My path, your path?

It exists inside. The gateless gate. It is already there. There is no path. It begins and ends within. There is no formal path. Some need training. Some need challenges. Some need to allow themselves to see further only to see closer. Whether lay or not is not the issue. Practice is all around. Formality can assist, can speed the path. It however is a pathless path, a gateless gate. We have already stepped through. The point at which one embarks on the journey is when they have both left and arrived. You get what I'm saying? YOU are awake already, once you question and ask if you are awake! The next step is only the depth, path and continuing effort or style. Sometimes thinking too much is destructive. Sometimes not thinking at all is destructive. To find the middle way is to have walked the edge and reached many extremes. Extremes cannot be found in comfortable places. The most uncomfortable places are in the mind, not in a geographical space, place or time.

My 0.02 brain cycles worth... my subjectivity is built from "our" objectivity and your subjectivity ;)

Simplicity

What is it that defines us?
What is the most important thing to us in our short existence?
What is the thing we should cherish most in our lives?
What do we have from birth to death and has the power to colour our lives for better or for worse?

Easy.... our minds, our consciousness...

So why do we neglect something so deeply important to our quality of life and base existence?

Surely we need to engage in some form of mind training or develop more tools to address and deal with our perception of reality?

Cmon' guys, why allow a crazy world to passively pollute our minds unnecessarily, why not focus a little bit on awareness and mindfulness. Start by observing yourself. Then take the time to quietly observe others without judging. Remove yourself from your preconceptions and look with clearer neutral eyes. Perceive from a neutral standpoint and quieten your monkey mind for a moment.

A good, easily digested, palatable first step in this modern age are talks online by people like Mattheau Ricard http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=matthieu+ricard+happiness&search_type= and Anthony De Mello.
http://goldfusion.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/tony-de-mello-videos-online/

3 IS the magic number - Mobile, Mesh, Multicast

Real time feedback loops to help the world.

a) have a read of this, link from Wade(bit long but worth it):
http://www.cityofsound.com/blog/2008/02/the-street-as-p.html

b) watch this from a Multimedia perspective to round out the concepts
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/epic

c) as I'm reading Arthur C Clarke's "The Light of Other Days" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light_of_Other_Days

it hammers the point home. Transparency. The multitude of data already out there. Our re-interpretation thereof. Intent. Information management and the integrity thereof. Interdependence demonstrated. Wake up. Welcome to the future. See the MESH. Feel the quantum foam ;)

More xkcd.com and yes am still alive and kicking

Spiritual IT Security.

Some duality, some overlap, some scientific methodologies.

Monitor and surveil both your IT and personal "outputs" i.e. what you or the network or system generates and redistributes in to the interconnectedness; be it social, personal or techincal.

*Then*, and only then, base your controls, processes, methodologies and frameworks or risk assessments upon empirical evidence.

No wonder it's so hard to listen to a system or network, when we don't even listen to ourselves.

Monitor the outputs. Control the inputs. Refine the processes.

Tell it like it is boys

Spotlight: Cyber Terrorism Roundtable with Sami Saydjari, Marcus Ranum, Dean Turner and hosted by Nicole Greco. Discussion on cyber warfare, cyber terrorism, cyber defense with interviews by Mikko Hypponen and Andrew Colarik. Key issues on Estonia, China, Russia. Aired in November 2007.

And here is a snippet from one of Gunnar Peterson's posts I heartily agree with:

"If you want to make a bunch of acquisitions, outsource a ton of work, send a bunch of projects overseas, have multiple reorgs, connect up a ton of historically siloed systems, hook everything to the web and THEN GO ON A QUEST FOR CERTAINTY - well good luck to ya, mate. I think your time is better spent finding ways to lower your risk of permanent loss than trying (pretending) to achieve some semblance of certainty in that environment." From http://1raindrop.typepad.com/1_raindrop/2007/11/dhandho-infosec.html

Note on Virtualisation and RANT

Virtualisation lowers certain overheads and increases flexibility and modularity.

Virtualisation does not address SECURITY until whole system images are checksum'ed and rotated in a defensive time-based security method/model, including the abstraction layer and hardware playing a key role in defenses as well.

I have mused over this before here http://bsdosx.blogspot.com/2006/11/machine-and-service-integrity.html

As Theo De Raadt mentions over at http://kerneltrap.org/OpenBSD/Virtualization_Security;

"x86 virtualization is about basically placing another nearly full kernel, full of new bugs, on top of a nasty x86 architecture which barely has correct page protection. Then running your operating system on the other side of this brand new pile of shit. You are absolutely deluded, if not stupid, if you think that a worldwide collection of software engineers who can't write operating systems or applications without security holes, can then turn around and suddenly write virtualization layers without security holes."

