Sunday, May 18, 2008
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Where weasels have domain...
... Everyone learns to weasel and obfuscate as a matter of survival
... Those who are observed cooperating usefully with members of non-weasel groups are severely punished, even if that cooperation is to the benefit of both groups
... People who are "stand-up guys" get smacked down on principle
... People who are knowledgeable, skilled, popular or simply decent are smacked down on principle, as they obviously need to be "taken down a few notches"
... Information-hoarding and gratuitous obstructionism are the order of the day, even if the entire organization is affected, potentially ruinously, by the weasel group's behavior, and everyone can see it happening
... Everything gradually falls to sh*t, little new is created, and what little is created is not terribly useful, robust or pleasant
................................
Meanwhile, not all groups are weasel groups.
Where "stand-up guys (and/or gals)" have domain ...
... 2+2 always equals 4, and anyone who tries to suggest otherwise is questioned about it... in a friendly way, at least initially
... Information and ideas are shared freely, collaboration is widely practiced, and a lot of amazing and useful things are created
... There is a high degree of trust, tolerance, openness, friendliness and learning
................................
Leaders of weasel groups HATE non-weasel groups, and do all they can to undermine them.
Members of weasel groups sometimes hate members of non-weasel groups, partly in sympathy with their weasel leader, but also because they hate the fact that someone else is able to live a non-weasel existence
When working in a large organization that consists of a combination of weasel and non-weasel groups, it is both starkly visible, and amusing in a sad sort of way, to watch the interactions between the groups.
One set of groups is proposing ideas and getting things done, the other set is sullenly obstructing.
................................
From what I have observed, I would say these principles are valid between teams or departments in a company, political factions, states and nations.
Disempower and refuse to tolerate the weasels, and IMO a lot of problems in the world, and in daily life, are mitigated.
The best news is... once a weasel leader is disempowered, his or her former minions generally realize they no longer have to live under weasel principles, and begin gladly behaving like non-weasels.
Down with systems and leaders that promote weaseldom.
... Those who are observed cooperating usefully with members of non-weasel groups are severely punished, even if that cooperation is to the benefit of both groups
... People who are "stand-up guys" get smacked down on principle
... People who are knowledgeable, skilled, popular or simply decent are smacked down on principle, as they obviously need to be "taken down a few notches"
... Information-hoarding and gratuitous obstructionism are the order of the day, even if the entire organization is affected, potentially ruinously, by the weasel group's behavior, and everyone can see it happening
... Everything gradually falls to sh*t, little new is created, and what little is created is not terribly useful, robust or pleasant
................................
Meanwhile, not all groups are weasel groups.
Where "stand-up guys (and/or gals)" have domain ...
... 2+2 always equals 4, and anyone who tries to suggest otherwise is questioned about it... in a friendly way, at least initially
... Information and ideas are shared freely, collaboration is widely practiced, and a lot of amazing and useful things are created
... There is a high degree of trust, tolerance, openness, friendliness and learning
................................
Leaders of weasel groups HATE non-weasel groups, and do all they can to undermine them.
Members of weasel groups sometimes hate members of non-weasel groups, partly in sympathy with their weasel leader, but also because they hate the fact that someone else is able to live a non-weasel existence
When working in a large organization that consists of a combination of weasel and non-weasel groups, it is both starkly visible, and amusing in a sad sort of way, to watch the interactions between the groups.
One set of groups is proposing ideas and getting things done, the other set is sullenly obstructing.
................................
From what I have observed, I would say these principles are valid between teams or departments in a company, political factions, states and nations.
Disempower and refuse to tolerate the weasels, and IMO a lot of problems in the world, and in daily life, are mitigated.
The best news is... once a weasel leader is disempowered, his or her former minions generally realize they no longer have to live under weasel principles, and begin gladly behaving like non-weasels.
Down with systems and leaders that promote weaseldom.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
RISKs of Unattended Parcel Delivery
I do a fair amount of ordering from online companies. Most of them use a certain major parcel delivery service whose company name is three letters long.
That company refuses to permit recipients to request that a package be held for pickup.... until a delivery attempt has already been made. And it's the driver's discretion whether to leave it or not, even if the recipient hangs a note on the front door requesting "hold for pickup".
However, the company DOES permit the sending company (but not the lowly recipient) to specify "hold-for-delivery" at send time, or to request it while the parcel is in transit.
At the same time, a lot of the big mail-order places have no provision for a purchaser to request "hold-for-delivery" at order time, and will not make the change if requested to after the order (or will dither about it for so long that the point becomes moot).
The result is that packages worth hundreds of dollars may, by default, be left sitting unattended on peoples' front steps (including mine) across the land.
