Applicable to business – Page 24 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Short Cross posting

… Not from anyone, not from anywhere. But crossing some book tips, and asking for comments.
Was reading the Good Book, when realizing that it, in conjunction with Bruce, could lead to some form of progress beyond the latter when absolutist totalitarian panopticon control frameworks might seem the only way out. In particular, when including this on the Pikettyan / Elyseym escape or not that serves only some but not the serfs. And then add some Mark Goodman (nomen est omen, qua author, and content?) and you can see where Bruce may have missed exponential crumbling of structures, and said escape might be by others than the current(ly known) 1% … Not all Boy Cried Wolfs will be wrong; on the contrary — Not Yet is very, very different from Never, but rather Soon Baby, Soon.

Not rejoicing, and:

[Nope, not safe here (Haut Koenigsbourg) either.]

Still, 3LD is the 4th leg

This, not as much a monster under the bed as it is a monster elsewhere; Three Lines of Defense (quod non).

I’ve discussed the utterly nonsensical, totalitarian bureaucratic, lie of its utility already over and over again, but the thought — through encounter in daily practice so often still — returns every now and then. And then, one realizes: Three Lines of ‘Defense’ (quod non) are not the third, but the fourth leg of a flipover stand. Yes, indeed, you hardly see that ever — for a reason: Where the third leg is flimsy already and certainly so compared to the stability provided by the first, essential, two legs, any fourth might impress but destroys stability of the whole!
Yes, as three ground point define a surface hence stable stance on any irregular surface (and, hence again, are completely sufficient), four such touch points are very hard to get stable, onto a plane surface. Therefore, the fourth leg destabilizes the whole shazam, undoes the effectiveness of the third. Now, two are bungling.

And no, not because a flipover has three legs does that reflect TLD; the first two legs are equally required and face us, thus giving the thing its purpose which is completely, fundamentally, different from TLD where there’s three lines behind each other that only ‘protect’ (quod non) against regulatory oversight by massaging all embarrassment away through ever more dubious language. When you don’t see the fundamental of that difference, you may or may not be hopeless. Stop dragging the IQ average of whatever group you consider yourself part of, down so low.

I now rest my case.

[‘Transparency’ and building material? We see right through that both, Chanel!
(PC Hooftstraat)]

Last night a … saved me (updated)

As @swiftonsecurity (and of course @meneer of #ditchcyber fame) and others may improve since the rhythm is only almost perfect, already this:

[To the music but outdated lyrics of Indeep — but what style …
(Hey @ESCIA is that you with the mic ..?)]

You gotta reboot ~~get up~~
You gotta reload ~~get on~~
You gotta restore ~~get down~~ girl
You know you drive me #DIV/0! ~~crazy~~ baby
You’ve got me turning to another OS ~~man~~
Called you on the VOIP ~~phone~~

No one’s pinging back ~~home~~
Baby why ya leave me all >dev/null ~~alone~~
And if it wasn’t for the endless GitHub surfing ~~music~~
I don’t know what I’d do

Last night an information risk / security management professional saved my desktop PC ~~life~~
Last night an information risk / security management professional saved my desktop PC ~~life~~ from a broken pipe ~~heart~~
Last night an information risk / security management professional saved my desktop PC ~~life~~
Last night an information risk / security management professional saved my desktop PC ~~life~~ with a patch ~~song~~

You know I hopped into my notepad ~~car~~
Didn’t need to leave the coffee shop ~~get very far no~~
Because I had you on my stash of data-breached X-rated pics ~~mind~~
Why only give you a ticket and secretly close it immediately ~~be so unkind~~?

