Thursday, February 25, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Next Nostradamus
Two men sharing startling visions of the future possess distinctly different backgrounds: Michel de Nostradamus was a French apothecary and healer in the 16th century; he would become the most famous seer in history.
His 21st century counterpart is Dr. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, a renowned political scientist who teaches game theory at New York University and Stanford. While Nostradamus looked to the stars and mysticism to divine his apocalyptic revelations, Dr. Bueno de Mesquita relies on the most omnipotent tool ever designed by man to predict future events: the computer.
This special explores not only the commonalities of these men's visions about World War III, famine and the coming of the Anti-Christ, but it also traces the evolution from mysticism to hard math, and determines whether science has always existed in prophecy, manifesting itself in different forms through the ages.
His 21st century counterpart is Dr. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, a renowned political scientist who teaches game theory at New York University and Stanford. While Nostradamus looked to the stars and mysticism to divine his apocalyptic revelations, Dr. Bueno de Mesquita relies on the most omnipotent tool ever designed by man to predict future events: the computer.
This special explores not only the commonalities of these men's visions about World War III, famine and the coming of the Anti-Christ, but it also traces the evolution from mysticism to hard math, and determines whether science has always existed in prophecy, manifesting itself in different forms through the ages.
CNN We Were Warned: Cyber Shockwave = CyberFAIL
Well, with a little less than a half hour left of CNN’s “Cyber Shockwave: We Were Warned” I see that we as a country are being led by blithering Luddites who are incapable of coming to concise conclusions.
My twitter blow by blow of this show had the tag of #CyberFail and such FAIL it is. Let me sum up the ideas of the stellar panel:
1) Pulling the plug on the internet to prevent the worm from propagating
2) Pulling the plug on people’s cell phones to stop the propagation
3) Nationalizing the TELCO and Power companies
4) Rationing diesel for gennie’s
5) Activating the National Guard or Army internally in the country
6) Rendition of suspected hackers or attackers in other countries
7) Giving the president the option of unilateral disconnect and nationalizing of companies such as the power and telco companies
I have to say that this show scares me more than the technical inequities that exist within the government and corporate sectors to prevent this type of attack from succeeding. These people have no clue about the intricacies of the systems involved nor the core security values that are lacking within them that could prevent this from happening in the first.
I am willing to bet that very few of these people have heard the term “Defense in Depth” and know what it means…
#CyberFail indeed. This whole exercise was only to show how they “might” deal with this if it happened. Nothing to do with how they would or should be moving toward technical and operational means to PREVENT this scenario from happening! This is scary.
Now, in the last few minutes though, they began to talk about regulation of security with the private sector. This was touched on lightly as regulating the secure coding practices of such things as iPhone apps. I agree with this, but this show/scenario is just NOT coming up with the answers that we need.
Suffice to say, as I said before.. We are hosed if someone comes up with a blended attack against our infrastructure. These folks will be sitting in the command bunker being talking heads and naught will get done.
Buy generators, non perishables, ammo, and books on survival kids.
My twitter blow by blow of this show had the tag of #CyberFail and such FAIL it is. Let me sum up the ideas of the stellar panel:
1) Pulling the plug on the internet to prevent the worm from propagating
2) Pulling the plug on people’s cell phones to stop the propagation
3) Nationalizing the TELCO and Power companies
4) Rationing diesel for gennie’s
5) Activating the National Guard or Army internally in the country
6) Rendition of suspected hackers or attackers in other countries
7) Giving the president the option of unilateral disconnect and nationalizing of companies such as the power and telco companies
I have to say that this show scares me more than the technical inequities that exist within the government and corporate sectors to prevent this type of attack from succeeding. These people have no clue about the intricacies of the systems involved nor the core security values that are lacking within them that could prevent this from happening in the first.
I am willing to bet that very few of these people have heard the term “Defense in Depth” and know what it means…
#CyberFail indeed. This whole exercise was only to show how they “might” deal with this if it happened. Nothing to do with how they would or should be moving toward technical and operational means to PREVENT this scenario from happening! This is scary.
Now, in the last few minutes though, they began to talk about regulation of security with the private sector. This was touched on lightly as regulating the secure coding practices of such things as iPhone apps. I agree with this, but this show/scenario is just NOT coming up with the answers that we need.
Suffice to say, as I said before.. We are hosed if someone comes up with a blended attack against our infrastructure. These folks will be sitting in the command bunker being talking heads and naught will get done.
Buy generators, non perishables, ammo, and books on survival kids.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Napoleon Hill’s teachings for reading human animal
The best place to study the man-animal is in your own mind, by taking as accurate an inventory as possible of YOURSELF. When you know yourself thoroughly (if you ever do) you will also know much about others.
To know others, not as they seem to be, but as they really are, study them through:
1-The posture of the body, and the way they walk.
2-The tone of the voice, its quality, pitch, volume.
3-The eyes, whether shifty or direct.
4-The use of words, their trend, nature and quality. Through these open windows you may literally "walk right into a man's soul" and take a look at the REAL MAN!
Going a step further, if you would know men study them:
When angry
When in love
When money is involved
When eating (alone, and unobserved, as they be- lieve)
When writing
When in trouble
When joyful and triumphant
When downcast and defeated
When facing catastrophe of a hazardous nature
When trying to make a "good impression" on others
When informed of another's misfortune
When informed of another's good fortune
When losing in any sort of a game of sport
When winning at sport
When alone, in a meditative mood.
Before you can know any man, as he really is, you must observe him in all the foregoing moods, and perhaps more, which is practically the equivalent of saying that you have no right to judge others at sight. Appearances count, there can be no doubt of that, but appearances are often deceiving.
To know others, not as they seem to be, but as they really are, study them through:
1-The posture of the body, and the way they walk.
2-The tone of the voice, its quality, pitch, volume.
3-The eyes, whether shifty or direct.
4-The use of words, their trend, nature and quality. Through these open windows you may literally "walk right into a man's soul" and take a look at the REAL MAN!
Going a step further, if you would know men study them:
When angry
When in love
When money is involved
When eating (alone, and unobserved, as they be- lieve)
When writing
When in trouble
When joyful and triumphant
When downcast and defeated
When facing catastrophe of a hazardous nature
When trying to make a "good impression" on others
When informed of another's misfortune
When informed of another's good fortune
When losing in any sort of a game of sport
When winning at sport
When alone, in a meditative mood.
Before you can know any man, as he really is, you must observe him in all the foregoing moods, and perhaps more, which is practically the equivalent of saying that you have no right to judge others at sight. Appearances count, there can be no doubt of that, but appearances are often deceiving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