I've been fortunate in this regard, but my sister has had any number of packages and mail items disappear from her front step.
I find it a bit annoying that the mail order companies, and certain delivery services, don't implement a very simple method for controlling this RISK.
If the parcel services want to charge extra for "hold-for-delivery", that can be stated up-front when the merchandise is ordered. If the purchaser ticks that checkbox, a few extra $$ are added to the purchase total.
Alternatively, if the recipient wants to request "hold-for-delivery" via the parcel service's website, it can be stipulated that they need to pay the extra $$ when they pick up the package, specifying exact change if needed (which is what one delivery service already requires for cash payments at its stations).
I'm sure my sister isn't the only one who's lost packages in this way. I have no desire to have a $900 laptop, or my passport in a parcel envelope, to be left sitting on my front step.
I find it more than a little disappointing (if not downright weaselly) that certain parcel services and major mail-order companies aren't willing to engage with this issue, or acknowledge it, more actively.
That company refuses to permit recipients to request that a package be held for pickup.... until a delivery attempt has already been made. And it's the driver's discretion whether to leave it or not, even if the recipient hangs a note on the front door requesting "hold for pickup".
However, the company DOES permit the sending company (but not the lowly recipient) to specify "hold-for-delivery" at send time, or to request it while the parcel is in transit.
At the same time, a lot of the big mail-order places have no provision for a purchaser to request "hold-for-delivery" at order time, and will not make the change if requested to after the order (or will dither about it for so long that the point becomes moot).
The result is that packages worth hundreds of dollars may, by default, be left sitting unattended on peoples' front steps (including mine) across the land.
I've been fortunate in this regard, but my sister has had any number of packages and mail items disappear from her front step.
I find it a bit annoying that the mail order companies, and certain delivery services, don't implement a very simple method for controlling this RISK.
If the parcel services want to charge extra for "hold-for-delivery", that can be stated up-front when the merchandise is ordered. If the purchaser ticks that checkbox, a few extra $$ are added to the purchase total.
Alternatively, if the recipient wants to request "hold-for-delivery" via the parcel service's website, it can be stipulated that they need to pay the extra $$ when they pick up the package, specifying exact change if needed (which is what one delivery service already requires for cash payments at its stations).
I'm sure my sister isn't the only one who's lost packages in this way. I have no desire to have a $900 laptop, or my passport in a parcel envelope, to be left sitting on my front step.
I find it more than a little disappointing (if not downright weaselly) that certain parcel services and major mail-order companies aren't willing to engage with this issue, or acknowledge it, more actively.
Ja, Ja, We Laff (or, Basel Exposition)
A colleague passes this along, from a recent ISACA conference. Read at own risk.
..............
From the wild n' wacky world of banking regulation...
The Basel Accords are a set of accountability rules that are meant to assure that banks remain solvent and their dealings traceable and above board.
Not many people know this, but when they were implemented a few years ago, they were actually a revival of a very old, traditional Swiss banking tradition.
Under this tradition, if a bank executive is found to be in violation of the accords, he is taken to a room deep inside the bank. Inside that room, a very VERY angry man is waiting for him, holding the brightly painted thigh bone of an Appenzell bullock.
We are not told what goes on inside that room once the door is closed, but I can tell you that in English, the name of that fearsome ceremonial implement is.....
IS.......
THE BASEL WRATH BONE!
Now you know. Aren't you glad?
..............
From the wild n' wacky world of banking regulation...
The Basel Accords are a set of accountability rules that are meant to assure that banks remain solvent and their dealings traceable and above board.
Not many people know this, but when they were implemented a few years ago, they were actually a revival of a very old, traditional Swiss banking tradition.
Under this tradition, if a bank executive is found to be in violation of the accords, he is taken to a room deep inside the bank. Inside that room, a very VERY angry man is waiting for him, holding the brightly painted thigh bone of an Appenzell bullock.
We are not told what goes on inside that room once the door is closed, but I can tell you that in English, the name of that fearsome ceremonial implement is.....
IS.......
THE BASEL WRATH BONE!
Now you know. Aren't you glad?
Thursday, September 13, 2007
X11 - The beginning, the Present, and the Future (so far)
Something that Linux and Macs have in common, which is NOT shared by MS Windows, is that their user interfaces are based on the X windowing system, which among other things allows a program running on one machine to easily display on another.
This means, for example, that an enormously powerful graphical/computation program can run on heavy-duty mainframe somewhere, but actually display on the researcher's relatively lightweight desktop workstation.
In my case, it means I can run Firefox and Thunderbird on my Linux box (where I keep most of my important files and do most of my programming work), but use them seamlessly from my XP laptop in the living room (as I am doing now.)
Now, a note to those proposing Linux as a desktop for everyone. It's the little things that can be annoying, from and end-user standpoint.
Frinstance, there is a longstanding problem with X windows distributions not handling the Alt-Gr key properly. This means parts of my German keyboard layout (like the at sign) aren't working under X from the laptop. It's frustrating, and there still doesn't seem to be a consistent fix for it, even for hardcore nerds like me (this works for me now on my Ubuntu desktop, but not remotely to the same machine via Cygwin X11).
These are the kinds of things that keep Windows and Macs as the world's premier desktops for regler folks. They just work. End-users will no longer tolerate the notion of some piddly low-level ugliness preventing them from doing something this simple yet crucial.
Oh well. My really important Unix work I do on the commandline and in text editors, and I can use other tools for those. But it's sometimes frustrating as hell to have these little missing pieces.
Of course, the REALLY impressive thing about X and Unix in general is how much amazing stuff has been developed, and all by volunteers on their own time, for FREE. And, of course, its unparalelled power, performance and flexibility.
And let's not forget that Unix had the X windowing system before MS Windows existed. And if either Mac or Linux is the way of the future, then so is X11.
So I can hardly complain too loudly, I suppose.
This means, for example, that an enormously powerful graphical/computation program can run on heavy-duty mainframe somewhere, but actually display on the researcher's relatively lightweight desktop workstation.
In my case, it means I can run Firefox and Thunderbird on my Linux box (where I keep most of my important files and do most of my programming work), but use them seamlessly from my XP laptop in the living room (as I am doing now.)
Now, a note to those proposing Linux as a desktop for everyone. It's the little things that can be annoying, from and end-user standpoint.
Frinstance, there is a longstanding problem with X windows distributions not handling the Alt-Gr key properly. This means parts of my German keyboard layout (like the at sign) aren't working under X from the laptop. It's frustrating, and there still doesn't seem to be a consistent fix for it, even for hardcore nerds like me (this works for me now on my Ubuntu desktop, but not remotely to the same machine via Cygwin X11).
These are the kinds of things that keep Windows and Macs as the world's premier desktops for regler folks. They just work. End-users will no longer tolerate the notion of some piddly low-level ugliness preventing them from doing something this simple yet crucial.
Oh well. My really important Unix work I do on the commandline and in text editors, and I can use other tools for those. But it's sometimes frustrating as hell to have these little missing pieces.
Of course, the REALLY impressive thing about X and Unix in general is how much amazing stuff has been developed, and all by volunteers on their own time, for FREE. And, of course, its unparalelled power, performance and flexibility.
And let's not forget that Unix had the X windowing system before MS Windows existed. And if either Mac or Linux is the way of the future, then so is X11.
So I can hardly complain too loudly, I suppose.
Whoa, deja vu
Prosecution Witness: Bank Still Suffering Four Years After Attack
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=188702662
A certain person I know who worked for a company not entirely dissimilar to the one in the article had, since joining, mentioned the benefits of anti-rootkit software, such as eTrust Access Control (formerly Seos) on a number of occasions, based on his experience with it at another bank. This earned him a bit of teasing from management, and from some colleagues.
Rumor has it that after an incident very much like the one in question occurred at his own company, he mentioned to his management that if eTrust had been deployed, the incident might have been prevented, or at least actively detected.
Management quickly skedaddled from the room, but not before the temperature there dropped by about 20° C.
It just goes to show, IT Security guys need to be smacked down, just on principle. Can't let the boffins get ideas above their station now, can we?
Nowadays, the person in question is working at another large bank that's had eTrust (among other active controls) deployed successfully for years. A bank that is able to devote rather more resources and attention to actually running the business.
Boffins running around loose, unsmacked! The horror, the horror.
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=188702662
A certain person I know who worked for a company not entirely dissimilar to the one in the article had, since joining, mentioned the benefits of anti-rootkit software, such as eTrust Access Control (formerly Seos) on a number of occasions, based on his experience with it at another bank. This earned him a bit of teasing from management, and from some colleagues.
Rumor has it that after an incident very much like the one in question occurred at his own company, he mentioned to his management that if eTrust had been deployed, the incident might have been prevented, or at least actively detected.
Management quickly skedaddled from the room, but not before the temperature there dropped by about 20° C.
It just goes to show, IT Security guys need to be smacked down, just on principle. Can't let the boffins get ideas above their station now, can we?
Nowadays, the person in question is working at another large bank that's had eTrust (among other active controls) deployed successfully for years. A bank that is able to devote rather more resources and attention to actually running the business.
Boffins running around loose, unsmacked! The horror, the horror.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
