Headlines

DNC raises threshold for December debate

UAW members approve labor deal to end GM strike; union selects Ford next

Senate Democrats demand Bill Barr recuse himself from ‘Trump Ukraine matters’

Judge rules DOJ must turn over Mueller grand jury material to House Democrats

Microsoft snags hotly contested $10 billion defense contract, beating out Amazon

Blackouts loom for millions in California

IG Horowitz: FISA abuse probe report ‘near completion’

How Biden would strengthen unions

Why Facebook’s libra cryptocurrency is in trouble

Kurds: Turkey continuing genocide despite ‘ceasefire’

Report: Republicans on Intel can review transcripts with Dem staffer

Headlines

Trump fumes after mail bomber 'interrupts' his campaign message

Microsoft overtakes Amazon as second largest company by market value

At least 11 shot dead at Pittsburgh synagogue ... 'All Jews must die'

Cruz leads big money Beto in Texas bu 6 points

Trump fears Florida wipeout

The rising dollar is a major reason for this market sell-off, and it's only getting worse

Netanyahu makes surprise visit to Oman ...

Senate Democrats demand Trump import at least 800K refugees per year

Papadopoulos threatens to pull out of Mueller plea agreement

The FBI is reviewing Tesla's Model 3 production numbers as part of a criminal probe: WSJ

Obama rips Trump, GOP in fiery speeches ...

Russia: 'No reason not to believe' Saudi version of Khashoggi's  death

The 1% of the 1%

It is now a big fat myth that the Republicans are the party of the rich.

I read a headline yesterday that said that Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffet together have as much money (almost $250 billion) as the lowest 1/2 of the U.S. population! To me, this is a surprising statistic  and caused me to go to Google to check out its validity. I asked for the top 10 wealthiest Americans and here is what Forbes magazine indicates who these nabobs are:

#) Name, Wealth, Source of Wealth

1) Bill Gates, $89.0 billion, Microsoft

2) Jeff Bezos, $81.5 billion, Amazon

3) Warren Buffet, $78.0 billion, Berkshire Hathaway

4 ) Mark Zuckerberg, $71.0 billion, Facebook

5) Larry Ellisom, $59.0 billion, Oracle Software

6) Charles Koch, $48.5 billion, Koch Industries

7) David Koch, $48.5 billion, Koch Industries

8) Michael Bloomberg, $46.8 billion, Bloomberg LP

9) Larry Page, $44.6 billion, Google

10) Sergey Brin, $43.4 billion, Google

I'm not sure that these 10 are the 1% of the 1% ... but I bet it's close. Now, here's the test to determine if you will receive an unlimited EBT card and an Obamaphone: What do 8 out of 10 of these billionaires have in common?  Hint: It involves politics ... lefty politics ... moonbat lefty politics ... knee-jerk moonbat lefty politics. Except for the Koch brothers, they're all liberals ... even those older fellows, Bloomberg, Ellison and Buffet.

So you see, faithful readers, that notion that Republicans are the party of the wealthy is just more fake news.

Strategic High Ground

The following successful companies currently enjoy the strategic high ground in their markets ... and their stock prices reflect it, IMHO. Here are what I feel are the indicated reasons for their success (besides mostly good operational prowess):

Tesla -- Almost $5 billion in U.S. government subsidies.

Facebook -- Huge share of corporate media on-line advertising dollars without, like most other media giants, having to spend on content ... because its users provide it.

Apple -- Respectable market share in the smart-phone business with very high margins because of premium pricing and off-shore manufacturing.

Amazon -- Ability to predatory price for on-line retail goods because of its Internet " cloud" (Web Services) revenues and profits.

Google (Alphabet)  -- Dominate market share in on-line searching and associated ads ... allowing it to gobble up other Internet opportunities at will.

Microsoft -- Owns the operating system and Internet browser of record on most newly purchased PCs along with the ability continually to obsolete and replace its commodity software products.

Netflix -- Huge and growing (international) subscriber base due to the appeal of its original content programming, the spiraling cost of the movie theater experience ... and the quality/low cost of home theaters.

How long these companies will enjoy these lofty positions is anyone's guess (witness Walmart).

Silicon Flats

Mad Money's Jim Cramer has identified the ten best stock investments since the market panic of 2008 and they are not the ones you would expect ... not Google (aka, Alphabet), not Amazon, not Apple, not Facebook, not Microsoft. In fact there is only one Silicon Valley company in the group, Netflix. These stocks have moved up anywhere from 1,861% to 6,545% and their names (in descending order) are: Incyte Corp. (biopharma), United Rentals (equipment rentals), Regeneron (biotech), Alaska Air (airlines), Windham Worldwide (hotels), Netflix (media), American Airlines (airlines), Priceline (travel info), CBS (media), and Fifth Third Bancorp. (banking).

To read more about these winners, see: CNBC Article.

