double secrets – Page 9 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Disciplined away from bureaucracy

After some thought on bureaucracy on either side of the Big Pond, it suddenly dawned on me how to explain the seeming (of course) paradox:

At the Western shores, a lot of military with front line battle experience (and some, only a bit less so), possibly out of reserve functions in mundane business, have gone (back) over to the dark side of commercial business, with their discipline and cutthroat ‘competition’ (using not secondhand car salespeople but live ammo) as main assets / gathered experience to bring to bear.
On the East oceanboards, not so much, and a love for egalitarian Rhineland ideas might have persisted, giving flexibility and care for customers (‘s souls), and much room for ‘Millennials’ (let’s all drop that most empty of phrases though you get my drift) in the workplace.
On the point of competition effectiveness, Westeros beats Essos hand down.

But, the critical points for resolution are:

US businesses have been taken away from petty-rule-based (only) bureaucracy that they were in (yes they were, even with the freedom-seeking escapism rampant throughout), by the infusion with serious doses of Mission Command (a.k.a. Commander’s Intent) flexibility in goal achievement over procedural justice / form-over-substance.
European corps had nothing to counter Power Corrupts style demise unto totalitarian bureaucracies with their headless-chicken compliance.

So, it really is no contest but we would need a (not present) ref to break it off. To bad, and:

[Oh how cutiepie, Doesburg defenses]

Misquote: The End(s)

The ends justify the means.

Attributed to Machiavelli (of course), who said:

One must consider the final result.

Going from the latter to the former, quite exposes your morality, no? But then, you’re not alone. Yet you’re so very, very alone. And make it more so by taking heed to the former not the latter.
The attributee even had morals (a lot!) but if you didn’t see that (before), you’ve been taken for a ride by … whatever I don’t even care. Just keep up the good misquoting …! And:

[Symbol of the brevity of purity, beauty and life; Amstelveen — the symbol of your intelligence would be a blank or this ..?]

Repeat: Trawling for noise

So… Legal developments go at glacial ‘speed’, thus mumbling critical oversight to sleep. Happened, once again, in NL. Mass collection (sic) of and trawling through all sorts of data ‘out there’ is free game for gov’t agencies.
NO the oversight committee will not do anything. Anyone saying so, plainly and simply lies under oath to overthrow the constitution (isn’t that high treason?)

But what will happen of course, is that those that in the past weren’t able to connect the dots (proven fact), will now be swamped in enormously bigger piles of noise data. At the very very best (??) they’ll find bucketloads of false positives — ruining perfectly normal, perfectly legally operating citizens’ lives, of course without any serious recourse or restitution of lost life’s pleasure and happiness…
And the false negatives will also explode, induced by the very ‘countermeasures’.
So, also those that propose and implement and work with such ‘solutions’ quod non, will be culpable to.

Oh well Or well was right. Plus:

[I don’t want or like, but do expect, a similar thing again; for different reasons but with no really different methods — Prinsenhof Delft ya’know]

Book by Quote: Chesterfield’s

Ah, there we are again, for once, after a long while of want: A Book By Quote. Again, not in the plain vanilla version of just jotting down some bon mots but again, wherever appropriate ..! annotated with some of my interpretations. Which may be biased, as they are of human thought made. You know who I compare myself with, here.
Without further ado then, from Lord Chesterfield’s Letters:

(On people’s thoughts) … if we take them upon trust, without examining and comparing them with our own, it is really living upon other people’s scraps, or retailing other people’s goods.
To add, the quote by Ford: “It is a poor business that only makes money” as this so neatly maps to banking business. But do keep on reading this post 😉

To know the thoughts of others is of use, because it suggest thoughts to one’s self, and helps one to form a judgement; but to repeat other people’s thoughts, without considering whether they are right or wrong, is the talent only of a parrot, or at most a player.
Hence the annotations… And the parrot/player part is where so many (most?) ‘consultants’ and ‘business advisors’ (have) end(ed) up.

Whatever is worth doing at all, is worth doing well; and nothing can be well done without attention. It is the sure answer of a fool, when you ask him about any thing that was said or done where he was present, that ‘truly he did not mind it’.
Yes that’s the Original. And the surety of any answer of remark that you don’t particularly like (to receive), about the speaker. I feel a need to insert a just-found pic here:

If a man uses strong protestations or oaths, to make you believe a thing, which is of itself so likely and probable that the bare saying of it would be sufficient, depend upon it he lies, and is highly interested in making you believe it; or else he would not take such pains.
Ah, there we have all the bankers’ oaths, the quality (quod non) assurance (quod non) frameworks (quod non) of auditors, etc … In the style of Qui s’excuse, s’accuse — There should be a law against such things. Continue reading “Book by Quote: Chesterfield’s”

Watson’s ID

Does Watson have an identity? Because, when it (sic; why not ‘she’ ..?) is intelligent enough to make its own decisions, it may want to, or know ways to obtain, or be bestowed with, personhood of some sorts. To which it may need an identity, and according ID.
But that all hinges on the construct of a single, identifyable instance of <something>. And all sorts of fancy dancy press announcements — where one might ask ‘Where you’ve been to come to the show only now’ — regarding deploying ‘Watson’ in some confined business context seem to start to fly around; mostly with corporates having a dire need to blow over the news of their atrocious lack of morals — but what is it they use?
Most probably only a time share (think S/36 style) or copied-instance or copied-engine of the concept / most elaborately trained instance available.
Do we have a criminal / misdemeanour system in place already for such non-human persons? No, I don’t mean the sorely failed ‘corporate’ personhood approach as that’s a hoax. People still are in charge of corporates, and are punishable per (Board!) capita for anything that anyone does on behalf of their employer XOR they are fundamentally not allowed to act independently in any society.

