• I’ll do it first thing in the morning.
• We can’t do it. We never did it before.
• It looks too difficult so we decided to leave it as-is.
• We can’t change this now. We just did it (wrongly…) some time ago.

I like the following answers:

• I’ll see how we can do it at the fastet way.
• We never did it before but we should try. Let me see how.
• Let’s think about a different way to solve this problem.
• We just did it wrong last time. We need to change it now.

And the most interesting dish just happened to be on the Vegetable Tasting menu. Very interesting indeed.

Hmmm. Delectable meal. Hmmm.

 It was a dish labelled: Chickpea “Croquette” – Sweet Peppers, English Cucumbers, Sesame Seed Yogurt and Eggplant Confit. Now Larousse Gastronomique defines a croquette as a “small savoury or sweet preparation…… Croquettes are shaped into corks, sticks, balls or rechtangles. They are usually coated with breadcrumbs, plunged into very hot oil and fried until they are crisp and golden…”.

So why is a Chickpea “Croquette” interesting to a group of Israelis eating at the French Laundry?

Well, because most people from Mediterranean states have another name for it. We call it “Falafel”. And whatever the disputed origin of this dish - it is THE fast food choice in Israel.

Hmmm. Falafel. (I apologize for the dark picture, I didn't want to disturb the other diners with a flash)

This was a great Falafel, on par with that served at the best Falafel stands in Israel, but for me it was a mere ball of Falafel. At any Falafel stand you’ll get 5-6 balls for about 5 bucks. Was this going to be a McDonald’s like “fast food” experience (and thus the disappointment of the meal), or was this another epitomy of world cuisine where the recognition of quality just happened to be masked by mere abundance, and thus serving as the East Mediterranean equivalent of Joel Robuchon’s famous Mashed Potatoes?

And I was immediately reminded of Dima, an Army buddy who had originally been from one of the Russian cities directly situated on the Caspian sea. In one of our discussions my mention of just how great Sturgeon Caviar can be and how lucky he was to have lived on the shores of the Caspian sea, was greeted with a shrug and the remark that he despised Caviar. Caviar for them was just plain Caviar. They had lots of it. In large jars. Everywhere.  Growing up he got fed up with Caviar. Having left Russia he became surprised at just how revered the stuff actually was by Westerners. In Dima’s perspective, Caviar was farmer food. It was not the stuff you serve at restaurants awarded 3 stars by the prestigious Michelin ”Red Guide”. 

It is a matter of perspective. For me, falafel is fast food. Great fast food, but still fast food. However, there are too few good falafel places in the US (unfortunately in the US, most so called “mediterranean” places serve soggy, microwave reheated falafel balls), so a really good falafel can and should be served at 3 star Michelin rated place. In fact, it seemed right-at-home with the “salsify croquant” and other eclectic, world dishes.

Perhaps, one day, the ancient chickpea and it’s dishes will become popular in the US. At that point it will join the other successful imports from countries such as Germany (e.g. Frankfurter and Hamburger) and France (double fried “French” fries) and Italy (Pizza). It will also join the original American dishes such as Burrito, Taco, Popcorn, Tomatoes, Chocolate, Potatoes, Corn and many more. We look the those staples of fast food and forget just how good they can be when done right. Abundance makes us ignore the greatness of these dishes.   

Returning to falafel: And like everything else around the Mediterranean Sea, falafel is way too old to have a clear history. And as can be expected, falafel has it’s place in providing fodder for the animosities between the inhabitants of the levant. So it seems the Lebanese have decided to explore suing it’s neighbor to the South claiming falafel is somehow a “controlled appelation” like Feta.

Luckily for us, in the odd chance that Lebanon succeeds, we now have a new name for falafel. We can now call it Chickpea “Croquette”. As in “Te’n li bevakasha mana Chickpea “Croquette” be’ pita, im thina, salat, veksat hamutsim. Meh-at zhug. Toda” (Translation from Hebrew: “Please give me a portion of Chickpea “Croquette”  in pita bread with tahini sauce, salad and few pickles. A little hot sauce. Thanks”).

Life is like data security: One simply cannot have a sense of security without backup plans.

Thank you Thomas Keller (owner/chef) for an amazing meal and for saving the Israeli falafel. Now that I know that my favorite fast food is safe I can rest easy and concentrate on computer and data security.

/al

* Not to be a wine bore, the wines we had were excellent: a white Mas De Daumas Gassac 2007 and Nuit St. George 1er Cru Clos de L’Arlot 2004

My inbox today carried a fresh bit of news from CIO magazine. An opinion column by Eric Lundquist, labelled “We need a national CIO, not a CTO” stipulated that CIO are a better match for US national role than a CTO. To paraphrase Lundquist’s message, CIO’s are firmly planted in the business realities of the day, while CTO focus on technologies “looking for uses”. Reminds me of the old adage of “legs firmly planted” vs. “head in the clouds”.

I firmly disagree.

Now I understand that I read CIO magazine and that is why I received this message. I also assume that by the nature of politics, all kinds of special interest groups raise their heads, so I would expect a similarly opinioned “Shepard’s Weekly” would have discussed a similar topic ”We need a national shepard, not a CTO” and that the international association of circus performers would like to propose “We need a national court jester, not a CTO”.

