Working Up

by Dwayne Phillips

If someone could overcome the scientific and logical barriers to backdoors to encryption systems, they would still face one of trusting liars.

Many of our elected representatives want our technology companies to build encryption systems with “backdoors.” (Here is a link to one story of such.) These magical backdoors would permit the technology company to read our encrypted mail and other such private conversations. Our elected representatives don’t seem to understand that if there is way to unencrypt a message, people will find that way and do nefarious deeds.

If we could overcome the scientific and logical barriers to such encryption backdoors, there is a greater issue. The fundamental factor in encrypting message is that the technology company tells customers that the encryption is good. This means that a person must have the key to read the message. Since no one has a key, the conversation is private.

(1) The technology company is telling customers, “No one can read your message.”

The technology company, however, has a backdoor (in our magical legislated world).

(2) The technology company is telling the government, “We can read everyone’s message.”

A brief consideration of (1) and (2) shows that the technology company is lying to its customers. Hence, the technology company is a known L I A R.

Fast forward a day or two, and our government charges someone with a crime and comes to court to present evidence found in that ne’er-do-well person’s messages. The conversation goes something like…

Prosecutor: We have obtained evidence proving this ne’er-do-well is guilty.

Judge: How did you get this evidence?

Prosecutor: We obtained it via our friendly technology company and their magical backdoor.

Judge: So your case is based on the word of the technology company.

Prosecutor: Yes.

Judge: But from items (1) and (2), we know that the technology company is a L I A R.

Prosecutor: pause

Judge: You want to convict an accused ne’er-do-well on evidence supplied by a L I A R.

Prosecutor: longer pause

Judge: Good bye.

As a side note, the government of China has recently acted in an unprecedented transparent manner with regards to encrypted messages. They require all technology companies to give them copies of all the keys. There are no backdoors and there is no lying by the technology companies. Everyone in China knows that the government can read their mail all the time.

by Dwayne Phillips

Government-operated schools are failing in the US. The plutocrats are returning to the 1700s by creating their own schools just for their own kids.

Government-operated schools are failing us. I don’t need to link to stories about that. There are, of course, exceptions here and there.

One of the best indicators of failure is that the plutocrats are creating alternatives. This post describes AltSchools (AltSchools website). AltSchools sounds wonderful. Great, flexible teachers and technology tailor the lessons to each child. Wow!

Of course AltSchools doesn’t scale to the nation or a state or even a single school district anywhere in America. That, however, doesn’t really matter to its super-wealthy founders. These schools are created by the rich for the children of the rich. These schools will work for them.

This is how the rich educated their children in the 1700s and into much of the 1800s. They constructed a building, hired a teacher (one, single teacher), and their children learned from that one teacher. Reading was taught at age four; children were ready for college when they were sixteen. The system worked great for those people. The children of the working class started working in factories when they were old enough to do repetitive, boring tasks.

Time will show us if the plutocrats will be able to withhold their money from the government-operated schools and withdraw completely from the entire mess.

by Dwayne Phillips

Not sure what you want to say? Start writing about the topic, and you will probably learn what it is you want to say.

William Zinsser once wrote a book with the same title as this blog post. That book is better than this blog post, and the two have slightly different topics. Zinsser’s book was about the value of writing across the curriculum programs for colleges. Writing about a topic—explaining in print—is a good aid to learning that topic.

This post is about learning what you want to write when you start writing. The general topic is at hand, but you don’t quite know the specifics of what you want to convey. So…

Just start typing. If you have to, type

blah blah blah

I mean that. Literally type the word “blah” three or four or 33 times.

If you know one sentence that you want to write, type that one sentence first.

If you know some general outline like “beginning, middle, end” or “what, so what, now what” or even “paragraph 1, paragraph 2, summary,” type that general outline.

These somewhat meaningless words start the fingers moving and the brain rolling. The last part about the brain is of great importance. Once the brain clicks the rest flows.

We use word processors these days. It is pretty easy to go back and delete those first things. D O N ‘ T delete them while you are typing real words. That is merely a form of procrastination. Delete them after you’ve typed all the words you want to type.

by Dwayne Phillips

People ask questions about what they understand. Their questions tell you about them, not about the stated subject of the conversation.

A few years ago in the last century, I once interviewed for an engineering job. At the time I had a BS, MS, and PhD in Electrical and Computer Engineering. The first question the interviewer asked was,

Can you type?

After regaining my composure, I said, “Yes.”

The next question was,

How many words a minute?

I didn’t know the answer to that one as I had never done one of those tests.

The interviewer never asked any questions about engineering or anything related to the job. One possibility was that I had the credentials, so there was no reason to ask technical questions. Wrong.

The reason the interviewer asked about typing skills was because that is all the interviewer knew about the job. The engineer would have to do their own typing.

Lesson Learned: People ask you questions about the things they understand. Sometimes those questions are relevant, sometimes not.

by Dwayne Phillips

Questioned if I noticed little patterns in the data, I asked back about little tools.

Several decades ago, I interviewed for a job in some sort of computer center that processed some sort of data. The descriptions were intentionally vague because the person speaking to me felt that it was all too classified to discuss. I thought that odd as I had all the necessary security clearances, but his “yes, it is classified to your level but we are more secretive than everyone else, i.e., superior to everyone else” attitude was common. But I digress…

Eventually, the person reached what he felt was the key question:

How are your analytical skills?

