martes, 8 de abril de 2014

Suffer and threaten

When it lacks courage, the objective is threatened. Obvious militarily, politically true, false linguistically. Double common mistake in language, double error in form, but not in the background. It should say: "In the absence of courage is put at risk the achievement of the goal." Suffer is not lacking or may not have, and have no less courage, a quality that has to do with the ability, strength and energy. Suffer is to have a defect or vice. Do not confuse lack and deficiency. If the leader is flawed, then he has flaws. If the leader is surrounded by sycophants, the defects are not corrected, are accentuated. If defects are accentuated, the goal moves away. Threatening is to imply someone who wants to do or is going to hurt. Threatening is warn that something negative will imminently happen. Do not confuse threaten and warning. However, worse confuse threaten with advertising. Let the dictionary to check that threaten is not only threaten to do something and not do it, that is pretend or simulate (assuming it's not the same simulate and hides) but advertise also reveal the intent to imminently execute an action. In any case, the threat of a future punishment may become a punishment in the present.

Souffrir et menacer

Quand il manque de courage, l'objectif est menacée. Évident militairement, politiquement vrai, faux linguistiquement. Double erreur commune dans le langage, double erreur dans la forme, mais pas dans le fond. Il devrait dire: "En l'absence de courage est mis en péril la réalisation de l'objectif." Souffrir ne manque pas ou peuvent ne pas être, et ne présentent pas moins de courage, une qualité qui a à voir avec la capacité, la force et l'énergie. Souffrir est d'avoir un défaut ou vice. Ne confondez pas le manque et la déficience. Si le chef est erronée, il a des défauts. Si le chef est entouré par des flagorneurs, les défauts ne sont pas corrigés, sont accentuées. Si des défauts sont accentués, l'objectif s'éloigne. Menacer est à entendre quelqu'un qui veut faire du mal. Menace est avertir que quelque chose de négatif se produira. Ne pas confondre détection de la menace. Cependant, pas confondre menace et avertissement. Nous sommes allés au dictionnaire pour vérifier qui déclarer non seulement signifie menacer de faire quelque chose et ne pas le faire, c'est faire semblant, feindre ou de simuler l'intention d'exécuter une action. Dans tout les cas, la menace d'un châtiment futur peut devenir un châtiment dans le présent.

jueves, 27 de diciembre de 2012

PsyWar: soft power versus hard power. Attempts to subdue minds in harsh environments require a holistic view

On the operational and tactical level, psychological operations have rarely achieved their goals. Social and cultural inertia determines this failure. However, at the strategy level, global actions designed to impose collective wills have proven effective in a broad theater.

Thus, attempts to control the minds of hostile peoples in French Algeria, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan were not able to renew the ideological framework of those communities. But on a much wider stage, as was the Cold War, permanent doubting of political and social system can force its downfall when citizens perceive that there could be a better alternative.

A small scope limits the likelihood of success. When agents and broadcasters can move only on the operational and tactical level, psychological operations reduce the possibility of favorable outcome. This range of influence is unable to change behavior.

In recent conflicts, the main drawback is the excessive fragmentation of communities and the absence of a common leadership. This represents an added difficulty. The psychological operator can only get positive results when this transmitter has access to the group's leaders, influential disseminators. Information operations must become influence operations when trying to convince the community, our target audience.

Strategic actions require long-term planning, a display of synchronized activities developed in extensive areas proceeding simultaneously on different social fields, receivers of misinformation. The ability to persuade is proportional to the size of the sphere covered.

Agents of influence will not achieve the expected goal if they ignore emotional intelligence. Convictions must rest on a more powerful reason than fear. This lack of assertiveness can generate an unwanted self-fulfilling prophecy: "these guys are our enemies and they should respect us. We attack to contain their hatred. There will be backlashes". So we get the opponent increases his animosity towards us. Instead of abstracting a chain of violent reactions (positive feedback), you should generate a derivation of positive consequences, this is the way to achieve it. You sell a better world, you are looking for a change.

Anglo-Saxons tend unduly to ethnocentrism. The rival group must accept its inferiority. This reflects a zero-sum mentality where not possible a cooperative game with the adversary. Believing that we all think the same way is a common mistake. Different individuals may have distinct patterns and stereotypes.

martes, 4 de diciembre de 2012

Rationaliser le budget, d'optimiser les ressources

Le général espagnol Jaime Domínguez Buj a commenté dans une interview pour le journal ABC l'intention d'établir un modèle de «brigade polyvalent» pour structurer la nouvelle armée espagnole basée sur les besoins et les menaces actuelles et futures. C'est une bonne approche, mais présente un inconvénient. Cette adaptation pourrait surcharger le soldat avec un excès de fonctions et il finirait surmené.

Un officier peut acquérir plusieurs spécialités, mais un soldat ne devrait avoir qu'une. Son contrat est temporaire et l'Administration affirment que ce travailleur est jetable. Tous les membres du rang ne nécessitent pas de formation de troupe aéroportée ou de haute montagne.

En outre, ces unités surdimensionnées gênent la mobilisation d'une masse énorme de personnel et de matériel. Il est préférable d'organiser un modèle alternative. Besoins actuels requièrent de plus petites unités, mais avec l'autonomie.

L'armée espagnole devrait envisager l'organisation d'une force semblable à la demi-brigade (half-brigade). Vous aurez une grande unité organique avec seulement un millier de personnes, comme le régiment, mais beaucoup plus hétérogène.

Les brigades traditionnelles avaient trois ou quatre bataillons d'infanterie. Et pourquoi pas un seul groupe? Quelle est la capacité opérationnelle précise pour le prochain déploiement?

Une compagnie ne nécessite pas plus de quarante ou cinquante personnes. Un bataillon peut fonctionner sans les trois compagnies de fusiliers, pouvons réduire une ou deux. Si chaque bataillon ajoute un peloton mortier, les compagnies de fusiliers peuvent enregistrer cet élément. Il fera la même chose avec le peloton anti-char.

Une armée moderne exige également un grand nombre d'officiers techniciens non-combattants (chimistes, physiciens, ingénieurs, économistes, anthropologues, psychologues) pour développer des activités scientifiques et projets de recherche civilo-militaire.

miércoles, 21 de noviembre de 2012

Megaupload closure and the end of U.S. hegemony in global communications

To: Mr. Chris Dodd, president of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)

All political leaders are falling into the trap of promoting Internet censorship. They are misinterpreting the impact of free access to content on the audiovisual industry and publishing market. I speak to you from a conservative perspective aimed at the consumer society, of course.

In the short term, users will flee to foreign web hоsting services. These companies will be able to obtain more information than American datacentres. Exotic countries will play with personal information of million users. Cancellation of Megaupload doesn't brake all options. It's not necessary to cut files in pieces to upload it. Mysterious companies will offer entire hоsting services. Please, you mustn't allow it. This could mean the end of U.S. hegemony in global communications.

Second argument raised by the same strategic role. American literature is propaganda. Hollywood spreads propaganda, advertising of your system. Music production is propaganda. Many members of your Democratic and Republican Party, the United States Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are harming activities in the whole world.

Consequently, without a wide diffusion of these elements, hypothetical allies will not be able to know American positive virtues. Politicians and judges are hindering recruitment of potential allies related to the great American farce. Your country would leave the main virtue, creating and distributing false realities, deceptive dreams focused on generating admiration and respect.

Many creations weren't exclusively produced by commercial interests. Politicians and businessmen endure ignorance.

The novel Altneuland (1902) was not written for commercial purposes. The Molussian Catacomb (1931), may the Court remove this ideological creation? Ninotchka (1939), how many copies should be sold? No time for flowers (1952) has an useful background for the cause. The novel Exodus (1958), or its cinematographic version of 1960, does deserve to be known by all generations? For rich and educated people only? Big Jim McLain (1952), very funny movie we all want to watch, but almost nobody would buy. All these titles have a common feature, ideological advertising!

This attack on the massive diffusion of your ideological armory represents strategic break, communication outage. Politicians have been guided by erroneous interpretations of bumbling businessmen involved in panic. They cannot sell something we don't want to buy in any way. I want to say that current production is really bad. Modern cinema and music are a load of crap, everything is disposable. All published in recent years could be protected because it hasn't strategic quality. Market gains censoring this rubbish. Idiots who love this garbage deserve to waste money.

Politicians and companies are confusing propaganda with piracy. I'm not talking about culture and freedom of speech. I am referring to the survival and expansion of your country. I expose the ability to persuade, deceive, lead. America won the Cold War because convinced the world. The liberal system prevailed because sold a fake picture of happy society. First dose for free, second you must pay.

Most of downloads were harmless to the market because its content was out of print or were poorly marketable productions. Many creations are no longer on the market. You have closed all possibilities for a simple business failure.

I will show businessmen are pirates, clumsy traders. An example, I have bought more than twenty (…) discs, I have always paid the copyright (his royalty), all my buys have been legal, in authorized establishments. Now I have hundreds of repeated songs that I have paid twenty times, the same songs. I have acquired new collections for one or two songs. This is a stupid logic. How many times must I remunerate anything that I have paid earlier? Record companies and music publishers don't want adapt the offer to new demands of dynamic market. Rigidity imposed by incompetent businessmen has propitiated a cultural revolution on the free world. Free society must not pay errors of inept businessmen. We cannot socialize managerial mistakes.

Most young people are quite ignorant. If they don't know great artists like Sammy Davis, Jr. or Eartha Kitt, young people won't buy their work in future. First, they must be known.

I doubt Megaupload closure answers by legal transgression. This seems like a sham operation to satisfy companies. We don't believe either that WikiLeaks is alien to North American intelligence.

Proceedings against this website caught millions of necessary files to continue the collective hypnosis. You can prevent free distribution of new creations, but you must allow strategic content.

We consider right remove certain current contents from Megaupload, pornographic literature, modern rubbish music (99.9%), and trash violent films. FBI also should erase American reality shows that our television channels have bought. These spread the global idea of whole American youth is coarse, tasteless, backward. The same applies on crap television series you export every year for uneducated and bored teenagers.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has scarce argumentative credibility. If they had seen really Spanish films selected by the Academy Awards, they would know that all our movies were lousy filth.

We suspect you have control on Megaupload. The world needs to recover million files that judicial authorities and FBI have retained. You must understand it as an investment, necessary subsidy to promote the cultural supremacy of the United States on the planet.

Contents inserted in popular video sharing websites are the best way of promoting works that might get lost forever. When you try to protect intellectual property erasing it, you're contributing to the failure of your own industry. The people forget rapidly. Traders know nothing on market strategy.

When you push to close an account or erase a YouTube content, you're condemning to forget an old interpreter, or his work, forever. Record companies won't be able already to sell the next collection because that artist will be known by nobody, references won't exist.

How can you censure a vinyl that nobody edits for fifty years? I cannot believe you represent the audio-visual industry. Are you stupid or ignorant simply?

Every file uploaded in some network share is spreading the talent of creators and promoters. This means free publicity. If you threaten this advantage, you're harming own economic interest.

Producers aren't acting rationally. You cannot sell an artistic product if public doesn't know it. YouTube realizes promotional campaign, the best marketing. When a company demands to erase a file, is causing millionaire losses in the future. You're sinking the market because you don't understand this system has evolved.

When trademarks denounce infringements systematically, user accounts are closed automatically, but this action will suppose future loss. This absurd legal request has erased its own product, everybody will forget it.

You try to protect the copyright, but you're reducing profit. You're killing creations forever. YouTube can rescue it. Streaming can increase your profit. Bad management is your worst enemy. The economic concept has expired. Renew you!

Mr. Eric Schmidt, we all are grateful for the collaboration of Google Inc. and YouTube towards the legal observance. For this reason I propose a simple requisite to satisfy different rights. When a supposed owner threatens to remove contents, he must justify his unquestionable legitimacy. Complainants should certify with proof of payment they are remunerating the respective royalty to the authors and interpreters.

Many themes aren't on the market because anybody edits this material for more than half a century. Uploaded was coming from original vinyl, not new editions, it's out of print.

Some discs contain old recordings of missing «doo-wop» groups. Those firms have disappeared. Users have lost that artistic material because a suspicious commercial entity has denounced 'copyright infringement'.

If this copyright is still active, is the claimant paying the respective percentage to the authors and interpreters? Poor boys of the Bronx and Brooklyn! Where are they now? The survivors and heirs of these ephemeral vocal groups should seek their old titles. If any music publisher is including their work in a new collection without notice to them, they can report possible fraud to initiate criminal procedures.

We can also find record companies and rash claimants who attempt an unlawful taking of royalties. Sometimes complainants don't have real property right about the product they are claiming. They want to replace an old brand disappeared decades ago. Who is the real owner of an old vinyl?

This could represent a copyright theft. That deserves to be known by the Justice Department. The business entity (first plaintiff) may also have a criminal sanction because is acting with illicit profit, unlawful taking.

I repeat the question, who is the real owner of an OOP vinyl? Poor boys of the Bronx and Brooklyn! New music publishers prefer to bury their voices forever because managers can't exploit them again. Are they compensated with the corresponding royalty if their work is currently published for commercial use?

Some record companies want to charge property rights supplanting missing trademarks, old record labels. Can only collect their new products.

Most producers are merciless people. They forgot to Frankie Lymon. Managers never cared about the breakdown of Elvis Presley and Del Shannon. Businessmen just love their cash account.

The streaming collection of (…) in YouTube is now empty. This user has lost many hours uploading material almost impossible to find. We contemplate an unwarranted warning from (…).

If these firms aren't able to justify their property rights about those rare vinyl records, they should compensate to this YouTube user, to the real creators of the material removed, to YouTube and… they could have an appointment with the court. Well, it's only a hypothesis. I value the damage to the user at more than five thousand dollars and an apology from the chairmen. Are you gentlemen?

Companies intend to flood the courts of the whole world with thousands of untenable demands, but the law enforcement may turn against them. 'Copyright theft' is the concept. Unable to find one hundred record labels registered to collect the same copyright. Even perpetual copyright must have only one firm to receive royalties.

I cannot understand either some companies are damaging their own publicity. What genius manages its marketing? I'm sorry, another department ordered it.

Why do you want we forget old artists? This way you'll sell almost nothing tomorrow.

Politicians have been guided by erroneous interpretations of bumbling businessmen involved in panic. They cannot sell something we don't want to buy in any way. I want to say that current production is really bad. Modern cinema and music are a load of crap, everything is disposable. All published in recent years could be protected because it hasn't strategic quality. Market gains censoring this rubbish. Idiots who love this garbage deserve to waste money.

I doubt Megaupload closure answers by legal transgression. This seems like a sham operation to satisfy companies.

Most of downloads were harmless to the market because its content was out of print or were poorly marketable productions. Many creations are no longer on the market. You have closed all possibilities for a simple business failure.

I will show businessmen are pirates, clumsy traders. An example, I have bought more than twenty Gene Pitney discs, I have always paid the copyright (his royalty), all my buys have been legal, in authorized establishments. Now I have hundreds of repeated songs that I have paid twenty times, the same songs. I have acquired new collections for one or two songs. This is a stupid logic. How many times must I remunerate anything that I have paid earlier? Record companies and music publishers don't want adapt the offer to new demands of dynamic market. Rigidity imposed by incompetent businessmen has propitiated a cultural revolution on the free world. The free society must not pay errors of inept businessmen. We cannot socialize managerial mistakes.

Most young people are quite ignorant. If they don't know great artists like Sammy Davis, Jr. or Eartha Kitt, young people won't buy their work in future. First, they must be known.

You can prevent free distribution of new creations, but you must allow classic content.

We consider right remove certain current contents from cyberlockers: modern rubbish music (99.9%) and trash violent films. FBI also should erase American reality shows that our television channels have bought. These spread the global idea of whole American youth is coarse, tasteless. The same applies on crap television series you export every year for uneducated and bored teenagers.