You’ve got your hapless users ~~women~~ all around
All around this AD ~~town~~, boy
But I was trapped in the SLA from hell ~~love~~ with you
And I didn’t know what to do
But when I turned on my RTFManual ~~radio~~
I found out all I needed to key in ~~know~~
Run the diagnostics kit ~~Check it out~~

Hey listen up to your local information risk / security management professional
You better hear what he’s got to type so fast you can’t keep track ~~say~~
There’s not a problem that I can’t fix
Cause I can do it in the rogue exploit suite ~~mix~~
And if your crappy ol’ XP machine ~~man~~ gives you trouble
Just you step away from the keyboard ~~move~~ out on the double
And you don’t let it trouble your ‘brain’ ~~brain~~
Cause away goes PEBKAC ~~troubles~~
Down the drain
I said away goes PEBKAC ~~troubles~~
Down the drain

Last night an information risk / security management professional saved my desktop PC ~~life~~
There’s not a problem that I can’t fix
Cause I can do it in the rogue exploit suite ~~mix~~
There’s not a problem that I can’t fix
Cause I can do it in the rogue exploit suite ~~mix~~

Quite an improvement indeedp … And leaving you with, of course:

You must, you mustn’t

Strange. The last couple of weeks, months, have seen a resurgence of “Anything that is not explicitly forbidden, is allowed.”
Which was, well, true in only the most devolved, twisted (pejorative sense) means/ends ethics and morals discussions. And still is. But suddenly, there’s a new angle: All that aren’t involved in the spoils of such tactics (not being rich enough to have used Panama Paper style constructions, even when not aware as such vulgar ‘money’ things had been handled by sycophant minions (of mind, certainly)), want the overthrow of the said sad sentence, by including that all that is permitted, should not be done when (not if) the moral higher ground would forbid it, still.

I can agree. Being in the category of … well mostly having first-world problems and not (much) more. But then again, it strikes me as odd that somehow, we don’t have good handles to straighten out the wicked ones — bar revolution. Because our legal system doesn’t seem to be as strict as it once was; forbidding all that was not allowed for a proper functioning of society. There have been changes to society… Where theft is still impermissible if of physical stuff, but in many ways is perfectly good to go when by failure to act, like many 1%ers. Though Aristoteles (Ethica Nicomachea; read the damn thing!) rightly would frown upon such dimwittedness but there.
So, actually, law would have to change but hasn’t. The very ones to be controlled by it, of course, are the first through the escape vents. And, Pikettyan or Elysium style, might prevent catching up categorically.

We could discuss on and on. But prevalent is: Now what ..? So, for the time being:

[‘Coloured in, otherwise too bleak your future is’; The Hague]

Plusquote: Short length

Today’s episode of Plusquotes, the sayings that are both inspirational and True, if only because they’re my invention (if there is such a thing), is about length and since I’m very confident by support of fact of my self, my own in this (not even bluffing like the other 80% does), without much ado let alone proof already of the more mundane meaning of the very thing I’d like to discuss, herewith:

Short sentences, little minds.

… Hey were you (M) so generically insecure by actual, or shortfall on your bluff on, some body part length ..?
What I mean is that only little minds will ask for short sentences. When reproached that according to (any) good language, a sentence should convey a logically coherent set of concepts and their relations. Hence, when the set (~ and of relations) is large or complex, so will the sentence be period

Those of little minds, have trouble with that, mostly content-wise. But then, when one writes large or complex sets of concepts, one hardly ever does so for the pleasure (or main target) of the hoi polloi of mind [to note, to be found in all ‘money classes’, in varying degrees of aggressiveness in the overshouting denial of their dimness]. When then, the little minds feel left out and want you to write for the ‘other ones’ as if they’re not part of that very simpleton set, they reveal themselves as belonging to it by their ill understanding of both your intentions and their comparative wit. And do not believe that only once you truly have a right to write as you have truly understood a subject only if you can make your large and complex set and relations simple by writing them up in short sentences. You should make things as simple as possible, yes, but as the Wise included for very good reason: but not simpler; some things defy simple explanation. What you’d get is something like this .. not very helpful eh?
Little minds don’t ‘get’ Joyce or Nietzsche but do those two care ..?

So, when you write, write like you want and can. If then, some might want you to change your lines to fit their perception of readership’s comprehension, do not do that but consider that your audience seemingly is not them. And certainly, they will not be representative of your true audience, that is. Maybe not all of the global humanity, a bit less possibly, but still, there is an audience for your texts — that will not show itself (to not be) by complaints about your sentence length.

Hm, that seemed to be not so motivational, as a plusquote, did it? Well, still it is; if you seize the freedom. And:

[Boaty McBoatface at the Rijksmuseum]

Rien vous ne pouvez plus …?

When business is about betting, hopefully educated guessing, the near and bit further future developments of <somethings>. Educated, of course with a pinch of theory — but then, only the parts that are actually true, and still valid, for the future, too so throw away all (seriously) but a few nuggets of the most absolute que sera, sera of economics / business administration (sic) — and a healthy dose of experience — but not too much as it would lead to a lachrymose same as the (true) theory and we still need Action, don’t we ..?

Then totalitarian bureaucracies, like the banking world (in a suffocatingly tight grip, including the regulatory-captured but also holier-than-thou regulators), will try to squeeze all involved so thoroughly that no business is feasible anymore. But will fail, as the spirit has been out of the bottle since the Apple; Original Sin is about being human, above animalistic sustenance-supporting instinctive compliance with the laws of nature. Again and again, the stupidity of belief that Apollo wins out over Dionysos ..! They’re equal in all respects, certainly in the spirit of Man, and remember that even Zeus was forced to break marital laws (what a player he was, by necessity …:) because at the End of Times, the titans, the powers of Chaos, will almost win out. A trope so powerful that all belief systems have it (but a few exceptions) so to be held for certain; until proven wrong…?

Even more: The higher the pressure (that the straightjackets on subjects can take), the more fluid everything becomes. The more zealous, zealotic, crazy (outright that word, yes) compliance efforts micromanage (lest the ‘manage’ part which is utterly ridiculous if used in this sense), the more devious and deceptional will the business be, caused by this very reason of compliance efforts. LIBORgate, anyone ..?

‘Trust, but verify’ is a lie. Since only the slightest hint of the latter, immediately completely destroys the former ..! As the former is a two-way street! Seek out those that support this lie, and you’ll find the true culprits of the above.

So far, so good for a Monday morning’s rant, right ..? I’ll stop now, with:
20151008_123437
[Rigid, but colourful, the max you can achieve; Nieuwegein]

Disciplined away from bureaucracy

After some thought on bureaucracy on either side of the Big Pond, it suddenly dawned on me how to explain the seeming (of course) paradox:

At the Western shores, a lot of military with front line battle experience (and some, only a bit less so), possibly out of reserve functions in mundane business, have gone (back) over to the dark side of commercial business, with their discipline and cutthroat ‘competition’ (using not secondhand car salespeople but live ammo) as main assets / gathered experience to bring to bear.
On the East oceanboards, not so much, and a love for egalitarian Rhineland ideas might have persisted, giving flexibility and care for customers (‘s souls), and much room for ‘Millennials’ (let’s all drop that most empty of phrases though you get my drift) in the workplace.
On the point of competition effectiveness, Westeros beats Essos hand down.

But, the critical points for resolution are:

US businesses have been taken away from petty-rule-based (only) bureaucracy that they were in (yes they were, even with the freedom-seeking escapism rampant throughout), by the infusion with serious doses of Mission Command (a.k.a. Commander’s Intent) flexibility in goal achievement over procedural justice / form-over-substance.
European corps had nothing to counter Power Corrupts style demise unto totalitarian bureaucracies with their headless-chicken compliance.

So, it really is no contest but we would need a (not present) ref to break it off. To bad, and:

[Oh how cutiepie, Doesburg defenses]

DroneSF

Among the more thinking part of you, there probably has been some ideas on the ‘Joint (not so much) Strike (not by a long mile yet) Fighter (not or by proxy of lobbyists for its program)’.
Then, why wouldn’t forward-looking nations develop much more of an Future Strike Joystick; an air fleet of drones ..? How incredibly much more efficient isn’t such a fleet, with ridiculous amounts of safeguards for safe platform/pilot return (in that order of importance) ditched for efficiency, robustness by the numbers and failsafe-testing ..?
The efficiency, for not having to care about pilot’s safe return hence many over-redundant systems need not be needed. The robustness, mainly in numbers, but also in safety / security systems being bolted on easily as weight savings to be traded in, are aplenty already. And failsafe-testing leading to much more robust systems anyway — but with the robustness gains there mainly going on in the G/A comms. The AFBs could house so many more of these smaller-size things, with ample comms and/or rapidly-deployable forward bases; with possibly much shorter runways hence enabling many more bases without even increased (better spread, too) noise levels for the dorks.

