Another nail (to images as evidence)

Just to drop it here, after umptuous [now that I’ve used it, when not if that’s a word] warnings, another nail to the … value of ‘evidence’ in court, in this piece, explained in easy pics here. Seriously distorting the picture by seemingly doing nothing of the sort. Ocean’s Eleven (or –and counting) style vid replay, now with much more modern, more perfect options.

[Edited to add: Another case in point here]

Just sayin’. And:
[When Run To The Hills is your last defence; Salzb’ – with a terrace]

There we have it; botcracy

As we turn the leaf towards a new year, let’s not forget what values – in operation, operationalised – protect our Human Rights, in the form of de-mock-racy, and how they are ever so quickly being repelled by, e.g., AI and fake news but in particular, the deployment of bots as here.
Yes I know, that’s three layers of tools but still, the focus is on the first two but the latter plays almost the foulest role.
Yes I know, the ‘operationalised’ part may need elucidation on the side of ‘transparency’, ‘access and inclusion’ etc., but when you read after the link, you’ll understand that the issue is society-wide, not just FCC / net-neutrality.

Well, that was a quicky… hence:
[München, for zero (as in: 0.0) reason]

And of course

Another one today!
This here piece, and the according official text (with interesting subheader, as downloaded from the official site…).
Because one should not expect either to be a fair representation of the Chief’s actual stance as what is in the speech text is so clearly wrong, or the Chief (his speechwriter) was badly misinformed by his own staff / speechwriter, probably down/up quite some chain of command before reaching either end. E.g.,

  • “First, Admiral Bauer pointed out that cyber operations have significant drawbacks. In fact he called them a “too good to be true” scenario. Yes, they are fast, do not require boots on the ground, and have limited risk of repercussions. Yet they do require extensive preparations, and are tailored at a specific target, at a specific time, under specific circumstances. This makes them difficult to repeat. Conventional weapons can be used for years. Cyber weapons (e.g. malware) on the other hand have a limited shelf life as the vulnerabilities they depend on will be patched.”
    Right … What about comparing a vulnerability of this sort (that can be patched so easily, i.e., a known bug that hadn’t been patched before! with a single bullet? That can be fired simultaneously at thousands, millions of foot soldiers that when hit, will turn on their Chief ..?
    And the idea that once used in an attack (sic, because no-one is out looking for unknowns ..!), it will be patched before it will be used in an attack thus resulting in a contradictio, and
    As if full patching of each and every exploitable vuln at once, has anything to de with reality whatsoever; if one thinks that: dream on and back to kindergarten. [As stated: No bearing on respect for the CHOD (why not CJCS?); one can for the above, and below, things not expect the speech text to be accurate – on second thoughts, is this a fake news detractor, to seed false info ..?]
    Plus, this reads as if all patches are perfect all of a sudden. Now that would be news.
    And, what about differences in sophistication? Weren’t all sorts of countries effectively kicked out of Afghanistan [to name one of a long list…’Nam anyone?] without succes (sic), by people with hand guns and IEDs only (no, the I stands for something)? As e.g., here. As if the many armies kicked out like that, those, not have had their ‘patching’ with armour all together…!?
  • “Notice how this is different form ‘civilian’ cyber security. There an attacker has a distinct advantage over the defender because he does not need to attack a specific target (he can try many targets at once and settle for the weakest one), and typically has no deadline within which the attack must be successful. In a ‘civilian’ cyberattack periods of activity are separated by sometimes long periods of inactivity, because after a successful move the attacker stumbles upon a further line of defence that must be investigated.
    Cyber operations do not have that flexibility, especially because they must form an integral part of existing military capabilities. The timing of a cyber operation thus depends critically on other, conventional, operations. (As someone later explained to me, if the commander of a military operation inquires whether the cyber team can hack say a bridge, the answer “probably yes, but we do not know how long it will take us” is not very useful.)”

