Here are some really good Javascript reference sheets.

[ Javascript Reference Sheets | addedbytes.com ]

The Audacious Epigone

It’s an excellent site that I’ve been reading for months. Here’s a sample from a recent post:

–

Think electing Obama will be a cathartic experience that’ll put an end to black community’s resentment over the perceived restraining force of the white power structure like John McWhorter does**? Maybe not:

Yet even as they bask in the senator’s success, some middle-class blacks remain uneasy about their own choices and wonder whether they have distanced themselves too much from poor blacks. They worry that Mr. Obama’s success — what many call being a “good black” — could feed negative stereotypes among whites about blacks who don’t succeed or who act in a more confrontational manner.

If a black guy becomes President, white society will expect us all to become Presidents. It’ll turn the bigotry of low expectations on its head! And they’ll expect us to play the game, too:

“Part of me has my fist clenched under the table,” says Dawn Jefferson, a 31-year-old who teaches at a predominantly white private school outside Washington, D.C. “There is this feeling that black confrontational behavior won’t be so acceptable. We have to all play the game now.”

Welcome to the professional world. We all have to play the game.

–

There is much debate in the information security world regarding the proper definition of security. I have seen dozens of definitions over the years, but I feel the following option most completely and succinctly captures it.

The process of maintaining an acceptable level of perceived risk.

There are a few things I like about this definition.

1. Process. i.e. it doesn’t end.
2. Acceptable. This alludes to the fact that the organization’s upper management decides—based on the entity’s goals as a whole—how much risk to take on. The crucial piece here is that this isn’t for security professionals to decide.
3. Perceived. In short, “you don’t know what you don’t know”. And this is where security professionals come in. Their entire job is to ensure that management is making informed decisions.

Risk

As we all know, it’s not a good idea to use words with disputed definitions as part of another definition. And since risk is one such word, I’ll clarify briefly how I define risk.

In general, I prefer NIST’s description from NIST Publication SP 800-30:

Risk is a function of the likelihood of a given threat-source’s exercising a particular potential vulnerability, and the resulting impact of that adverse event on the organization. To determine the likelihood of a future adverse event, threats to an IT system must be analyzed in conjunction with the potential vulnerabilities and the controls in place for the IT system.

This reveals a few primary components: likelihood, threat-source, vulnerability, and impact. The word “function” used in the definition is pivotal; it reveals that if any of the values increase or decrease, the total risk does as well. I also prefer to add asset value to the equation, and this is a popular choice.

Ultimately, however, the definition of risk can be reduced to a much more usable, less academic form, and this is the way you are going to be most successful communicating it with those who are not security professionals.

A risk is a chance of something bad happening.

Too simple? Not really. It’s instantly understandable to virtually everyone, but at the same time it does not contradict the more complex definitions.

So when should you use one definition vs. the other? In general, use the simple version. Getting entangled in the infinite number of ways risk can be calculated is something to avoid. It drains time and rarely accomplishes anything when broken down much farther than is described above.

Summary

So, written out (i.e. without the word “risk”) we arrive at:

Security is the process of maintaining, based on what we know, an acceptable level of likelihood that something bad will happen to the organization.

…and once again, in it’s more succinct and elegant form:

Security is the process of maintaining an acceptable level of perceived risk.

Links

[ Security | wikipedia.org ]
[ NIST Publication 800-30 | nist.org ]
[ Risk, Threat and Vulnerability | taosecurity.blogspot.com ]

All puzzle, no idea output. It’s seriously depressing.

Instapaper is a brilliant application that allows you to synchronize between your iPhone and your browser(s), via bookmarklet, content you find online. So imagine you’re at work and you find a really cool article like this one.

Now imagine that you may want to read this while in the car, or on a plane. You can use the Instapaper bookmarklet to send the story to your iPhone’s native Instapaper App, which will keep an offline copy of the story for you to read. And the story isn’t just text; it’s text-optimized for reading on the iPhone.

Very clean.

Image from instapaper.com

2. Stanza

Introducing Stanza — read eBooks on your Mac or PC and share with your iPhone, iPod Touch, & Kindle. — Stanza’s Website

Simple stuff here: download tons of classics, for free, and read them on your iPhone. Here are a few that I have on my device right now:

• 1984
• A Tale of Two Cities
• Animal Farm
• Anthem
• Beyond Good and Evil
• Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom
• The Brothers Karamazov
• The Idiot
• The Art of War

On the iPhone. All the time. Whenever you want to read them. Landscape mode, text-size control. It’s über nice.

Here’s the link to the iPhone app.

1. Uriah Faber vs. B.J. Penn

   
   

   
   Image from wikipedia.org

   Urijah Faber is like everyone else on this list — *inhuman*. He simply needs to be tested against others with superpowers. Him destroying mortalfolk over in the WEC is becoming 1) unfair, and 2) uninteresting.

   He’s around 145, and could easily meet B.J. Penn at 155. Hell, B.J.’s so cool he’d probably go down to meet him. Alternate ending: he could also easily fight St. Pierre since St. Pierre is a 155 fighter as well.

2. St. Pierre vs. Anderson Silva

   
   

   
   Image from wikipedia.org

   Ok, this is truly sick. Check it. Silva fights at 185. St. Pierre fights at 155. That’s thirty pounds. So they meet at 170. Silva drops 15; St. Pierre gains 15. This is possible, and it would be unGodly.

3. Fedor vs. Anderson Silva






There are no words. This is the fight of our time. Think about it—Fedor is a small heavyweight. Anderson Silva stays at 205 and Fedor comes down to meet him. So imagine Fedor, only way faster. OMG.