Only now do we have new entities coming aboard that behave like individuals but have none behind them to cover for accountability … or they aren’t individual operators. So, no choice. But as yet, no legal system to operate in. Conundrum!

On a somewhat tangential (is it?) node: Yes, AlphaGo has beaten a human a couple of times, and the other way around now, too, but that doesn’t mean the game is lost (its interest); see Chess. And, ‘who’ has beaten the human player? Is it a ‘who’ or is it (not only) an ‘it’ or not even that, is it too abstract to say that a ‘robot’ that is in fact an ‘information system somewhere out there dispersed in place, maybe even in time’ has beaten a human..? AGI has no power plug, people!

Also,

[“The” Church, Ronchamps]

The ides of March

… aren’t today only, but are indicative of … well, a lot of what goes on in infosecland these days.
Who to trust, when your buddies and experts and both in ones, may carry knives or worse. Like, turning their your defenses against you behind your back. Like the Brutus’es and Ed S.’s did because their consciousness revived (true in both cases ..!), like the great many are doing without tipping you off already. Until it’s too late. And, in similar vein, how’zat for your backdoors built in ..?
But then, as long as you can sit there like a rabbit in the headlights … sleep now in the fire [insert appropriate link to RATM clip] because the Time Till Collapse may leave you less room for Après Nous la Déluge than ever before.

Just to wake you up, by the way; if you read the above as some kind of chagrain I may have achieved my aim of making you think beyond mere Mehhhh.
So, I’ll leave you with:

[Shifting politics, shifting alliances…]

Privvezee Shield

The fig leaf of the trade ..?
Probably will blow in the wind at the first whisper over 2Bft. E.g., through ‘misinterpretation’ of the rules and inherent incapacity to understand the Principles, by some vague fifth-line anonymous placeholder instructed to not understand, buried deep down in some TLA you may or may not have heard of.

And then, the wind cried Mary; landsliding into only the thinnest of lip service with a torrent (no double entendre intended) of factual breaches.

You’ll see… Plus:

[A sub, appropriately, even if only in Baltimore…]

A horse needn’t be a horse off course

Maybe @DARPA can elucidate … Why would anyone need four-legged soldier-helpers ..? First there was robodog, then LS3 that failed so may end up in your next indeterminableoriginmeat-burger. Next, maybe, a fully armoured full exoskeleton.
Which might do away with the humanoid innards in the near future (after that), losing some great many pounds of ballast (similarly, are drone pilots as physically fit as the bunch out there in the air on their weapons platforms ..?) and also losing a great deal in time- and otherwise (situational-closeness hence -fine-granularity) challenged ethical perspective. I.e., no weak knees anymore just shoot whatever moves.

But, back to the Helper idea: Why ..!? Why four legs, or even two ..? Instability assured… And Nature has donned animals with legs to get over tree trunks and boulders and the like yes, but maybe only because natural evolution only happens from the happenstantial last known good configuration not the clean slate ‘we’ now have when designing <anything that may silently carry some possibly superhuman load over rough terrain>.
Which is to say: Aren’t hugely more simple (contradictio semantics intended) machines possible with … even yesterday’s technology, that can do the same with no legs or completely different configurations of them? E.g., have ‘spurious’ legs on the back to be able to roll over (on purpose!) and still walk on? Tracks ..? Number Five is Alive! Silent ops can be achieved easily, just ‘invite’ some Rolls-Royce experts…
One only needs to add a gun of whatever size, and some Autonomous in the ops, and hey presto! A possibly much lighter than average soldier (easily stacked even more uncomfortably (possible?) in some freight plane for transport to the theatre) carrying possibly more, and a bigger gun a piece. No weak knees, or remotely operated — wouldn’t limited-autonomy ‘soldiers’ be able to be steered in platoons at a time from far away (and far away from anything officer-like or mayhem may ensue [disclaimer: once briefly was one]) and have an easy development of ‘grounded-drone’ armies.

After which, the Singularity takes over these all. Or just a bunch of the most capable.
Or, nearer future, some party being more than average removed from the artificial intelligence of the S i.e., some rogue general. How to stop such a guy (F/M) ..?

OK, you know where to drop the Challenge prize money, thanks. … … Or, the whole thing’s just a hoax to throw researchers of the too democratic inclination, off path since the research into the above is already progressing impressively… And:

[Hung from not hang over though that might (??) still apply to the operator; DC of course]

More valid today than in 2008

Because everyone and their dog noted the Good Ol’ Days of housing price ridiculousness have returned and the bwankers’ moronity has never gone away, the following vids are of more import than ever:
Part 1: here;
part 2: here;
part 3: here;
part 4: here.

That’ll be all for now; recovering from my Abrams birthday party still. And:

[Trend’s just a matter of perspective. Mo’ money, no problem equals Zuid-As Amsterdam]

Biased news

Demonstrating that … when it comes to InfoSec news … the general press may be biased… Otherwise, why wouldn’t this news have been spread much, much more ..? Since it may look unserious on the surface, but definitely is True.

Just sayin’. And just showin’:

[Similar to Ottawa, but qua size, compensated by the loudest barrels all around; DC]