On a side note, I'd like to repeat the below, courtesy of me;
"Everything will be a server, client and fast cache. The P2P model will win. It's the only thing that can. More "zeroconf" is needed. There seems to be no margins for error, tolerances or defensive programming anymore. What gives someone the right to call themselves a software "engineer" anyway?"

I'll post shortly on my new idea regarding regulation of business IT and an IT TAX to force enumeration, visibility and accountability.

Some time soon, I'll get back to IT security. Currently I am working in other areas and departments and re-learning about the human side and realities in which we all operate. The disconnect is massive. The cowboys operating in IT Security are very disheartening to me. The idiots and "old-guard" on both sides of the fence worry me. So many people have no clue of the complexity, and will never grok it. We need to simplify and innovate.

We need to regulate our "industry" somewhat without stifling innovation. Perhaps the Universities should take some of the blame in turning out ignorant coders who don't understand networking or security.... perhaps, perhaps not..... it remains to be seen. I can only talk from experience, and my experience in Uni taught me nothing; other than I hated coding and ignored my networking lecturer. I got a degree in Computer Science, I crammed before all exams, some days not even knowing what exam was on that day until I asked my colleagues. All Comp Sci did was pique my curiosity, I might as well have stayed in the Uni bar *all* the time. This might just be my personal version of "learning" at Uni (I like to call it regurgitation), but 99% of my tech was learned on the job ;)

How did I become so bitter and twisted? Am I really? Surely I am an optimist at heart?

Once we see the COMPLEXITY we harken after SIMPLICITY in all matters in life.

Damn straight... but sorta' bendy

From Drazen comes this snippet of a quote from Computerworld interviewing the legendary Frank Abagnale of 'Catch me if you can?' fame:

"Computerworld Staff: Is there anything we can do to make illicit computer-related activity a less attractive pursuit for young people?

Frank Abagnale: There are about four reasons why we have crime to begin with. One of them is, of course, that we live in an extremely unethical society. We live in a society that doesn't teach ethics at home, a society that doesn't teach ethics in school because the teacher would be accused of teaching morality. We live in a society where you can't find a four-year college course on ethics. I have three sons who went through graduate school; only the one who went to law school had a course even offered on ethics. So today you have a lot of young people who have no character, no ethics and they find no problem in defrauding somebody or stealing from somebody or cheating somebody. Until we change that, crime is just going to get easier, faster, more global, harder to detect.

Computerworld Staff: Any thoughts on how we can bring that change about?

Frank Abagnale: I think you need to bring character and ethics back into schools, and you certainly need to bring it back into colleges and universities as part of a curriculum. Only about half of Fortune 500 companies even have a code of ethics or code of conduct. The ones that do have one publish it every five years on an inside page of their annual report to appease their shareholders. So, obviously, there's no big effort out there to bring about that change. Rutgers just finished a five-year study that found that 56% of MBA students cheated.

There are really no con men anymore like there were in my day, because you really don't have to associate with anyone. You don't have to be well dressed and well groomed and well spoken. Everything's done on a computer; there are no witnesses. So even if you know who's doing it, you probably don't have the ability to go capture them. Chances are you have no idea what they look like; they can sit in their pajamas and commit all these crimes."

There seems no mandatory or enforceable cost anymore for performing an act that is detrimental to the health of the net or its component systems. Our super-organism(internet) is being eaten from the inside out while we don't realise nor appreciate the symbiotic relationship we have created between man and machines.

Who is held accountable and how, when we can't even agree upon nor incentivise actions to help protect our immediate and more fragile internetwork, the green planet we call home. I had a few ideas here: Some cud, but I still wonder about the fact that there are too many humans, just ask Mr. Malthus!

Process begets process...

"Time was when we could just re-cable the server ourself, and not have to pay some idiot $100 to move the thing", was heard across the room today in a large clients office, and oh did it ring true... however as organisations mature -> processes place a framework around work carried out and services are measured via uptime and other SLA's....no more adhocracy, only at the wiki level!

Measure.. hmmmmm.. that's a funny word in IT isn't it... 'MEASURE','MEASURE'...M-E-A-S-U-R-E

# measurement: the act or process of assigning numbers to phenomena according to a rule; "the measurements were carefully done"; "his mental ...
# standard: a basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated; "the schools comply with federal standards"; "they set the measure for all subsequent work"
# how much there is of something that you can quantify
# any maneuver made as part of progress toward a goal; "the situation called for strong measures"; "the police took steps to reduce crime"
# bill: a statute in draft before it becomes law; "they held a public hearing on the bill"
# determine the measurements of something or somebody, take measurements of; "Measure the length of the wall"
# meter: (prosody) the accent in a metrical foot of verse
# quantify: express as a number or measure or quantity; "Can you quantify your results?"
# have certain dimensions; "This table surfaces measures 20inches by 36 inches"
# musical notation for a repeating pattern of musical beats; "the orchestra omitted the last twelve bars of the song"
# measuring stick: measuring instrument having a sequence of marks at regular intervals; used as a reference in making measurements
# place a value on; judge the worth of something; "I will have the family jewels appraised by a professional"

So I text myself sometimes when particular thoughts cross my mind;

"First you need visibility/surveillance, and then accountability of packets, flows and data objects, then comes valuation of said data objects, services and supporting infrastructure... now we can have meaningful conversations about risk and IT security"

Hmmmmm... sampling, measuring, identifying.... what's your IT footprint? What's the last IT related report you looked at, what did it measure and what did it really say about your organisational IT footprint?

Some fun...

Was surfing here, http://xkcd.com/ and added it to my RSS feeds http://syndicated.livejournal.com/xkcd_rss/profile ;) Actually came from the FUNSEC mailing list but my mate Wade had sent me one of the comics before.

'Meta' or 'Metta' security....

Basically I'll let Mr. Bejtlich summarise from his 'Three Wise Men' of security, practically all there needs to be currently known about the state of play in and around the IT Security Industry and IT Security Risk areas. On the shoulders of giants and all that!

http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/search?q=three+wise+men

Dan and Marcus are definetly on my list, though I haven't really read this Ross Anderson guy, however Richard himself is on my list, along with Rob Thomas from Team Cymru.

On another note, to save you signing (or reading about signing up) for tonnes of bullshit, please find below a great 'Point:CounterPoint' from Bruce Schneier and Marcus Ranum. DRM/Copyright.. nah...

Erm, hopefully without getting in trouble and making others spend 5 minutes signing up to read the below, here it is in all it's glory.

Bruce Schneier

Point: To the average home user, security is an intractable problem. Microsoft has made great strides improving the security of its operating system out of the box, but there is still a dizzying array of rules, options and choices users have to make. How should they configure their antivirus program? What sort of backup regime should they employ? What are the best settings for their wireless network? And so on.

How is it possible that we in the computer industry have foisted on people a product that is so difficult to use securely, it requires so many add-ons? It's even worse than that. We have sold the average computer user a bill of goods. In our race for an ever-increasing market, we have convinced every person that he needs a computer. We have provided application after application--IM, peer-to-peer file sharing, eBay, Facebook--to make computers useful and enjoyable to the home user. At the same time, we've made them so difficult to maintain that only a trained sysadmin can.

And we wonder why home users have such problems with their buggy systems, why they can't seem to do the simplest administrative tasks, and why their computers aren't secure. They're not secure because home users don't know how to secure them.

At work, I have an IT department I can call if I have a problem. They filter my Net connection so I don't see spam, and most attacks are blocked before they get to my computer. They tell me which updates to install. And they're available to help me recover if something happens to my system. Home users have none of this support.

This problem isn't going to go away as computers get smarter and users get savvier. Next-generation computers will be vulnerable to different attacks, and next-generation attack tools will fool users in different ways.

This isn't simply an academic problem; it's a public health problem. In the hyperconnected world of the Internet, everyone's security depends in part on everyone else's. As long as there are insecure computers out there, hackers will use them to eavesdrop on network traffic, send spam and attack other computers. We are more secure if those home computers attached to the Internet via DSL or cable modems are protected against attack. The only question is, what's the best way to get there?

I wonder about those who say "educate the users." Have they tried? It's unrealistic to expect home users to be responsible for their security. They don't have the expertise, and aren't going to learn. And it's not just user actions we need to watch; computers are insecure out of the box.

The only way to solve this problem is to force the ISPs to become IT departments. There's no reason they can't provide home users with the same level of support my IT department provides me, or a "clean pipe" service to the home. Yes, it will cost more, and require changes in the law to make this mandatory. But what's the alternative?

In 1991, Walter S. Mossberg debuted his Personal Technology column in The Wall Street Journal with the words, "Personal computers are just too hard to use, and it isn't your fault." Sixteen years later, it's doubly true when it comes to computer security.

If we want home users to be secure, we need to design computers and networks that are secure out of the box, without any work by the end users. There isn't any other way.


Marcus Ranum

CounterPoint: I'm sure that many of the things Bruce points out about computers at some point or another applied to automobiles or any other technologically interesting and complex device. There was a time, in the early days of the automobile, when any idiot could go 75 miles per hour with no requirement for training, safety equipment or sobriety. As Bruce says, eventually that kind of thing becomes a public health issue and then society begins to enforce constraints. Question is, do society's constraints make a difference, or does time cure these ills?

