Hacking Structure, Culture and Ethics

Just some thoughts I had on how strategy could be used to counter hacking. These are from an edited form of a comment I made in Oliver Stone’s post on Medium https://medium.com/@TheOliverStone/the-russians-are-coming-eef3697e548b#.mde6jb8q0. I just stuck them up here so I could think about them some more.

“A hack should be considered getting inside a society’s structure, culture and ethics and letting that society see betrayal and trust where in truth there is none. There is no strategy in a hack other than that which is structural. A hack operates on the basis of observation and I would say that transparency is the key in defending and undoing a hack.”

“But transparency has to be accomplished strategically. As I said, hacking is not strategic, so those on the defence needs to act in a strategic manner. They need to release transparency through trusted sources only and, as betrayal and trust is targeted in a hack, this is not easy to accomplish, and needs much thinking in the process.”

Trump drops Twitter bomb on Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet

“Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!” Trump tweeted Thursday.

There is no comparable F-18 Super Hornet to price-out. The F-35 has shown an ability to shoot down non-planer aircraft (non-airplane aircraft), which, I think, makes it a generation or two ahead of the F-18 Super Hornet. The F-35 is built to be a 5th generation fighter and the F-18 was built to be a 3rd generation fighter.

What gives the F-35 its designation as a 5th generation fighter (if developed–a big if), the F-35 doesn’t rely on a plane of air to maneuver on.

The F-35 maneuvers in  directions other than parallel to the plane it is on and without having to change the direction of that plane in flight. Most other aircraft and all airplanes are dependent on one plane of air and maneuvers by bending that plane.

In other words, the F-35’s maneuvering is not dependent on a linear plane. The F-35 flight can be considered, in that context, to be nonlinear. It is a 5th generation fighter jet. If Trump’s administration is figuring to prepare to fight a tactical (1st generation) nuclear war as stated, then probably the F-18 Super Hornet is the machine to go for. If his administration is planning to participate in the 4th generation war we have, then they should really think about getting serious about developing the F-35.

Part of this ability of nonlinear flight of the F-35 is in its structural design. The F-35 has an interior center of mass that gives it symmetry similar to that of a flying saucer. Coupled with an engine that is virtually able to move in all directions enables the aircraft and all targeting systems to revolve around the center of mass. In that sense, the F-35 should be able to target an aircraft behind, or any other direction, as easily as it is able to locked on and destroy the aircraft in front. This seems to me, if developed, to be some kind of an advantage and what, at least in part, gives the F-35 its status as a 5th generation fighter.

The other ability of the 5th generation F-35 fighter (and there may be more) that makes it a non-nonlinear fighter depends on it hooking into the virtual world of the world wide web and connecting that world to its real world in realtime, in all directions, in all environments, and all at once.

And while the F-35 has not proven itself in simulated dog fights with fighters of lesser generation, other fighters, as far as I know, haven’t proven themselves able to fight a battle waged in 5th generation  war. I think the F-35 has, at least in a small way. It was used to successfully shoot down missiles in flight.

That is the war the F-35 is created for and the war we are fighting right now today. So to me it comes down to being able to fight the war we have, or fighting the war the Trump administration apparently wants.

President-elect Donald Trump elevated his criticism of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter today, saying he’s asked Boeing to explore pricing for an alternative to the costly fighter jet.

Now “alternative” is another narrative. In warfare or in the context of a political solution, i.e. one State/ Two State solution?

 

Source: Trump drops Twitter bomb on Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet – POLITICO

NeoCon Deux

I think I can safely say that, so far, the “winners” of the 2016 elections in the U.S.A. were the NeoCons. Trump supporters have elected someone not in their image and those against Trump are fighting fascists, who will have no power in a Trump administration. Trump is a businessman not a fascist, who knew his customers, but has no idea how the real political world works.

So it is the NeoCons (masters of political power) who are in the position, through the likes of Mike Pence, to bring democracy to the U.S.A., much like they did for Iraq under the guise of Dick Cheney.

Both the Congress and the White House has been “Trumped” by the new V.P. elect Mike Pence. Once Trump starts electing Supreme Court Justices the influence the NeoCons have on America’s power will be almost total. I think it is also safe to say that Trump is not going to nominate any Supreme Court Justice that the NeoCons won’t like.

So lookout world, you are either with us or against us (GWB policy), and there will be many against us, as the fascist take control of our culture, in much of the same way the NeoCons will take control of our structure.

The War

What defines a distributed network is the ability to extract any node without cutting off any other, which means no node can filter information on its own.

I don’t believe, at least for inside the US, that the war we are fighting today is between the Conservatives and Liberals, it’s between the Left and Right. The above quote shows why this is.

The Right and Left denotes what kind of structure a society has built. A distributed network is structured as the Left.

The Left’s structure creates little friction, but what there is distributes itself  throughout the network.

In a Leftist structure, people mainly just butt heads and go on about their business. This produces heat, but there is no normalizing force controlling the heat, like there is in a society structured as the Right.

So basically in America, the Right is using its resources to build Leftists networks. As the networks gets bigger, the Right shrinks.

The “war” in America is not a culture war between Conservatives and Liberals, but a structure war, as the Right fights itself using its culture, as the Right builds P2P networks.

via The P2P mode of production.

Facebook: The antisocial network branded ‘disingenuous and immoral’

Facebook was accused last night of “disingenuous and immoral” tax avoidance after a new analysis of its UK business suggested the social networking giant paid just £238,000 in corporation tax in Britain last year.

I don’t remember Facebook ever claiming that they were not evil.

Of course most people are disingenuous when they post on Facebook. I think it is natural in this environment to “rate” (the source algorithm of Facebook) yourself higher than your “friends”.

As for immorality, it has been estimated that the average Facebook user gives out approximately $4500.00 worth of information to the platform.

So I would say yes, there is a form of  immorality to Facebook, and it is simply showing up as a refusal to support the culture that is supporting the structure called Facebook. If you want truth and no ambiguity you would form your own blog 🙂

Ireland? Ha!

I think Freud would agree that Ireland has never been big on Orientation.

Sometimes payback is a bitch.

via Facebook: The antisocial network branded ‘disingenuous and immoral’ – Business News – Business – The Independent.