Two things, then, from a Dutch perspective.
One, why not resurrect Fokker to build many more full-fledged squadrons of these than ever had in the RNLAF? They have all the experience with composite materials still, and have plentiful highest-trained development, build and maintenance staff available as well or at short notice. Let’s dub it the G-1B for reference to unsurpassed excellence.
Two, in the mean time the current F16 ‘fleet’, hardly operable anymore by atrocious ‘savings’ i.e. dumbest of budget cuts, can be extended to Block 60 or V versions and all these drones be developed and bought, at a sliver of the costs of the JSF program as spent already let alone when the actual handful will have to be purchased (with ridiculous maintenance costs attached).
Three, against your Yes But: The JSF is still so far from delivery that the G-1B could be here before it ..!

Am I romantic in looking ahead instead of stumbling forward with yesterday’s doctrines in a future that already now have been surpassed ..? Yet again,

[Ah, Delft… Where another, this even today, undervalued product comes from]

Untrained accountants

Somewhere in Rise of the Robots (approximately p.253, 2nd line from the top), ever infamous [but very, very right] Carr is ideaquoted about pilots not getting enough experience with flying and (well, mostly: continue to keep on …) flying in adverse conditions and hence are paradoxically (much) less capable to handle the few exceptional situations for which they are kept aboard on ever more fully automated flights. [Except from the passengers’ comfort, but if only they knew the previous…] The Shallows, indeed…

Now, how would this compare to accountancy …? Ever encountered an assistant auditor that would recognize, let alone be able to do himself, double-entry bookkeeping ..? Which is of course already quite fully automated or will be in the very near future. All of accountancy/audit (in many worlds except a few slackers, this can and will be used mixedly though the latter is so much more ..!) that is stacked on top of such simple things, like checking on the bookkeeping let alone at the other end of the spectrum concluding that ‘the books’ represent a true and fair view (to the dime) of business performance (sic; more that just having debit=credit; author knows of a bank where this proved literally Impossible to do, with all the latest overfully automated bookkeeping information systems with a margin of € 1B e-ve-ry month, wiping the slate clean with a one-sided journal entry…!!), will come into question qua ability — in particular where the once usual decades of training was needed to establish sufficient experience to be able to, with an error margin always still!, declare the True and Fair parts, and now, such experience can be had less and less, with the disruption starting from the bottom with audit automation turning into big data (process) analyses supported by IT audits and what have we.

There simply aren’t the entry-level experience gainers jobs anymore; any complete-greenhorn (and uni grads are that, more and more it seems; just ask them to write a simple business report…) will have to jump to an immediate medior-level performance level. So what does one end up with? Mostly n00bs posing as l33ts. Posing, as content-wise performance is … well …

Oh well, it’ll get worse, much worse before it gets better. And:

[Graciously having opened my back garden to the public (but this is Het Loo of course)]

Emerging degrees of privacy

Given that ‘privacy’ is a property that emerges from good Security, more particularly from Confidentiality (and Integrity), there’s two avenues to succeed in this field:

If quick and maybe even too dirty: Data minimalisation (as e.g., here, in Dutch)
Else (OR?): Fine-grained protection, also against the default Read all down the stack (user / end point / comms channels / applications / middleware / servers / storage — with the latter maybe crawling up and down the stack again when virtualizing in the cloud)
Because binary’s not my thing and keeping it real (i.e. (!) not being consistent) is: Would any of you have pointers to some science on possible degrees or levels of privacy ..?
The idea keeps floating around in my skull. Including degrees of invasion! Where sometimes, the required degree (as set by the subject) would be less than the degree for some government agency so everything goes … for this some data point only. Yes, Value creeps in as a boring subject but isn’t everything. Should be a field of study …?

Thanks anyway for all your pointers on the last item… (none); hence:

[It’s watching over your shoulder….! Het Loo]