    Again, a gross mis-take on what ‘cyber’warfare [#ditchcyber] is about. As if, as if, ‘cyber’warfare, were any different than normal warfare, Clausewitz-like – not! as you can read for yourself; the civilian long-term ‘warfare’ is exactly the same as the 5th kind.
    If the commander would ask a squad whether they can take (out, I guess) a bridge with physical means, and any ‘yes’ would be taken as certainty, the commander will not be in charge too long… The right answer is seldomly the most useful one, as, relevant, is e.g., the question why one is there: this (3rd bullet).
  • “A second thing that stood out in the speech of Admiral Bauer was the acknowledgement that in cyberspace, the difference between cyber security and national security becomes fuzzy. Whereas defending the latter is clearly a task of the military, their role in protecting the former is less clear. As Admiral Bauer put it: “the Armed Forces are not the national firewall”. Yet it is clear that by developing cyber weapons and cyber defences, their impact (both positively and negatively) on cyber security increases. This requires closer cooperation with the government, law enforcement, the private sector and research institutes. Admiral Bauer would like to invite people from cyber industry to work directly with or for the Armed Forces.” [From 1st link above]
    Another non-sequitur. As if the CHOD could not see that border defense (what are ‘we’ doing in all sorts of places around the world, then ..? Far, far overstretched, qua capacity and capabilities) is the same, either physical or abstract. If people had to defend for themselves … they should have the right to all bear arms in ‘cyber’space, to defend themselves, just as they would have the right to bear arms in physical space, right? With those arms necessarily being of at least equal combat value as the opponents’ ones. I can have my own F16 squadron! (And I would certainly want it to be as great as ‘my’ 322sqn … with Block 52+ Advanced / -V or what have we … Hey isn’t this a great and desperately cheap alternative to (jump) the money guzzling F35s ..!?)
    And “no physical sand bags” (2nd link) ..!? What are patches, then?
  • Et cetera. One could go on, ever more certain that this is not the official military stance on the issue but some sickly surrendermonkey civil servant (if only they did) kind of underling dweezil sort of misinterpretation of seriousness.

[All analog (literally, slides!) to digital scans; from the time we built (rather, had around still from years before) diarama’lets and there were shows for the public when Twente AFB still existed – like, 1983 or so, you know, from times when Defence was something Real]

Now you read me, now you don’t

As a pointer to what this is about…
You know, like the oldest tricks in the book, still going strong when all the world’s (worlds’?) arms’ races are going nowhere. As predicted. Where the title of course doesn’t reference a major part of the sec controls, stego.

But that’s a finesse point. Let’s be happy that research into faster horses continues, with results.

[Stylish; what’s hiding here ..? Even when you know where]

Eternal Life

Remember Castranova’s Synthetic Worlds? You should. If only because this, is, still, in The Atlantic [edited to add: with an intelligent comment/reply here] – because that is still around, it allows for comparison of origins, and the utopical futures as described in the book, with-or-to the current state of the world. Where we have both the ‘hardly any change noticeable in current-state affairs when compared with the moonshot promises of yesterday’ and the ‘look what already has changed; the whole Mobile world change wasn’t even in those rosy pictures’ and ‘hey don’t critique yet we may only be halfway through any major tectonic humanity shifts’.
Where the latter of course ties in with the revitalised [well there‘s a question mark attached like, what do you mean by that; is it ‘life’ and would we even want that] version in ‘singularity’ the extreme nirvana of uploaded, eternal minds. As if the concept of ‘mind’ or ‘intelligence’ would make any sense, in that scenario. And also, since this (pronounced ‘Glick’ one guru told me lately; the importance of continued education), where the distinction between ‘eternal’ and ‘forever in time’ clearly plays up as in this (same), against …

In circles, or Minkovsky‘s / Penrose‘s doodles [wormholing their value], the issue comes back to flatlander (i.e., screen) reality, if there is such a thing…
Oh well; leaving you with:
[Warping perspectives, in ‘meaning’, too; Salzburg]

@Sloterdijk_P thinking about bites

No, you uncultured species, he was not onto the physically edible kind…
But the kind that comes up when considering that for Spheres parts I-III (heartily recommended, to read and study them fully to full understandig of every bit of it …!), this right honourable gentleman (‘person’) used some, estimated, 1.250k (yes as in 1.25M) words.
Or, as that would be called for German philosophy, a sound bite.