Cyber Security

Given the current brouhaha over the possibility of Russia trying to influence our recent presidential  election using computer hacking, it seems appropriate to shine a light on this subject. Please note that, although I have no deep expertise in this subject, I am not a complete neophyte either. I was involved in a Data General Corporation development project were computer security was a key element. And so, I have concluded that there is no such thing as complete cyber security. It all depends upon the amount of push back against possible breaches. If we need any example of same, point to Edward Snowden who, in order to teach the world about how we are being spied upon by our government, naively gave troves of invaluable information to those who would harm us. This breach was accomplished not over a communication connection but by using tiny portable flash drives that can store multiple gigabytes of data.

Many years ago when time-sharing computing was in its infancy, I concluded that, if a computer had a connection to the outside world, it was by definition compromised. Then came the personal computer whose operating systems developers, mostly Microsoft, left data security out of their designs for expediency (and profit) sake ... and because connecting these "personal" computers was thought anathema. Personal computers didn't take long to kill the economic advantage of time-sharing and thus kill this technology. And then came the Internet with almost universal connectivity ... an opening a mile wide for cyber security breaches. Now, the advent of the "cloud" makes the protection of remote data storage and processing even more vulnerable, albeit convenient.

So what steps can be taken to start to protect today's electronic devices from these data piracy threats? Here are just a few:

- Develop the ability to isolate various levels of network interconnectivity. China already has the ability to cut off its entire national network from the rest of the world. Clearly this capability should be available to the U.S. as well as other sub-sectors of the Internet. It would seem to me that those providing networking hardware and software such as Cisco Systems could find a ready market for such a rigorous and scalable capability which might be automatically triggered by 'denial of service' attacks.

- In particularly sensitive applications, install computers that have no ports through which data can be offloaded onto any external storage device.

- Move all critical operating system components to microcode or even hardware which cannot be accessed anyway but through physical access to the computer ... and physically secure such access as one would a vault. Other O.S., interface and even some application code should be located in memory which generates a default if any changes are attempted to the bit structure. Action taken on such a default would be under the the control of the system administrator.

- Encrypt all sensitive data and applications with software whose keys vary in length with the degree of sensitivity of what is to be encoded. But don't assume any encrypted information cannot be decoded unless a truly randomized one-time pad is used.

And I'm sure other more sophisticated steps are possible. However such cyber security is expensive in both money and computer performance terms. But we are rapidly reaching the point were such costs can and need to be borne.

Justice Blinked

The Department of Justice blinked in its attempt to force Apple to open up the IPhone of the San Bernardino terrorist, Sayed Farook. The FBI now says that it has found a third party (NSA?) to open up this possible source of further intelligence and doesn't need the court to force Apple to comply ... see: Politico Story. This all sounds very fishy and halfway supports Apple's position that this FBI request was a red herring really meant to open up the IPhone to generic government access (not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that.)

This FBI vs. Apple issue is all about personal privacy. American people want to believe that our Constitution guarantees them an inviolate cocoon of privacy that our government cannot pierce no matter what national security issues involved. Clearly this may not be the case. However, in a related development, Edward Snowden, our traitor hero,  avers that the federal government is not the only risk to our personal security. He says that large technology companies such as Microsoft are equally guilty of the invasive collection of our personal information ... far more than we suspect ... see: Sputnik News Story. I agree with the rat-fink Snowden and would add at least Google, Apple and Facebook to his named snoop.

If you think that Big Brother government is the only risk to your little secrets, you are just another babe in the woods.

Goodbye ...

to the Internet Explorer. Microsoft has decided to phase out this Internet browser in favor of a newer technology, "Project Spartan" ... see: PC Magazine Story. This browser once held north of a 80% market share, but upstarts have been quietly eroding this monopoly over the last so many years until the boys at Redmond had to take this technology out behind the shed and shoot it.

This blog you are reading had 4031 hits over the last month and here is the breakdown of what browsers were used to reference it: Firefox - 46%, Chrome - 31%, Safari - 9%, Explorer - 7%, the rest - 7%.  Now we can see why Microsoft is making this move. As Dean Wormer said in Animal House, "Fat, happy (actually drunk) and stupid is not a way to go through life."

So, as it turns out, Microsoft has been forced to face its past lassitude and will try to use the leverage of its other monopolies to once again crush its competitors.

We'll see.

Net Neutrality

President Obama has now stated that net neutrality will be the Internet policy of his administration, but this position is understandably creating waves … see: Breitbart Story. I have discerned that “net neutrality,” like much in the current government, is a term meant to mislead. It is far from being neutral … just like the “Affordable Care Act” is far from being affordable. I do understand that, as a conservative, I should be opposed to this attempt to control this unfettered industry … see: Huffington Post Story. But I do somehow, deep down, feel a need to establish a few reasonable rules of the road ... as there clearly have been some abuses.

But I am also chary about letting a deceitful administration, such as Obama’s, take the reins to create such rules. These control freaks have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted not to play favorites and self-deal in such situations. I can imagine a favored Google or Microsoft getting even more customer unfriendly in such an environment.

Much of the current smaller Internet industry players are vehemently opposed to net neutrality because they rightfully fear that newer regulations and price controls will stifle innovative opportunities. Established big players see net neutrality as an opportunity to leverage their lofty positions and are therefore mostly in favor of it. But unfortunately the uncertainty of what is to happen has also frozen many companies from making expensive gambles. AT&T has indicated its unwillingness to expand its fiber-optic network until such time as the issue of net neutrality is resolved … see: CNBC Article.

But, in the end, I suppose that the thing that colors my opinion the most on this issue is how slowly the telephone industry evolved as an utility under full government regulation. Using this as a model, I can imagine that, had net neutrality been adopted twenty years ago, we still might all be saddled with dial-up Internet service.

Therefore, I think I must be counted as being in the opposition ... at least for the nonce.

Afterward: Here are more repercussions over Obama's taking sides in this net neutrality dust up: Etrade Story.

After Afterward: To see Ted Cruz's position on net neutrality read: Business Insider Story.

Cyberwars

Chrome Logo

Turn around is fair play.  Microsoft killed Netscape with its Internet Explorer via software integration and predatory pricing.  Now Google is attacking Internet Explorer with its Chrome browser.  Let me explain … somehow I inadvertently downloaded Google’s Chrome (software vendors have gotten very clever at such subterfuge.)  After about six months I was tired of seeing this unused Chrome icon on my start-up screen … so I uninstalled it. Big mistake!  For weeks thereafter my Internet Explorer operated very poorly.  It downloaded slowly … it was missing many graphic images … and it often, too often, froze to the point where I had to restart the computer.

This was extremely frustrating.  I ran and reran my antivirus software.  I ran and reran my registry cleanup software.  I ran and reran my file trimming software.  I defragged my hard disc … twice.  Then it dawned on me … these problems all started when I uninstalled Chrome.  So I reinstalled it … and, voila, things are now great … as long as I use Chrome as my primary PC browser.  Clearly Google has advertently or inadvertently structured Chrome with hidden I.E.D.s vis-à-vis Microsoft’s Internet Explorer.  Chrome is obviously Google's primary combatant in the ongoing cyberwars to take over the PC interface. 

How is it going?  Google allows me statistics about what browsers are being used to reference this blog … with hits running close to 3,000 per month.  Recently, these numbers show this usage profile: Firefox – 37%, Internet Explorer – 24%, Chrome – 21%, etc.  So, Google seems to be effectively insinuating itself into PC interfaces around the world

But then who are among the real battlefield causalities? ... schlemiels like me.  I just wish I had some recourse against software vendors such as Google … and Microsoft too.

Swiss Cheese

Recently, I am getting an annoying flurry of messages on my PC from my virus detection software, avast!, which say “Malicious URL Blocked!” Then when I ask for further explanation, I see:

avast! saved your computer from crashing

You just dodged a bullet

You may be wondering how you ended up with a virus, especially if you were visiting a ‘normal’ site. The latest research from the avast! Virus Lab shows that more than 80% of malware (viruses,spyware, and the like) spreads through legitimate websites, with only 1% coming from suspicious or ‘dodgy’ sites.

Now, how is it that my operating system and Internet browser, both from Microsoft, are so inept and insecure that, decades after their constructions, such malicious intrusions can happen? Simple answer – Microsoft has focused its business strategy on maintaining its revenue and profit stream … and ignoring the true wants and needs of its customers. This bloated company's software is so full of holes that is resembles a good Swiss cheese. To me, there in no excuse for this sloppiness and sloth … and this fault will eventually bring Microsoft down.  I predict that, within five years, this fate will become blatantly obvious to anyone watching.

A Lesson in Obsolescence

The problems that are plaguing Research in Motion (see: Battered Blackberry Maker) have got me thinking about obsolescence.  Why do some products die quickly while others seem to prosper with facility?  Often the answers are not obvious.  For instance, the rapid growth of the iPhone and iPad technology can be attributed to the sexy new user interface ... using touch-screen swipes to quickly get things done.  However, this may not be the primary reason.  I had another thought tonight that I would like to pass on ... and I hope my lack of user experience on this new i-interface doesn't make me look foolish.

The classic Microsoft/PC interface which still dominates the Internet world has an Achilles heel.  That is the requirement that users constantly perform utility clean-up operations to maintain the integrity and speed of their systems -- antivirus scans and updates; registry clean-up operations; defragging of hard-discs; and purging of file clutter (temporary Internet files, shortcuts, cookies, usage-history, etc.).  One need only see the repeated TV-commercials for companies that offer these services to realize what a pain this overhead has become.  And I repeatedly run into people whose PCs have become doorstops because they haven't realized that they must perform such nagging periodic maintenance.

Now, I don't believe that this same syndrome is suffered by iPhone and iPad users (Droids too?).  If in fact this is the case, then Microsoft need quickly emulate the genius of Steve Jobs in revamping their operating system and user interface ... or in a few short years they might well walk the same plank that Research in Motion seems to be currently trodding.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have to do a Registry clean-up.