Joking aside, Mr. Lundquist put forth some good arguments. He stipulated that CIO can better manage a project. That CIOs hold the business first and technology second. To quote “Technologists are great at creating new companies, new products and new markets. They are not great at orchestrating lots of conflicting opinions, managing projects or – especially in the political realm – settling on the best possible choice given budget constraints and political realities.”. Mr. Lundquist is correct, but altogether misses the point.

YAPM (Yet another project manager) is NOT what the US needs. In a former life I frequented Crystal City often. There were many project managers there. 25% of them were very good. 50% were mediocre. 25% were awful. But there were lots of them. They crammed public transportation, caused the beltway to jam, and filled the cafeteria’s at lunch. You could not throw a rock without hitting a project manager for some obscure government entity.

The US needs a future. To be driven, its future needs to be based on a seemingly unachievable target. We had been driven like that many times in the past. The US developed the trasistor and the chip (which 40 years later made our lives mobile). The external combustion engine for the torpedo (which crammed power into tiny spaces). Composite materials for space exploration (and which later improved our golf and tennis games). It was a government sponsored program (DARPA) that created the Internet. Not Google, nor Microsoft, nor Facebook. Nor was it rear view mirror preening dudes on Sand Hill road on their way to their ranches outside Bozeman in a well appointed G5. No. It was the government. And for all the wrong reasons. A lot of it was due to the US government chasing the Soviet’s dream of ruling space. How I miss the Soviet’s for that reason (if only for that reason!).

While both the technology industry and the venture capital industry oppose “leapfrog” technologies (they can ”eat your cheese” and thus risky for business and are difficult to predict and thus risky for VCs, respectively), the US government should indeed drive technology forward. But not on a predictable, linear trajectory, as Sand Hill road does with social networking and other “me too” technologies, but in a hockey stick fashion. Sending a man to mars. Cloning sheep. Really analyzing our climate. Teleportation. Whatever.

For that you need a visionary CTO with a set of brass balls. Not a Cisco kowtowing CIO. And to address Mr. Lundquist’s example of the revolving doors for the national cybersecurity czar: Nor does the standard Symantec or McAfee worshipping CISO make a good cybersecurity czar.

And to conclude, Eric Lundquist is, however correct (even if for the wrong reason) in identifying the fallacy in the current dredge of proposed CEOs. None of the proposed CEO’s is a visionary. Sure, they navigated their ships admirably through the murky tempramental waters of the American economy, but none have really shown a vision for disruptive innovation. They have been keen followers, seeking the market scouts and then bearing down upon their cheese with their mighty heft. Cheese snatching should never be confused with vision and innovation. For that you need the likes of J. Craig Venter or even some “down to earth” science fiction writers. People who’d invest even if the future is still murky and the benefits, for now, unclear.

/al

PS – The opinions expressed are my own. Not my employer’s, Barack Obama’s, nor Cisco’s. As an entrepeneur and business man, I like my customers to stick with me. I dislike churn, except my competitor’s churn. I therefore dislike the term disruptive.

But I also know that healthcare for generations X Y and Z, as well as fuel costs, etc. are liable to eat up a vast chunk of our GDP, and the only way to prevent that is to increase our GDP. To increase GDP we need disruptive technologies, techniques and methodologies. I also know that the linear thinking preferred by the bankers that manage industry in general favors baby steps within established markets and does not foster disruptive technology.

Hence the opinion piece.

  Thomas Jefferson’s bottle or a really expensive counterfeit?

What was compelling to me about this book was just how influential was one person throughout the story. The person was famed head (and founder) of Auction Houses Christie’s wine department Michael Broadbent. Wine is a hobby of mine (though my interest pales in comparison to all of the collectors in the book) so having read Decanter sporadically for over ten years I have been familiar with the extent of Mr. Broadbent’s breadth of experience.

Ahh - Here is an expert (and looks the part too)!

As the story unfolds, it becomes exceedingly clear that the assurances provided by the expert drove the confidence in the provenance of the wine. This conviction was upheld even when the leading Thomas Jefferson research organization refused to sanction the bottles, citing historical uncertainties.   

Webster (a dictionary) defined an expert as:

Expert\, n. 1. An expert or experienced person; one instructed by experience; one who has skill, experience, or extensive knowledge in his calling or in any special branch of learning.

2. (Law) (a) A specialist in a particular profession or department of science requiring for its mastery peculiar culture and erudition.

Note: Such specialists may be witnesses in matters as to which ordinary observers could not without such aid form just conclusions, and are liable for negligence in case they injure another from want of proper qualifications or proper care in the exercise of their specialty. (b) A sworn appraiser.

Mr. Broadbent certainly falls under this definition. Among his accolades are a master of wine degree, multiple awards, order national du merit (france, where else) etc. Much more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Broadbent.

So could he, an expert recognized by governments, collectors, universities and thousands of aficionados worldwide, be wrong? The story is far from being conclusive. But it does raise concern.

For our purpose here: Are security experts any better? How do we vet the quality of the expert advice that we receive?

Over the years I have seen and paid many an experts. Few justified their price. I am allergic to expert advice. The best have an uncanny ability to take a really complex subject (almost anything today) and provide a balanced view, providing me with a new viewpoint, a new way to view the problem. The best experts teach. Then, in an order of increasing allergic responses, I get the “Most people do this” (itch), “I have 2-3 options for you” (itch +sneeze), “I recommend you do this” (hives) and the worst being “you must do this” (can’t breathe, need epinephrine pen).

Security is a vast topic. There are many complex topics related to security. Some are very technical. Some are very business oriented. Few people sound even fairly intelligent on both business and technical subjects. Make sure you pick yours wisely. And make sure you qualify and apply their talent in the proper place. Or you may end up with more vinegar than security.

Note: Also, keep in mind that if you do hire a consultant/expert, try to keep an open mind. You want the consultant to be objective. So work to maintain the expert’s objectiveness. The two main distractions I find with consultants are:
1. Leading them to the same conclusion you had (and which didn’t seem to work as required leading you to call the expert)
2. Ignoring their advice or coercing their advice to fit the current thought (ignoring the details)

/al

‘American economy is facing unprecedented challenges‘ added a concerned George W. Bush http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425261,00.html

“The Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, will be granted unprecedented authority in the financial bailout plan” http://www.lockergnome.com/forsythe/2008/09/29/unprecedented-authority-granted-to-henry-paulson/

In a series of moves culminating overnight, Washington took an unprecedented step into the financial sector in a bid to steady an ailing housing market and ease a global credit crunch, analysts said. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24310593-20142,00.html

Tuesday, Paulson is spearheading an unprecedented global change as the Bush administration point man for the proposed $700 billion bailout of the U.S. financial industry as the economy reels from the credit crisis sparked by the national real estate slump and spiraling mortgage failure rates. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-09-22-paulson-treasury_N.htm

But the $700bn (€480bn, £380bn) bail-out marks an unprecedented test of both the Democratic and Republican leadership in Congress, who are seeking to pass a proposal that they know will be unpopular among voters in an important election year and is opposed for ideological reasons by factions within both political parties. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2c86b58a-89a4-11dd-8371-0000779fd18c.html

Bush: ‘unprecedented challenges‘ call for ‘unprecedented action‘ http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpposted/archive/2008/09/19/bush-unprecedented-challenges-call-for-unprecedented-action.aspx

Why terrifying?
Because after all these exciting ‘unprecedented firsts‘ everything will be ‘precedented seconds’ or, in other words, bland.

Meanwhile, while things are still interesting, have you placed your bets on September Madness?

More important, this document lists some of the penalties and enforcement options that the Feds can use.

Summary of Federal Requirements for Securing Privately Owned IT Systems and Data

Federal policy identifies 18 infrastructure sectors–such as banking and finance, energy, public health and healthcare, and telecommunications–that are critical to the nation’s security, economy, public health, and safety. Because these sectors rely extensively on computerized information systems and electronic data, it is crucial that the security of these systems and data is maintained. Further, because most of these infrastructures are owned by the private sector, it is imperative that public and private entities work together to protect these assets. The federal government uses both voluntary partnerships with private industry and requirements in federal laws, regulations, and mandatory standards to assist in the security of privately owned information technology (IT) systems and data within critical infrastructure sectors. As agreed, our objectives were to (1) identify, for each critical infrastructure sector, the federal laws, regulations, and mandatory standards that pertain to securing that sector’s privately owned IT systems and data and (2) identify enforcement mechanisms for each of the above laws, regulations, and mandatory standards.

There are at least 34 federal laws, regulations, and mandatory standards that pertain to securing privately owned IT systems and data in our nation’s critical infrastructure sectors. Of the 34, 1 is a law, 25 are regulations, and 8 are mandatory standards. These requirements pertain to 10 of the 18 critical infrastructure sectors, including the agriculture and food; energy; nuclear reactors, materials, and waste; and transportation systems sectors. Each of the 34 federal legal requirements has at least one enforcement mechanism. These mechanisms include court injunctions, civil monetary penalties, criminal penalties, and administrative actions, such as license revocation and suspension. Typically, these mechanisms are what agencies use to enforce requirements in general, and are not necessarily specific to the requirements for securing privately owned IT systems and data.

Sarah Palin, a libertarian and hockey mom from the fast-growing suburbs of Anchorage, began her political career — as an appointed member of the state’s Oil and Gas Commission — by hacking into the computer of another commissioner, Randy Ruedrich, chairman of the Alaska Republican Party. Palin was seeking the evidence that she would eventually use to charge him with an improper relationship with lobbyists. (Ruedrich would later settle state ethics charges against him by paying a $12,000 fine.)

Wired clears Sarah and explained that she was performing this act as part of her duty as chairwoman of the Oil and Gas Commission and its ethics supervisor.

We’ve seen hackers transformed, but we never had one (correct me if I’m wrong) changed into a VP of America candidate.

Sarah Palin holds a salmon

Image source:http://www.alaskaseafood.org/industry/enews/092607govpalinfish.jpg