Out of the physically-inverse (?) of Plato’s Aristophanes’ speech’s whole human (lost), the spheres turned into foams in all their intertwined physical plus completely-moreover abstract space references, are being realised in writing, in bites… Feels a bit (huh) like going from 140 to 280 and noboby really understands any of that number(s) in the first place. Both mundane – why not 291 ..? – and meta – how is ‘280’ different from ‘1’ or what is the nous of any number ..?

Now I’m rambling… Leaving you with:
[Something-something- Heraclites so completely ill-understood; Prague]

Stop dads

When you read too much (ahead) into it…
By means of this court ruling. Where a father was forbidden to post pics of his (was it 2- or 3-yr old) son on Facebook or any other socmed platform, by request of the kid’s mom, since even when the father posted in quite tightly closed circles, Fubbuck has in its terms and conditions that it might use the pics for commercial purposes. Since the latter can not be ruled out and in the interest of protecting the child’s interests, the court ruled such, advising the dad to show the pics to friends op his home compu if he’d really want to.
[What need would the father have to do that? one can ask. Benign or perverted?]

From which we learn, if – very very big if – that indeed we should consider the need and purpose of posting on socmed in the first place. If it is content that one wants the world to see, it’s OK. If some part of that content, or the purpose of the post, would not be OK → get out. If the purpose of the post would be to show off (e.g., one’s cool-dadness – pityful! but see how the other 99.999% of posts anywhere are for that purpose and that alone…), really nothing may cure you (sic).

So now, what about this post …? And:
[Since it’s no longer the site banner: Rightfully and intentionally out in the open; Barça]

Pro tip: Bankers are your doormats

At least, that’s what the Quartz article comes down to, too. At least, if you don’t want to go down with the oh so often recurring banks/bankers’ demise. Indeed all that recognise Yeshua as having had at least something valid to contribute to the world, see/heard/read that the swiping the Temple clean of the money changers, was a demonstration of the ethically very worst being thrown out of civilised society. When, as a family, one would want to stay in touch with one’s rightful place (geographically; name one family that made its fortune in a fully legal and ethical way ..?) in good style, one may better not depend on bankers…
Oh well why am I complaining – we learn from history a. that we don’t learn from history b. that, with the demise of the Afterlife, those left behind (e.g., economically) in their mortal life, have no vindication in the After. Those that do allsorts of things considered (cardinal) sins, are not punished there/then… It may all be a ploy to keep the meek in check. [Pun not even intended; ed.]

Oh well part two:
[We learn from this chap that what the … is he doing on the floor of a Catholic cathedral..!?; Siena]

You had no idea …

Did the one(s) behind this have any clue ..? Letting your biggest adversary by far, in on some source code like this ..?
Or, is it a. scareware-news, like, alt-fact fake news to placate some faction that might profit from confusion or FUD over this, in any direction …, b. just untrue, and Onion article slipped into the mainstream c. a ploy to get the Other to not see double-crossing ..?

Anyhow, it may not be the publicity one’d need – or playing on that trope …

Oh how great the scenario analysis is on this … And:

[Would you trust what’s served here ..? Amsterdam Zuid-Oost food (really?? ed.) court…]

Alasdair MacDuck

Just a Friday’s folly about Alasdair MacIntyre who, in his seminal and, when you’re into it (finally) quite pleasurably readable, After Virtue, has on pp. 243-244 (I have another edition 😉 ) “The name of the common wild duck is histrionicus histrionicus histrionicus.” – apart from this, it also is not true. The Mallard is; Anas platyrhynchos it is.
And now, I do challenge thee – was this ‘error’ on purpose or not, and if so, either to dare you to check it, or to pass off some signal to some kabal that reads his work and had put him under pressure ..? (As may be the reference close-by of secret passwords/passphrases of spies and double agents, and the three spelling errors in the book.)

Now, it’s weekend… plus:
[Now that’s low-light analog-to-digital conversion… decades ago, at Les Ménuires]

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord