild is now facing increased competition from China State Construction Engineering Corporation (CSCEC), as well as the Russian PIK group. Even as Russia has a few issues to work from, the Chinese side has a diminishing threshold to deal with and over the next few years it could cost the EU billions. One group, one industry and that much damage, is the Reprieve danger sinking in? The stage is a lot larger than we think because any action here by terrorists will have larger repercussions on the international stage and all whilst we give some moral high ground against terrorists. It’s like telling Ken McCallum that he can only kill the nasty troll with a butterknife. How screwed up is that setting?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics

Where the media should never be

A case was brought to my attention, normally it goes nowhere, but this article (at https://millichronicle.com/2021/03/opinion-ghada-oueiss-lies-about-saudi-and-american-spies/) struck a nerve. In all this, there were a few unknowns. I had never dealt with the Milli Chronicle, I did not know the writer and it was against Al Jazeera, a news outlet that had shown to be often enough to be in good faith, but the article still stung. Lets take a look

There was ‘Al Jazeera anchor Ghada Oueiss sues Saudi and UAE crown princes over phone hack, harassment’ (at https://www.scmp.com/news/world/middle-east/article/3113604/al-jazeera-anchor-ghada-oueiss-sues-saudi-and-uae-crown), the South China Morning Post gives us this last December. It is there where we see “She sued Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed for allegedly hacking into her phone and stealing and doctoring images to silence her”, this is interesting because it is not the first time that Mohammed bin Salman is accused of this. I am wondering how much of it is actually true. You see one definite part in this is that one should always keep their hands clean, as such there is a larger debate on who did the deed, and as such how is any evidence of this tested and validated? Perhaps Ghada Oueiss is seeing a pay day? When we look back at a similar accusation we saw the failed papers and the debatable papers by FTI consulting. There was clear evidence that his phone was hacked, but there is also a decent setting that MBS was framed and that a third party hacked his phone.

All this becomes a second stage when we see ‘Al Jazeera anchor’s anti-Semitic Twitter persona’ (at https://www.arabnews.com/node/1704376/media) a setting that was seen last July. There we see “On July 8, Al Jazeera anchor Ghada Oueiss wrote an opinion article for the Washington Post in which she detailed her alleged struggle with cyberbullying campaigns on Twitter at the hands of — as she claims — droves of Saudi and Emirati bots”, so in all this we see another Washington Post mention all towards a columnist no one gives a fuck about (pardon my French). Isn’t it interesting that they all knew one another and they are all the making the ‘alleged attempt’? As I see it Al Jazeera just entered the frame where they should not be ‘Creating the no news’ and there is every chance that this will now hit their credibility. We are also given ““Al Jazeera, though Ghada Oueiss and others, calls for chaos in its support for militias and violence against the state and calls for hatred in any form possible to defy and distort the image of those who oppose its sponsors in Qatar and its ally Turkey,” Egypt-based media expert Hani Nasira told Arab News.” This requires me to have more in depth knowledge of Hani Nasira which I do not have, but it also gives (optionally plasters) Ghada Oueiss as a tool for usage as we are treated to “Al Jazeera, though Ghada Oueiss and others”, gives rise to a different kind of journalism, I wonder who was looking that deep? So as we return to the Milli Chronicle and “Ghada needs defendants who reside in Miami, Florida in order to bring her lawsuit there. Two of the USA Defendants live in Miami, Florida—which is why Ghada made them defendants in her lawsuit. Ghada complains that these two Americans joked about eating dinner at the Olive Garden Restaurant in Miami, so now, Ghada no longer feels safe in Miami—even though she lives in Qatar.” And perhaps this reminds you of something? I wrote about it a few weeks ago and let me get a sample. It is seen in my article ‘Number of states’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/02/06/number-of-states/) there we see (at https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.220747/gov.uscourts.dcd.220747.66.1.pdf) at [4] “Fortunately, in the United States, justice is measured not by the might of one’s arms; what is lawful is measured not by the reach of one’s sword; and the law itself is not laggard when faced with a prince who, having directed the dismemberment of a prominent U.S. journalist overseas, also dispatched a team of hunters and killers into the United States and Canada to murder again”, it is interesting that all the elements were outside the USA, more important, there is a lack of Canadian Courts in play when it comes to Dr. Saad Aljabri. And personally, it might be me, yet how much value do we give a complaint when it starts with “Richard III, William Shakespeare” a play that is seen as a tragedy, just like that court case, so why was the intending ‘victim’ not in a Canadian court? And it does not end there, the opposition (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) is shown in the Guardian ‘Saudi state companies sue ex-spy chief in Canada over alleged $3bn fraud’ with the additional part “Aljabri, exiled in Canada, was a top aide to Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, who was deposed as heir to the throne by Prince Mohammed bin Salman in a 2017 palace coup.” I am not stating that one is true and one is false, but which journalist dug into the finances of Dr. Saad Aljabri? $3,000,000,000 is a lot more than most will ever make, and even as a top aide to Prince Mohammed bin Nayef there is a decent option that Dr. Saad Aljabri would end up being a millionaire, even a multi millionaire, but not a billionaire. 

I feel certain that I can live like a king in Monaco for €250,000,000, so why would I need more? Some do and for a top-aide to end up being a multi billionaire, that requires some doing and no one is asking those questions, they are all doing the same thing from different directions, like a bachelor getting to work in the morning every day from a different direction, someone is getting screwed. The people expecting neutral news is one, there are a few more but I will let you decide on that.

You see, we all want confirmation, one stating that fraud was not committed whilst the court case is filed in the US, not in Canada. So what investigation took place in Canada? Then when we see the Milli Chronicle with “It seemed like a crazy joke until the reporter said there was actually a lawsuit number, 1:20-cv-25022– and that I was personally named as a member of a shadowy, nefarious, evil-doing operation that Ghada calls “The Network” on pages 19 and 20 of her 93-page diatribe”, who investigated this stuff? The fact that it makes the Milli Chronicle and not the NY Times is a valid question, but there is every indication that the Washington Post system is working full throttle in their attempt to paint a target and they are using all they can and the non-friends of Saudi Arabia are the helping hands that the Washington Post is seeking. It is speculative, but it is my view and the evidence is stacking up against the Washington Post and now against Al Jazeera as well. I do hope that the chief editor is taking a hard and a very critical look at the work of Ghada Oueiss. I will let them decide and figure out what is actual truth and I do hope that they will inform the audience, they allegedly have credibility to repair.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Filter by Gender.

Yup we have all done it, we tend to filter. The horny (especially teenagers) want to talk, chat and video whatever to the members of the other gender (well, most of them anyway). We filter by the needs we have, business needs, personal needs and artistic needs, we filter. There is for the most nothing wrong with that. Yet it also tends to keep you in a little box. I come from the previous internet era, I never got into Napster but I loved Audiogalaxy. I had it so I could listen to music when I was travelling and it opened up doors. I learned about the Corrs, Bond, the Dixie Chicks, Linkin Park, Orbital and a few others. It grew my CD collection by leaps and that made me happy, in an age where my work kept me from MTV, Audiogalaxy showed me other venues of music. I forwent the filter and I learned about and got to appreciate bands I would never have considered. Filtering is not all bad.

Yet what happens when filtering goes overboard in another direction? Today I learned a new word, I word I should have been aware of but I do not remember hearing it. The word is ‘Femicide’ and it is not a good word. It was Al Jazeera that made me aware, the article ‘Rage boils over amid Argentina’s unrelenting femicide crisis’ (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/24/rage-boils-over-amid-argentinas-unrelenting-femicide-crisis). It got my attention in the first as it was about Argentina and my mother was from there. In the second it was the by-line “Femicide of 18-year-old Ursula Bahillo pushed thousands into the streets of Buenos Aires this month to demand action”. In this there are two parts, the first is “About 87,400 results” (when we look for Ursula Bahillo) and the second part is that the big newspapers are missing on the news search result on the first page. A Spanish version from the BBC is at the bottom of the page, no Washington Post, no NY Times, no Times, no Guardian (the list goes on) and it sickens me for another reason. You see, one hour ago the Guardian gives us ‘Princess Latifa letter urges UK police to investigate sister’s Cambridge abduction’, some princess gets the news on optionally being abducted and whilst Al Jazeera reports “Nearly 300 femicides were reported in the country in 2020”, other newspapers keep us in the dark and these idiots demand money from Facebook and Google, whilst not informing us? I see this as one of the clearest ‘What the Fuck?’ moments of the year.

I never felt comfortable bout honour killings. I understand that it exist and in those countries there is an issue, I am massively against that setting in other nations. I cannot convict it as I am not Muslim, yet outside of Muslim nations it is an issue, yet femicide should not be ANYWHERE and the fact that we are kept in the dark by most papers is a larger issue, but I will let you worry about that. It kind of intersects with ‘Australia urged to follow allies in denouncing China’s repression of Uighurs as ‘genocide’’, the fact that genocide is happening and someone needs to ‘urge’ Australia shows that we are not as evolved as we think we are. By the way, the first 5 pages of that search shows no Australian papers at all, as such should they be allowed to exist? That is a more serious question than you think. If the ACCC are all about media laws and the need to blame tech companies, in this my message after seeing ‘ACCC chief claims victory after Facebook standoff’ to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chair Rod Sims will be “Sir, I consider you to be a fucking joke! You are hereby responsible to make sure that the events around Ursula Bahillo are to be seen in EVERY Australian newspaper as per immediate. If you (as it seems) champion discrimination, you need to be openly told this”, my issue here is that Microsoft was left out of the media consideration, they were waiting all their resources on their Azure cloud and now that we see “Microsoft will ensure that small businesses who wish to transfer their advertising to Bing can do so simply and with no transfer costs.  We recognise the important role search advertising plays to the more than two million small businesses in Australia” (source: Microsoft) all whilst we see western media absent to the plight of Ursula Bahillo and hundreds more shows that the media was never to be considered any options (if the Leveson report was not enough evidence). As such, how much action did the UN take to the Femicide cause? I know they have done some work, yet when I see ‘United Nations asks UAE for proof that Princess Latifa is alive’ all whilst the Google Search “Ursula Bahillo United Nations” gives no real links on the western media, why is that? That is even beside the fact on how active UN essay writers became against the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, they even went so far to push for issues regarding  cyber crimes on an American Industrial (Jeff Bezos) all whilst the presented evidence had several shades of debatability. As I see it, we need larger changes and if the media relies on political bitches (as one might say) to do their revenue work for them, they will need to be held liable, yet I reckon that some editors will cry like little bitches and point towards ‘freedom of the press’, I wonder how long it will take for someone to consider that ‘accountability of the press’ is also a matter that needs consideration. Al Jazeera brought more to the surface than some media players are happy with. Consider your paper, or their website (whichever it is) and look for Ursula Bahillo, how many articles did you find? What we are shown matters, whether is be Femicide in Argentina, persecution of Uighurs or any other news. As I personally see it when we filter by gender and the filtering agent is the media we have lost control and the insane are at the helm of a ship called sanity. That’s merely my $0.02 on the matter.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

The danger of being wrong

It happens, to you and me, sometimes we are wrong. It can be because of belief, it can be because of presented facts, or it is linked to the faith you hold. Faith, not religion! In this I have a surprising large foundation of preference towards being incorrect, not being wrong. They are not the same. When you are incorrect, it tends to be towards a specific part of the equation, when you are wrong, you are looking at another equation. That tends to set you on the wrong foot, the one that cannot kick the ball.

For me it started roughly 780 seconds ago when the BBC gives us ‘Facebook Australia: PM Scott Morrison ‘will not be intimidated‘ by tech giant’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56109036). To be honest this mess started a few weeks ago when politicians were starting to suck up to a desperate media setting. The larger fear is not merely the new linking and cookie solution that Google is working on, and that is before they realise that my new IP takes the newspapers out of ALL equations. It was not intentional, but the fact that my solution gets rid of ‘filtered information’ carriers is just icing on the cake. So the article gives us “Australians on Thursday woke up to find that Facebook pages of all local and global news sites were unavailable. People outside the country are also unable to read or access any Australian news publications on the platform”, which suit me just fine, it is not my use of social media, as such I do not care of seeing news (read: filtered information) there. So when we consider the information from the same source giving us “The world-first law aims to address the media’s loss of advertising revenue to US tech firms” my initial somewhat less diplomatic view tends to lean towards “Who the fuck are you legalising advertisement revenue and who gets it?” From my seat it looks like that everyone is all about free trade until the friends of politicians lose their trade, then it becomes a political setting towards protecting those moneybags, that is how I see it. The fact that the media did not comprehend what digital media and digital advertisement was until it was much too late, why do we cater to them? In that same setting how much protection will the Yellow Pages receive against that same media outlet trying to rip dollars from tech companies? The world evolves and those who cannot adjust die, or go under. This is how capitalism works. The stage is even less acceptable when we consider the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/oct/11/the-press-were-never-in-a-post-leveson-straitjacket) giving us “It has always suited journalists to suggest it is unwise for victims of illegality to pursue justice against newspaper publishers”, so not only is it unwise for victims to get against their media harassers, we see a larger stage where politicians and laws are devised to protect them from acts of technological evolution. In this at what point are they held to account for their actions?

So when we consider the part where we see “Under the code, news outlets will be required to negotiate commercial deals individually or collectively with Facebook and Google. If they cannot reach an agreement, an arbitrator will decide whose offer is more reasonable. If Facebook or Google break any resulting agreements, they can be fined up to A$10 million ($7.4 million) in civil penalties”, we see discrimination. Microsoft Bing is not in that equation, why not? In addition, why would we want to see any Australian news in our social media? Come think of it, the setting that Facebook has with advertisements goes back to 2007, so over almost 14 years, the media was incomprehensibly incompetent toward advertisements and the impact. 

In 14 years they did almost nothing to counter it with their own version, by the end of 2012 they had passed 1 billion users, 5 years later they doubled that. (at https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/)
And the media sat on their hands, they sat on their hands to such a degree that now politicians are aiding the filtered information bringers to get some more undeserved revenue, in addition these same politicians did nothing to overhaul the tax laws, so how does that play?

As such why do they deserve that leg up? Oh and in this stage if the population is a solar system, planet earth becomes a system with planet Bing, planet IBM, planet Google, planet Facebook and planet media. In this planet media is mercury, scorched from being too close to the sun, Saturn and Jupiter are Google and Facebook, each with their own asteroids and moons, al having their own function, Mercury, like the media has no moons, no services to offer, merely a printed media solution, as such, how much protection did the parchment guild get when the news went to the pulp business? What was left for the paper mills?

The paper mill is a nice touch, I actually went to one, I saw how paper is made and we all go towards: ‘Yes, but that is now obsolete’, this is true, but in that same light, the media we see today made THEMSELVES obsolete. They did not apply the brakes when they had the option and the Leveson inquiry is merely one of a few examples. When one side of media becomes too populistic, people can no longer tell or differentiate, that made them obsolete and now that this is the stage they want to hang to any solution they can, even the ones that require legality, all whilst they hang freedom of speech and freedom of expression somewhere else so they can accuse others of negating their right to show that freedom of filtered information.

Another voice is journalism professor at City University New York Jeff Jarvis, he gives us (at https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-bargaining-code/) ““The Code is built on a series of fallacies. First is the idea that Google and Facebook should owe publishers so much as a farthing for linking to their content, sending them audience, giving them marketing. In any rational market, publishers would owe platforms for this free marketing, except that Google at its founding decided not to sell links outside of advertisements. The headlines and snippets the platforms quote are necessary to link to them, and if the publishers don’t want to be included, it is easy for them to opt out…”, he gave this yesterday, I was on that train a week ago. And as I see “if the publishers don’t want to be included, it is easy for them to opt out”, the ACCC was eager not to include that little snippet of the equation making them a tool and optionally a joke too. As such we might wonder what politicians are dong (apart from helping their media friends remaining a non-poor entity), I could be wrong, I could be incorrect. I believe I am neither and that is the stage we see, all whilst the bringers of filtered information continue their revenue round one more lap, that is until the race is called. I believe it was called some time ago, but that is merely me. I could be wrong.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

The black door of death

Yup there is a door, a black door, some say it is the door of death. Hades assures me it is a door of change and opportunity, but then that man is not happy until the news given to all is gloomy beyond belief. I am a republican, I never made a secret of that and in some cases I gave that news up front. Today we see why! Al Jazeera gives us (among others) “Trump lawyers and House impeachment managers have decided to avoid calling witnesses in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, beginning four hours of closing statements”, then we get ABC giving us “Mr Evans, 35, appeared before a federal judge in Huntington West Virginia on Friday afternoon after being arrested. If convicted, he faces up to a year and a half in federal prison for two misdemeanours: entering a restricted area and disorderly conduct. A growing number of Republicans and Democrats have said they want to expel Mr Evans from the legislature if he does not resign. His lawyer, John Bryan, said Mr Evans was acting as an amateur journalist recording the day’s events and he was not involved in violence. He said Evans did not commit a crime and did not plan to step down”, a setting when we consider “two black men were arrested last week when a store employee called police to say the men were trespassing. The protests followed the release of a video that showed the two men being arrested after a store manager called the police because they were sitting in the store without placing an order” (source: the Guardian), as such, they could have avoided arrest and cuffing if they called themselves ‘amateur journalists’?

We see the defence give us “It was a report from a reporter from a friend of somebody who had some hearsay they heard the night before at a bar somewhere”, we see hundreds of hours of footage, we see a loud mouthed petulant bullish childish NYC realtor gave us on January 6th “Today I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election”, we are also given “Trump defence dodges question on what he did to stop Capitol attack, says there was no insurrection”, yet the democrats miss the ball again and again. So what was this media circus, a show? A let this all be good for the grace of death?

And now we see “Former President Donald Trump acquitted again” (source: ABC news). The democrats foil the ball yet again, OK, I will admit that there are a few dubious characters on my side of the isle, yet proper investigation and interrogation might have gone a long way in this. 

So why do I care? I think something despicable happened, and a knowingly lying former president of the USA is not a good way to stage the setting. But that also opens the door of opportunity. And that door is not a nice one. I hereby call upon the specialist (read: CIA Wet Teams) to set a new standard. In an age of “Ransomware attacks are proving more lucrative for cyber criminals as even organisations that can restore from backups are paying ransom demands to prevent further damage”, as well as “As 2020 started, only the Maze ransomware gang was using this tactic. But as it ended, an additional 17 ransomware crews had taken to publishing stolen data of victims if they didn’t receive payment”. As such I am asking (read: demanding) that the CIA Wet teams are activated to secure American business safety. The victims are wide spread “They included 1,681 schools, colleges and universities, 560 healthcare facilities and 113 federal, state and municipal governments and agencies. Meanwhile, over 1,300 private companies were also hit by ransomware attacks”, as such we set the C.W.T. (CIA Wet Teams) in the field and we kill these people, no long wasted court-time, just a bullet through the back of the head. I don’t care it comes from a 16 year old with a crying excuse “I wanted to be cool”, that person will be pretty cool (ground temperature) in a casket, unless he is cremated, that person will be room temperature (still cool). Is that too much? I think it is time to set a different premise, it is time to set the premise of ‘enough is enough’, the law has not worked , not for 2-3 decades, scare tactics did not and as such, after the first half dozen are found and put to death, the rest will dump their computers faster than anything else they ever had and as such they are dealt with. It is a bit over the top, but Hades told me that there would be opportunity, so I sought one, I found one and now I am casing one. 

The setting stage of such failing blunders on the democratic side is just the start of the larger stage, the attacks on Saudi Arabia, whilst the actions by Iran on this are are almost 100% ignored, there is more one sided actions, as such setting a larger footprint on the other side of the fence is not the worst tactic to use, and lets face it, apart from the ransomware attackers (and their mummies and daddies) how much real opposition will there be? The second acquittal opened a new door, a door of all those thinking there would be no accountability for electing a stupid person, lets make sure that the new signals are a clear given sign that this was not the case and that we are all in a stage of having had enough. That is how I see it, yet I could be wrong.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

The marker, what is it?

We are always in a stage where it is about the price, as such the title ‘are video games too expensive?’ In the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/games/2021/feb/08/are-video-games-too-expensive-assassins-creed-cyberpunk-2077) had my attention, I wonder what they are throwing at us this time, they being Luke Holland. He throws “With new consoles from Sony and Microsoft expected, a raft of video game publishers announced that the RRP of their new releases would increase for the first time since the mid-00s” at us and that seems fine. There is also the fact that most game dealers tend to lower that price off the bat, the makers have there day one discounts and it goes on. I get it. Luke is not wrong and through the article he gives a decent point of view, but some issues remain. It is not given with “While an extra £20 won’t break the bank for some, games might already be stretching what little disposable income many people have, particularly when twinned with the £250-£450 cost of the shiny new console on which to play them”, it is a fact, but there is more (there always is). He touches on it with “the cost of producing an AAA game – big-budget, big-studio, tentpole titles – is now akin to that of making a Hollywood blockbuster. Grand Theft Auto V, released in 2013, cost £195m in development and marketing” yet he dances around it by dangling Cyberpunks and the bugs in our faces, whilst he ignores the massive bug list that AC Valhalla had (the very first image in the story). So whilst we get “A Martin Scorsese film lumbers in at three hours long. Most narrative-led games clock in at 15-or-so hours – five whole Scorseses; a hundred quid’s worth of Marty”, yes but there we see it, the quality, quality is what separates them, Scorsese hands us sheer perfection, Ubisoft products have not done this for the better part of a decade, in addition a game like Cyberpunk is showing us innovation to a much larger degree even (if for now) it has bugs. Ubisoft has been treating us to more of the same for years and they still can’t get it right. That is the part that is missing in this. And the gem is given at the very last “Yes, £70 is a lot. But choose wisely and you’ll never, ever feel short-changed”, yes we agree, but the ‘choose wisely’ part has become tainted. Consider that IGN gave us ‘Update 1.1.0 will fix over 30 Quest, World Event, and Side Activity issues, many that would prevent players from proceeding due to glitches and problems’, they gave this TWO MONTHS after the game was released, so how come that we see scores (metacritic: 80-85) depending on what system, a game with that many bugs is given 70+? And when we see that per source Gamepro (65) to PC gamer (92), we should have issues with the ‘choose wisely part’, in opposition there is Watchdogs: Legion, they did get that part right and when we see metacritic reviews (66-74) we need to sit down and consider that we all have different tastes and the settings are not equally pressed, which is unfair to Ubisoft as well. 

This is where the shoes become an issue, we might think that £20  is not too big an issue, when you are in a stage where you might buy a lemon £20 is a lot, really it is. 

As we try to set a value per time range, we need to consider that art is not easily categorised, and a true video game is still a work of art, which is why I have been slapping Ubisoft all I can, as I feel that they forgot that part. They got parts right they got games right. Even now, I still see in my mind the sunrise in AC Origins, perhaps because it was the first real 4K game, perhaps it was the setting, but they got that part right, pretty much all of it, which is why I am so angry about AC Valhalla. I stayed away from it and until the price is set to below £10 I continue to do so. I got AC Odyssey at £10 at some point, and I still regret it, so I might not fall for that this time around, in this I have serious settings on finding a way to officially remove Ubisoft from the AAA developers list, but then I remember, they got Watchdogs: Legion right, they might pull it off again. 

In this we need to make one more sidestep, Luke gives us “December’s Cyberpunk 2077 – despite being unfinished, riddled with bugs and, on consoles, uglier than a pooing pug”, which is interesting as he did not give us that setting for AC Valhalla, did he? I get it, we all have style of games we like, as I was in the 70’s addicted to the original William Gibson’s Neuromancer, I remain faithful to the game, I keep it on my shelf and I wait until the fixes have come in to play beyond the introduction. We also seem to forget that Cyberpunk 2077 had grossed well over $600 million in digital sales alone as of the end of 2020. He can have that view, I never liked GTA5, I did not like GTA4, so I stayed away from the sequel, I get it plenty like it, but it is not for me, just like Skyrim is not the game for a lot of them. We all have different tastes. 

Yet the title of the article remains in my mind, it still does, you see the part that Luke skated away from is that Immortals Fenyx Rising is $39 in the US, the same game is $50 in Europe, $77 in Australia and $45 in the UK (all PS4 prices). And this has been going on for years, all whilst the prices are even worse when you buy a digital format game, it also impacts the value of the art but we do not see that here, or in Luke’s defence with “a hundred quid’s worth of Marty”, when a game is not set to a level stage we see the issues, especially when the Xbox store charges more for a digital copy than a store would for a physical one, even an Australian store. This has been going on for at least 5 years. Games are judged by markers, but the reviewers are using different markers on different stages and they all refer to them as ‘markers’, as such people are walking away because they can no longer tell the difference. In this the final remark (which is still wise) “But choose wisely and you’ll never, ever feel short-changed” loses ground. An overhaul of what reviews and what should be reviewed is set to corners that are blatantly disregarded and it required an overhaul for well over a decade, I know because in the beginning (1988-1999) I was a reviewer. I might never have been the best, but I was always fair on the games I reviewed and I kept to the games I liked. When you get 2 pages a month, you want to spend them on the games you like, nothing else. A flaw? Optionally, but I had to make the space count so I did it on the games I likes and other reviewers on the games they liked. 

And I will admit, reviewing has become a lot more complex. A game that was on the CBM64, Atari ST or PC286 does not compare what is out today, so in that consider Watchdogs: Legion (at https://www.bworldonline.com/it-could-have-been-transcendent-arts/), I for the most agree with the review and the 85% score is decent and well earned and the one issue that I have is seen in “perhaps due to the weight of its pledges, it never gets to reach its projected dazzling heights. It never stops being enjoyable, but the most demanding players will be bothered by a nagging feeling that it could have been not just better, but transcendent — that it’s just a few steps shy of greatness”, it sums up the failing of Ubisoft, games that could have been beyond ‘WOW!’ are merely ‘Nice!’ And many reviewers do not do half as good a job on reviews as Alexander O. Cuaycong and Anthony L. Cuaycong did. So whilst we give attention to ‘choose wisely’ we forget that gamers are getting overloaded with reviews on all kinds of digital formats, and they often can no longer separate the critical reviewer from the unquestioning followers and the blind hater, which is an actual problem that makes any gamer like they are getting played and suddenly that £20 makes a whole lot of difference. 

If enough people say that it is not a marker, it is a coffee stick. We will see that at some point some will stir their coffee with it, no matter where it was before. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Media