Give yourself a pat on the back

May 11, 2008 under Uncategorized

Sunday means that certain television stations which lack high moral character show certain programmes which ought not to be shown on a Sunday.

Yes, I’m talking about professional golf.

As perhaps the poorest sport from a sporting perspective, golf is a really tough sell. It doesn’t really have heroes as such, because heroes are born of conflict, and there’s not much hardship to be found in a world of khakis and groomed lawns on a sunny spring afternoon.

But… but… the greens break really *hard*! And I really have no idea about the strength of character required to bounce back after a bogie on the very challenging 13th (“I’d say it’s the hardest hole on the course, wouldn’t you John?  “Without a question, Sid. As you remember, it was redesigned in 2002 to add an additional 50 yards and with the pin placement today it constitutes genuine adversity”).

Golf excels in one thing. If you want to *learn* something from a sport, golf is the one to look at. It’s the one to look at simply because the sporting fare on offer is so pitiful. No one looks at the actual nature of a sport if they want to learn something, because these things generally just boil down to a ball and a hole and a stick, or a ball and a hole with a net on it, or a ball and a goal, or a ball and a goal and a stick, or a puck and a goal and a stick, or a ball and a goal and no stick because you’re using your hands, or a ball and a goal and a swimming pool, or a ball and a stick and a goal and a horse, or…

No, the thing to look at if you want to learn something is how sports are marketed. Golf has the best marketing, because golf has the worst sport and the hardest sell.

Finally we get to the point of the blog, which is self-aggrandizement. This is what golf does, better than any other sport.

“We attack with speed. We win with technology. We show no mercy.” – Stolen from some golf commerical. I can’t remember for what. Probably a stick or a ball or a shirt. I think it was a stick.

“These guys are good.” – From another commerical. I can’t remember the source for this one either. It might have been a PGA tour commercial.

“Reserve your place in history.” – Look, it’s Morgan Freeman, doing the voicing for a tour event plug. Morgan’s on fine form and when he says it, it really sounds fine. My man.

Oh, now they’re playing the “Man from snowy river” theme. I love that song… Everybody loves that song. It’s a great story of one man carving his own road in a difficult world.

The trophies are shiny, the jackets are green… and a fella can’t watch five minutes of Sunday golf without tripping over three different eternal legends, dynasties or  timeless tales of heart and courage. In the face of adversity. Great adversity. And all the odds.

The point is, if you don’t value your own brand, no one else will. And if you want to skim a little extra cream by getting people to *overvalue* your own brand, you’d better lay things on thick. So pat yourself on the back! Host yourself an awards show! Give yourself a trophy with a title like the Grand World Global Championship For All Eternity Challenge Cup. Give it to yourself every two weeks. At an awards show. Talk about yourself. After all, you are a living legend and you didn’t fight through all those odds and that geniune adversity for nothing.

Golf is by no means the only offender in this category. All professional sports do it. Music does it. Television does it. Film does it. Pretty much any community with a common interest and a large enough scale to pitch it with a straight face has a shot at it.

On an unrelated note, I hope you’ll follow this space closely. This blog has been nominated as a grand finalist in the legendary World Blog Heritage Classic Challenge, and the results will be posted next week. It will be a hard fight, especially since I’ll be forced to fight through the crushing grief of the loss of my great great grandfather.

comments: 1 » tags: ,

Modern day worship

May 10, 2008 under curios

The imagery is subtle but nonetheless it creeps me out. Well, maybe it’s not all that subtle, either.

Why is Alexander Keith’s brewing company running a series of advertisements where would-be imbibers enter a shrine to seek the favor of his graven image?

If you don’t take it as straight idolatry, but hold with the softer view of a king sitting in court and granting boons to his subjects, you still have the question, “How is it okay to swear fealty to a brewmaster?”

Tongue-in-cheek, yes… but the fact that they came up with it and ran with it says something.

comments: 0 »

Plugin not plugging to full capacity. Oh NOES.

May 8, 2008 under tongueincheek

Plugin not found screenshot

Yeah, that’s how to get me to install a plugin. Promise me advertisements. Blinky, flash advertisements.

Yeah. I’ll, ah, get right on that.

comments: 0 »

Freedom. Sweet Freedom.

May 7, 2008 under curios, technical

This is fantastic.

It makes me wonder, “When are we going to start using computers for things *we* want to do?”

So much of computing is self created and self sustained. In my world of software, programming and complex systems, it seems nearly everything that is done with computers is computer driven, done to satisfy a computer or system constraint. We support technology X because of constraint Y (in the same way that our adoption of X will constrain future systems), we adopt approach B because of system A… We use computers in the way that computers demand.

This extends beyond hard physical and technical requirements to culture and expectations. We design things because computer users expect certain things, they demand certain behaviours.

Well, no more! If I want my Java program to look like a napkin sketch, y’all better be prepared to endure the coffee stains.

This is also why rubyists love ruby, btw.

comments: 0 » tags: ,

Revelation

May 3, 2008 under tongueincheek

I now know what it was all about – what I was looking for.

To think that I was so blind – I never saw what I needed. The one thing that I was *really* after. Everything else was really just trying to fill that hole…

The rock ‘n roll.

The women.

The drugs.

The flirtation with the Swing Application Framework.

But when I saw it there, underneath the 40% off sign (Saturday and Sunday only) I knew. It all came clear.

I’ll still flirt with the Swing Application Framework… But I’ll do it wearing a mighty fine tie. Yeah baby.

comments: 0 » tags: ,

Security and ethics

May 1, 2008 under technical

This story illustrates everything you ever wanted to know about computer security. In no particular order,

  1. It’s a people problem, not a technology problem.
  2. It’s all about trust.
  3. A system is only as secure as its least secure component.
  4. Bad guys don’t play by the rules: this is why they’re bad guys.
  5. The system doesn’t care if an attack is ‘fair’ or not – it only knows secure or insecure.
  6. The difference between a white hat hacker and a black hat hacker is the difference between right and wrong.

Let’s break it down.

First things First

The first issue to be laid to rest is that the company’s system was shown to be insecure. It doesn’t matter how it happened: their web server was shut down(5). The ultimate measure of their security is whether or not they can keep their server up, which they couldn’t (in this case).

A People Problem – You are the Weakest Link

This particular attack required no computer skills; anyone could have pulled it off. Well, not true. It takes a certain amount of attitude; any con-artist could have pulled it off. Most of the problems with computer security have very little to do with computers and everything to do with the people using them. This is because people are the only ones who can care about security (by definition; computers don’t care about anything) . Sad but true.

If an attack can be performed by fooling a person rather than a computer, chances are it will be done that way because people are generally easier to fool.

That being said, the really fascinating things about this story are the issues of trust and ethics involved. It’s not hard to view this story from two different directions:

Point – He pulled a job

Our superhacker was just that: a sly hacker who defrauded a naive ISP out of $3500. Their *real* security problem was not being able to distinguish between a reputable consultant and a malicious attacker.(2) He broke the rules (explicit or implicit) of their agreement and betrayed their trust to steal their dough.

CounterPoint – He did a job

The hacker was hired and his reward was contingent on his taking the server down, showing the insecurity of the system (5). He exposed a severe flaw in their security attitude and process, which are just as crucial to security as  technical systems(1,3). Paradoxically, the most honest approach he could have taken was the dirtiest one possible, because that’s what a real attacker would do.(4)  While completely satisfying their agreement, the hacker taught the ISP a valuable lesson about security, and he was worth every penny of his fee.

Breaking it down

So which rendition is correct?

It all depends on what he put in his report, because only his report can reveal whether or not he acted ethically. His ‘patch’ could prove to be either a crude attempt to paper over his own dishonesty, or it could be a devastatingly ironic (and insighful) commentary designed to drive a point home.

Security measures are designed to restrict the actions of people you don’t trust. There is, however, another part to security: deciding who to trust. No security measures, however stringent, can protect you if you decide to trust the wrong people.(2) If the superhacker was a trickster and a fraudster, then the company trusted the wrong person.

White and black hat hackers think in the same way and hunt out the same vulnerabilities. The difference between them is that  white hat hackers *don’t* take you to the cleaners just because they can.(6)

comments: 0 » tags: ,