Tag Archives: philosophy

Love cannot be halved!

“Where it becomes threatening is when [partners] think love implies exclusivity,” says Veaux. “It’s the starvation model of love. That is, if you love two, each gets half of the love. That’s not true. Every single person is absolutely unique. Because of that, it means my partners can never be replaced.” (from The Truth About Open Marriage)

I always felt so daft trying to explain to people that you can love more without giving less love to each loved. It is such a simple concept to me but it seems to baffle infinitely others. Look, I’ll tell you in technical terms :) Love is a very special resource. Love can be applied in any quantities and to as many targets as you want. It does not diminish or spread thinly if you spread it over more people. In fact, it appears to become stronger and larger as you spend more of it. I know that other resources are mostly not like that. That’s why love is special. So go ahead and have that second kid – you will not love the first one less for that!… -->

continue reading →

Object-Oriented … software world

Something is definitely wrong with the object-oriented software design. Did you notice? I forces the hierarchical view of, basically, anything onto the designer. This is equally a property of the languages and the design methods. If you make object-oriented design or you write object-oriented software you equally end up with a hierarchical system.

What’s wrong with it? Maybe nothing. It just severely limits the view of the problems that we attempt to resolve with our software. The world is not always hierarchical but we try always to drag it kicking and screaming into our unified model. Sometimes that will fail. Actually, given the variety of problems, probably even most of the time it will fail.

And the important thing is that we do not notice this anymore. We think in limiting ways. We are used to the model. We assume the model of object-oriented design will fit anything and everything without ever thinking about it. Unconsciously, we made the decision to narrow our choices. And that is definitely wrong.… -->

continue reading →

Software Security Philosophy

What is “security”? Well, not in broad sense, that is, but in software security? What does it mean: to develop secure software? What do we understand to fall into the realm of software security?

I tell you what I mean when I say “software security”. For me, the software security means to bring the intent of the original designer to the customer.

This is very simple. The designer had some idea in mind when designing the software. He had some intention for the software to function in a particular way. That mental picture is translated into design, brought over into development, translated into source code, translated into binary, delivered, installed and configured at the csutomer’s site. And our task is to ensure that what operates now at the customer’s site reflects exactly what developer had in mind. If it does not – we have a breach of security.

I know that this is a very broad definition and it encompasses many areas traditionally thought to be … -->

continue reading →

Assembly points au pair

I have a thought about those positions of the assembly point that pertain to the “norm” of the society. The common thinking is that there is one. I think it is not. I think there is a set of positions close to each other that form a sort of an “area” accepted and reinforced by the society.

When I meet someone and start an interaction, that person tries to reinforce his position of the assembly point in me, so that perhaps we have a better understanding. That is, I think, a natural mechanism. That is, natural to this particular organization of this particular society. Anyway, I can also reinforce my position of the assembly point and force it onto the other. Some positions are more easily forced than others.

What happens when two people live together is that they have to agree on a common position of the assembly point. Otherwise they would have to oscillate all the time between their own and that of the partner. Or keep their own and forget about deep bonds. Unproductive. So, they have a choice of agreeing on following either of the partner’s position or picking a totally new position for both. If they are lucky they both will feel comfortable with this common position and then they accept it and reinforce it. The position becomes solidified and it is much easier to keep it when there are two of you. Or more, counting the kids.

Any person with half a brain should come to this selection of the position of the assembly point as to the single most important decision in his life. This is the decision that will govern his life from that moment on. The position of the assembly point is the state of your consciousness, the state of your mind, and that results in the tasks, targets, restrictions that you set for yourself. With one swipe of the pen you sign a contract with yourself and your partner that will govern the rest of your life. This decision has to be taken very seriously and certainly with some critical analysis and meditation. And the partner must follow.… -->

continue reading →

Urgent and important… not!

How often do we come across things that are extremely urgent and painfully important? Some people more often than others but pretty often I would say. What is the problem? It is difficult to make well reasoned decisions under that kind of duress.

However, that situation is totally artificial. In the “real world” out there, the world outside the purely human territory, the things are never urgent nor important. They are immediate. And immediate is quite different from urgent if you dare to think about it.

So the “urgent” and the “important” are inventions of the purely human world. And being the way they are, artificial constructs, they possess an interesting quality: they are not compatible with each other. That is, things can be either urgent or important but never both at the same time! The combination of the two is an artificial trap to lock your attention and force to make mistakes under duress. In a word, it is a trap.

Next time someone tries to trap you with “urgent and important” – think about it. It is not.… -->

continue reading →