Again, I thought this odd as I was coming directly from grad school where I had done PhD research on programming computers to analyze data auto-magically. Therefore, I asked for clarification on his question.

“Well,” he replied, “if you are looking at a page full of numbers, can you see decimal 32? That’s the space character. Can you see carriage return-line feed decimal representations?”

I thought this question odd as well as it was child’s play to write a program that “looked for” spaces, carriage returns, line feeds, and just about anything else you wanted to “look for.” These little computer programs wouldn’t fatigue and fail. The “little computer programs that wouldn’t fail” was the wrong answer as the person didn’t hire me. I suppose my “analytical skills” weren’t good enough for him.

It was several decades before I got a feel for “analytical skills.” I suppose the basic questions are:

Do you notice things that are noticeable?

Do you notice the things worth noticing?

My answer now is, “Yes. I am quite good at noticing things that most people don’t notice.”

An addendum that I don’t say aloud is, “I am even good at noticing silly questions that people like you ask.”

Another unspoken addendum is, “I even notice when people like you cannot ask the questions you want answered so you ask other questions instead.”

Since no one will hire me for any type of analytical job, I suppose I don’t have good analytical questions. I’ll have to continue my sideline career analyzing just about everything worth analyzing. I find there to be too many such things to analyze in one lifetime.

by Dwayne Phillips

Some of the more productive things to do in a group of persons is to talk through scenarios. No decisions, just learning.

I am a decider. I think the term from Myer-Briggs is “Judging.” Present the alternatives, decide, move on. That is what I do.

There are times, however, when it is good to talk through scenarios with a (small) group of persons. Synergy is the descriptor if such happens with a good result. If the result is bad, we have a lot of descriptors for those occasions with “just plain stupid” being one of the most used.

Paramount step zero:

Always precede non-decision scenarios discussions with something like, “We aren’t deciding what to do. We are talking through different possibilities to learn what we can learn. Decision will come at another time.”

Allow me to copy and paste the above to emphasize it:

A L W A Y S precede non-decision scenarios discussions with something like, “We aren’t deciding what to do. We are talking through different possibilities to learn what we can learn. Decision will come at another time.”

People who know me know my leanings toward decisions. They are surprised to find that sometimes I want to talk and learn instead of deciding. They assume that anything I say is a decision.

If you are “in charge” in any capacity, those around you will assume the same about anything you say. Jump up and down, shoot fireworks, write on the white board, or do anything else it takes to ensure they know that you are talking and listening (or is it listening and listening?) to learn.

The results are usually pretty good.

by Dwayne Phillips

Thanks to recent legislation concerning health insurance, we have a new way to calculate take-home pay.

In the old days, whenever that was, take-home pay was calculated as:

income minus taxes

Now, however, take-home pay is calculated as:

income minus taxes minus what you pay for health insurance in your job based on the percentage that your employer pays and complies with recent legislation and the plans they choose to offer if they don’t deny insurance and pay a penalty because that is all cheaper

Seems a bit more complicated, doesn’t it?

Health insurance is the most complicated task Americans tackle these days. It is even more complex than income tax.

by Dwayne Phillips

Systems analysis is merely a few basic skills in what a person notices.

From time to time I analyze systems. I analyze all types of systems, and most of those systems are usually not recognized as systems. I suppose I have a broad idea of what comprises a system.

A fundamental skill I find in systems analysis is the ability to zoom in and back out as I notice the system.

(1) Zooming in examines the details of the system.

(2) Backing out considers the greater context of the system.

In considering (2), I wonder if the system fits in its universe. Will it play the role it is hoped to play?

In examining (1), I scrutinize if the parts of the system will sum to a system that works.

Zooming in and backing out aren’t difficult—at least they don’t seem difficult to me. They must be difficult because persons who can analyze systems seem to be rare.

by Dwayne Phillips

Persons in special positions have few people who will talk to them. The result is a problem.

Leaders occupy special positions. One result is that persons view the leader as a thing: a Vice President of such-and-such, a Director of this-or-that. Persons speak to things in a different and usually less-helpful manner than they speak to other persons.

If you are in a position of power, real or imagined, people treat you differently.

That is life, get over it

If you are in such a position, spending time with other people is more important than ever. Don’t think you have the time? Get over that one, too.

If you are in such a position, you need the perspective of others more than ever.

Some persons are smarter than everyone else. Their lone idea is better than all the ideas created by the brain-storming masses. The trouble is, you aren’t one of those smarter persons and neither am I. Get over that one, too. Admit the frailties of reality; admit the isolation of leadership. Make the time and space to talk with persons.

by Dwayne Phillips

We never have time to to it right, but we always have time to do it again.

The summary above is an old cliche or common sense or something. The trouble with common sense is that it is usually common sense and rarely common practice. (Is that another cliche?)

Gosh. How many times do we have to go through this before we learn?

I think the problem is that Americans are forgiving. Is that a virtue or a problem? In the realm of doing it wrong, then right, I find it to be a problem. Forgiveness rendered upon apology comes to easily. Apologizing for doing something wrong doesn’t have enough pain. The apology is almost always followed with, “try again.”

So, we apologize and try again. We just didn’t have enough time to do it right the first time. Hence, we take lots of time to apologize, seek forgiveness, and try again.

Perhaps one day. Then again, this blog post wasn’t written so well. I didn’t have time. Please forgive me. Next time I will think more before writing and do better. Please.