Just to keep things in perspective, remember that Joe Biden voted for the war and for the Patriot Act.

I wish life were more simple, but I won’t pretend it is just because it’d be easier to fit into my belief system. Paul/Barr are the cleanest choices here in terms of non-muddied waters, but that line introduces a whole different set of problems.

Meh.:

Links

[ On the Issues: Joe Biden | ontheissues.org ]

[ Cheney Waits Until Last Minute Again to Buy 9/11 Gifts | theonion.com ]

Many of my friends who are still somewhat religious despite being freethinkers see the benefits of rejecting ideologies that are untrue, but they wonder what will fill the void. They wonder what you’re supposed to…believe in once you truly shed all superstition.

How do you go on? What do you base your life on? What gives you meaning? Why even get up in the morning? Because they lack answers to these questions they cling to a nerfed and sanitized version of the faith they were injected with as children.

Image from secularhumanism.org

Well, here’s an alternative. The following principles are the basis of Secular Humanism, a life stance that I find to be extraordinary in its ability to capture how I, and most other freethinkers I know, view the world.

The Principles of Secular Humanism

Here’s the list from secularhumanism.org.

• We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
• We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.
• We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.
• We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.
• We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.
• We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.
• We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
• We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.
• We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.
• We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.
• We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.
• We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.
• We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.
• We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.
• We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.
• We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.
• We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.
• We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.
• We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.
• We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.
• We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

Here’s a shorter list of tenets from Wikipedia’s Secular Humanism article:

• Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
• Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
• Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
• Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
• This life – A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
• Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
• Building a better world – A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

Discussion

So, what does this system lack in terms of a replacement for religious belief? It lacks the completely unfounded tenet that we’ll live forever. The idea that somehow, despite no evidence to support it, we will continue on after we die.

As many before me have pointed out, this fantasy does not improve life here on Earth. life is even more beautiful because it’s temporary. It makes beautiful things that much more beautiful, and it makes things like war and hatred that much more unbearable.

So, to all my friends still struggling with beliefs that they are unable to shake despite knowing they’re not true, I ask you to look into this. The odds are that it captures your belief system quite well.:

Links

[ Secular Humanism | wikipedia.org ]
[ Council for Secular Humanism | secularhumanism.org ]

Here’s how I imagine the phone call taking place where McCain’s VP search organizer (we’ll call him Michael) calls McCain to tell him he’s found Sarah Palin.

–

McCain Staffer: “Sir, I’ve got great news. I’ve found a woman to run with you!”

McCain: “A woman? Can she read?” (laughing openly)

(pause)

McCain: “I’m kidding, Michael. You know that, right? That’s just my crazy sense of humor.”

Staffer: “Heh…yes, sir…Just remember we’re trying to build an image here and…”

McCain: “Listen Mike, when I was in that prison camp all I had was humor to keep me going. I served this country…”

Staffer: “Yes, sir—I know—I wasn’t challenging your service to the country…I was just saying…”

McCain: “You’re damn right you weren’t. Anyway, so what do you have for me? What’s the scoop on this chick?”

Staffer: “Well sir, she’s really young—only in her 40’s—and she’s very attractive. She was a beauty queen in fact.”

McCain: “A beauty queen, huh? Is she rich?” (laughing)

(pause)

McCain: “No, seriously…what’s her deal?”

Staffer: “She’s gold, sir. She’s a governor in Alaska. Pro-life. She’s for drilling and hunting from helicopters. Did I mention she’s attractive?”

McCain: “Pro-life and attractive, huh? And she’s a governor? Done deal, Mike. Make sure she’s not a closet liberal or a porn star or something. If she’s clean put me on a plane to go meet her. What did you say her name was?”

Staffer: “Sarah Palin, sir. You met her once, around six months ago.”

McCain: “I meet a lot of people Mike. Anyway, make sure she’s not hiding something and get me on a plane to see her. Sandy’s about to be our VP.”

Staffer: “Sarah, sir.”

McCain: “Yeah, whatever…attractive Republican female. Get me on a plane.”

[ Animated Map of Gustav | weather.com ]

He didn’t even know the woman. He’d only met her once—like six months ago.

The selection wasn’t careful and precise; it was, “Hey look, it’s an attractive, pro-life woman who’s governor of a state.” It was, “We need a woman.”

What does that say for your judgement when you would trust the vice presidency to someone you don’t even know?

[ What Makes Finnish Kids So Smart? | wsj.com ]

It looks like I just topped 1,000 subscribers for the first time on my main site. W00t.

Thanks to all who read the site and comment. You keep me honest and keep me thinking; I truly appreciate it.

-Daniel

People often mention that Obama may not be able to do all the things he’s promising. Perhaps this is true, but it’s missing the point. At least he’s trying for the right things.

This is in absolute contrast with McCain. With him I’m not worried about him NOT being able to do what he wants to do; no, with him I’m worried that he will be able to do what he wants. Let’s review:

1. He wants to be play “I’m an asshole with a Military” with Russia. That’s patently stupid. He isn’t Reagan, and this isn’t the 80’s.
2. He wants to give tax breaks to the rich. Um, our country’s problem is not that the rich don’t have enough money to spend.
3. He wants pro-life judges in the Supreme Court. No. Adding more unwanted babies to our country isn’t the solution, despite what you heard in church.

It’s difficult for me to support a candidate who’s promising take us in precisely the wrong direction. In short, I’m not worried about what’ll happen if McCain fails; I’m worried about what’ll happen if he succeeds.: