SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Maurice Winn who wrote (187096)4/27/2022 8:25:15 PM
From: Maurice Winn1 Recommendation

Recommended By
3bar

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217764
 
Excellent idea Mq. Look what.....

Dorsey elaborated on his thoughts. 'I love Twitter. Twitter is the closest thing we have to a global consciousness. The idea and service is all that matters to me and I will do whatever it takes to protect both.

'In principle, I don't think anyone should own or run Twitter,' he added. 'It wants to be a public good at a protocol level, not a company. Solving for the problem of it being a company however, Elon is the only solution I trust.'

Jack is on the right track, even while Jack the Youngest is burgeoning along with legions of his cohort to supersede that which has gone before, and Jack the elder continued in his time, propagating Tobago Jack to fill the gap.

Jack the Dorsey is barking up the wrong tree.

Global consciousness is not to be found in Twitter which is one minuscule niche of xae-yz. Right here, right now is just as much a manifestation of xae-yz.

One of my big mistakes in life was to tell our beloved son Tarken, when he was stretching his boundaries of "I am" as little children will do in the process of learning to fit in with everyone else, "You're not the centre of the universe".

While sort of true in the sense that when we are gone, the universe finds a way of carrying on regardless, for the present, each little node of consciousness is in fact the centre of the universe = a paradox.

True and not true, simultaneously. Like Schroedinger's cat.

I note that Jack is an excellent name commonly used in the great and glorious British Empire. As is Eugene, even though hijacked from another language. HiJacked = haha oh good pun Mq.

HiJacking is why the Great and Glorious British Empire was so great. Hi Jack, why don't you team up with us? Free enterprise, VVVs = private property, freedom, self determination, free speech and all good things. Everyone welcome, along with their ideas and compatible cultural norms ( suttee not allowed, nor honour killings, cannibalism, etc).

Global consciousness is everywhere simultaneously, infinitely variable, at infinite nodes (a huge number if not actually infinite). Twitter is and will be just one of a vast multitude of nodes.

Like Tarken, Twitter won't be the centre of consciousness, or the universe, though paradoxically it is and will be. For now. Until it isn't.

Meanwhile Elon will greatly improve the Twitter node of xae-xy, and hopefully join it with neuralink, Starlink etc as I tried to get going in the late 1990s, but Qualcomm, Eudora, Globalstar, Phonak and my proposed vocal nerve sensors did not get going on it. But they did succeed with mobile Cyberspace foundations.

Elon does 20 years later what I propose. That's not a big delay.

Mqurice

PS.... OMG = I just realised Elon even stole my name, Starlink. I started a company in 1995 and called it Astralink. Our plan was to do what Starlink is now doing, using Globalstar to do it.

Astra = star and link = same as Elon's.

You can search astralink in nz companies office for details.
app.companiesoffice.govt.nz

Globalstar did bad negotiation so it wasn't done. They also did hopeless marketing so went bust.



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (187096)4/28/2022 8:19:23 PM
From: TobagoJack1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Secret_Agent_Man

  Respond to of 217764
 
Re <<Oz ... China ... Solomon Island>>

Team China responds to Team Australia's 'red line' running through the Solomon Island, stating what on the face of it ought to be intuitively obvious, unless of course Australia is emulating the Russians and intending to do 'Special Military Operation', in which case understandable as long as Solomon Island is immediately adjacent to Australia and working with China-funded virus labs for weaponisation purposes and sheltering alleged Nazis

It is difficult to discern whether the terrorists in the Solomon Islands burning Chinese homes, schools, clinics, and shops were Nazis or not, but certainly behaved as Nazis would do, but I understand the perps were funded and incited by Australia and USA, and were primarily from a rebel province

Team USA Deep-state in the guise of the "Diplomat" seems to believe that the Solomon Island is part of some US / AUKUS conflict (translation: war) against CCP China China China

Perhaps the meme is believable should Hawaii be tee-ed up after Fuji is flipped, otherwise either alarmist or simply way-to-early

thediplomat.com


scmp.com


scmp.com


scmp.com


Who lost Solomon Islands?

The Aussies did, because it was theirs to lose, I guess

bloomberg.com

China Scores a Victory In the New Battle of the South Pacific

A murky defense pact between the Solomon Islands and Beijing shows how complacency threatens U.S. and Australian naval dominance.

James Stavridis
29 April 2022, 05:00 GMT+8



Australia’s sinking efforts.

Source: Australian Department of Defense via Getty Images

My first command as a U.S. Navy captain was leading a squadron of warships in the western Pacific in the late 1990s. It included a flagship cruiser, the Valley Forge, a Spruance-class destroyer, two frigates (one Canadian) and three brand-new Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers.

Destroyer Squadron 21 had been formed in 1943 and nicknamed “The Rampant Lions” (as commodore, I was jocularly called the “Lion King”). It had a strong combat record, and was honored with the motto “Solomons Onward,” recognizing the desperate fighting near Guadalcanal in the British protectorate of the Solomon Islands in World War II. I often reflected on the deep lineage of my command — grounded in the longtime relationship between the U.S. Navy and the islands of the southwestern Pacific.

I was therefore surprised and disappointed when the government of the Solomon Islands announced this month a security pact with China, which could potentially provide immense strategic benefit to Beijing. The top U.S. official focused on the Pacific, Kurt Campbell of the National Security Council, visitedthe island’s capital of Honiara this week and met with Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare, but it may be too late to derail the agreement.

America’s leading allies in the South Pacific — Australia and New Zealand — are equally concerned. The details of the security arrangement are murky, but a draft circulating online indicates China will be able to send military forces to the Solomons for training and operations, and conduct routine port visits.

Coming on top of China’s gradual encroachments in the South China Sea and elsewhere, the Solomons agreement is seen by the Pentagon’s Indo-Pacific command as a direct threat to the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region. It would give China a forward military location roughly 1,200 miles from northern Australia.

Just as the U.S. fought the Japanese empire to protect the sea lanes of communication to Australia in the early days of World War II, Chinese naval operations from the Solomons could threaten U.S. supply lines in any conflict with Beijing.

In response, the Chinese have been quick to point to the powerful constellation of American military bases throughout the Pacific, as well as the growing influence of Quad, a loose alignment between Australia, Japan, India and the U.S. that is focused on balancing a rising China throughout the Indo-Pacific.

Following the meeting with Campbell, Solomon Islands officials assured the U.S. that there would be no permanent Chinese military base, nor would offensive military operations be permitted. But the unease in Washington continues, and there is controversy in Australia as the government debates who “lost” the Solomons.

Several warning signs were missed. In 2019, the Solomons reversed decades of diplomatic ties with Taiwan and recognized Beijing. Last fall, riots in the capital killed four people and precipitated an Australian peacekeeping mission. The leader of the Solomons’ opposition party says he warned the Australians of the pending Chinese deal months ago. But there was no coordinated response among the U.S. and its Pacific allies.

Now they are playing catch-up. In addition to sending the high-level delegation, the U.S. has committed to reopening its embassy, which was shuttered in 1993. (Diplomacy has since been handled out of the embassy in nearby Papua New Guinea). But there are additional ways for Washington to put more effort into the relationship with the Solomons.

Opinion. Data. More Data.Get the most important Bloomberg Opinion pieces in one email.

Sign up to this newsletter

Militarily, the U.S. Indo-Pacific command should team with regional partners (particularly Australia) in conducting security training with Solomons’ forces. One step would be sending a U.S. Coast Guard cutter for law-enforcement and fisheries training (ships from China, Vietnam and elsewhere have been harvesting seafood illegally in the area for years). We should also structure a reasonable package of economic and trade incentives.

Washington could encourage Australia to revise its offshore refugee policies that have generated backlash in the region. A visit by the huge U.S. hospital ship Mercy, too, might be a good signal to a population lacking quality medical care.

At the heart of the problem is a sense that the U.S. and Australia simply relied on history to keep the Solomon Islands close. China, using its Belt and Road initiative, played a better hand, and will look to use its economic might to win over additional small Pacific nations.

As I have written before, the U.S. and China are competing in a marketplace of ideas, and Washington must recognize the need to compete to win friends — especially in geopolitically critical but largely forgotten locations like the South Pacific.

The historical relationships between the U.S., Australia and the Solomon Islands are real but insufficient. Great-power rivalry with China demands that the U.S. tend the garden of allies, partners and friends or risk alienating them — not only in the southwestern Pacific, but in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. “Losing” the Solomon Islands is a cautionary tale.

More From Bloomberg Opinion:

Russia’s Sunken Warship Is a Warning to All Navies: James Stavridis

Ukraine War Is Depleting America’s Arsenal of Democracy: Hal Brands

The New Democratic Alliance May Not Outlast the Ukraine War: Max Hastings

To contact the author of this story:
James Stavridis at jstavridis@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Tobin Harshaw at tharshaw@bloomberg.net



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (187096)5/5/2022 6:41:18 AM
From: TobagoJack  Respond to of 217764
 
Drama …

bloomberg.com

Solomons PM Says Australia Sees Them as ‘Kindergarten Students’

Sogavare says Solomons being treated like children with guns Morrison previously said Chinese military base was ‘red line’

Ben Westcott
May 5, 2022, 9:10 AM GMT+8



Manasseh Sogavare

Photographer: Robert Taupongi/AFP/Getty Images

Follow us at Twitter and Facebook for the latest, and sign up to get the Australia Briefing newsletter in your inbox.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison denied there is a growing rift between his government and the Solomon Islands, after the Pacific nation’s leader accused Australia of treating his country like children with guns.

In a fiery speech to the Solomon Islands’ parliament on Tuesday, Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare accused Western countries of trying to undermine his government after the Solomons signed a security agreement with Beijing in April. Sogavare said the Solomon Islands was being treated as “kindergarten students walking around with Colt 45s in our hands” who needed “to be supervised.” “We are insulted,” Sogavare said.

There has been an escalating war of words between Australia and the Solomon Islands after the agreement struck between Honiara and Beijing to provide domestic security. No final version of the deal has been released but a draft version leaked in March included a provision for Chinese warships to be given safe harbor in the Solomon Islands, just 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles) from the Australian coastline.

Morrison had previously said a Chinese military base in the Solomon Islands would be a “red line” for his government, although he didn’t elaborate on what action he would take to prevent it. Speaking on Tuesday, Sogavare said there had been a “warning of military intervention” in the Solomon Islands, if other countries’ security goals were undermined.

“We are threatened with invasion, Mr Speaker. Now that’s serious,” Sogavare said.

Why the Solomon Islands’ China Pact Has U.S. Riled: QuickTake

Speaking at a press conference in Sydney on Thursday, Morrison repeatedly dismissed questions over whether or not he had damaged the relationship between Australia and the Solomon Islands with his comments. When asked why he hadn’t spoken to the leader of the Solomon Islands, Morrison said he was following the advice of Australian security agencies.

Morrison said the Solomon Islands had previously reassured Australia it was still the “primary security partner of the Solomon Islands.”

“That is why the Australian Federal Police right now are on the ground in Solomon Islands, ensuring peace and stability following the unrest in the Solomon Islands. We have our police there and defense forces on the ground,” he said.

The growing tensions come as a poll by Resolve, published in the Sydney Morning Herald, showed 71% of Australian voters surveyed said they were concerned about the deal between China and the Solomon Islands. Neither the government nor the opposition Labor Party was overwhelmingly trusted to solve the situation either, with 32% of voters saying Morrison was best suited to tackle it, while 29% said they would prefer Labor leader Anthony Albanese.

The poll also found the government’s advantage over Labor on handling Australia’s national security had fallen to just 14%. The margin of error in the poll was 2.6%. Voters in Australia go to the polls on May 21.

Sent from my iPad