When I was growing up, there was just one kid in my entire high school who had a computer. Today, it seems every kid 8 and older is a Windows sysadmin. And some of them are better at it than you might expect. That's because they grew up doing it, and the human brain appears to be able to integrate amazingly complex tasks as "normal" as long as we're introduced to them early enough. Bruce, I think the problem is not with all the home users--I think it's with the adult home users.

I see the generational distinction most clearly with my parents. My father still writes using an old Underwood typewriter. My mom has adopted a computer, but she's exactly the kind of user you're worried about--she clicks "OK" on anything, and seems to be trying to collect spyware. Thinking about it, most of the generation before mine is pretty uncomfortable with computers, and I was one of the early experimental kids who grew up networking on the ARPANET and BITNET. Does that have something to do with the fact that I have always had a good grasp of the concepts of transitive trust and distributed systems? I think it does; I think the analytic parts of our brains, if given a task early on, are able to make sense out of all kinds of insanely complicated things.

"Educate the user" is an old mantra in security, and its uselessness is one place where Bruce and I agree. I think, though, that building simpler systems is not the answer. The answer is to let the current user population die off! It's going to happen, anyhow.

Forcing ISPs to support home users, or re-engineering computers to be simple enough for us old coots to understand, completely misses the point. At the point where enough customers want simple-to-use Internet terminals, a market will develop. Arguably, it already has--witness the evolution of handheld PDAs and centralized "no spam" managed free email services. The complexity of the Internet and software administration is getting absorbed into the IT infrastructure of Google, Yahoo and MySpace.

I'm not demanding that Detroit make cars that are simple enough for me to repair; I choose to buy vehicles that are usually reliable, and I outsource the repair work to the mechanic up the street. Perhaps what we're doing is shifting complexity around in our lives: I never learned how to fix a transmission, but I can still scratch-bake a firewall with a custom filtering reverse Web proxy in a weekend. I've seen home users who can't manage a Windows XP upgrade, but who can successfully instrument-land a jet fighter.

Bruce, when you and I are old coots sitting on the porch, you'll be amazed to see the current generation of kids nimbly navigating their way through software and system configurations that completely blow our minds. Relax; it's just what progress looks like from our side of the hill. Will the future be more secure? It'll be just as insecure as it possibly can, while still continuing to function. Just like it is today.

Non-separability and thoughts in the ether

I've been banging on about this for ages:

http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/2007/09/microsofts-anemone-project.html

"Reclaiming Network-wide Visibility Using Ubiquitous Endsystem Monitors."

5 years from now!

Stuff to think about:

- PCI DSS(Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards) QSA (Qualified Security Assessor)
- NetFlow/IPFIX (Crannog/NetScout/Arbor) as networking/security is increasingly about context/relationships/visibility.
- Normalization/baselining tools a la PeakFlow, SourceFireRNA
- Visualisation and Modelling (Opnet)
- IDS/Rootkit detectors for virtualised environments.(Watch this space... BluePill/F-Secure )
- Security Metrics(emerging/huge future as currently un-quantifiable!) and audit via Skybox / Algosec
- Digital Signage, MCAST/P2P distribution JOOST style.
- Infrastructure/solutions to facilitate SoaS(Software-as-a-Service) e.g. Salesforce/Joomla/Atlassian(Confluence)/GoogleApps/Zimbra/Zoho, virtual offices whereby nodes act as client/cache/server and don't backup locally but more to Web Services akin to AWS(Amazon Web Services),S3,EC2. Managing a virtual customer's DNS and aggregating management of their services has potential?
- Mobile and mobility gateways, 3G(HSDPAv2) vs WiMAx back-haul for project offices/satellite sites and SME/SOHO
- Location based services and GIS(Geographic Information Systems)
- Identity Management via OpenID/Cardspace(InfoCard) hosted services.
- Thin clients (Neoware)
- Fixed Mobile Convergence(Still a while off!) Engin / MyNetPhone / SIP/IAX/Asterisk

Web 2.0+ has as many solutions as problems, a new middleware-tier('internet-service-bus' if you will!). Businesses will increasingly want more audit/control and lower operational overheads and greater security via thin-client computing utilizing the browser as the platform of choice, also generating secure local host based flows for compliance and reporting. Thin clients and infinitely scalable distributed computing/storage is on the way. If you don't run the data-centre processing/storage nor have the power, you'll want to control the gateways/reporting/auditing/caching and own/re-sell/manage as much of the local infrastructure/bus and back-haul as possible!

Regulatory and compliance requirements will always have a perceivable effect, especially in the financial services sector.. but with breach disclosure laws on the way in Oz the security -> landscape/consulting/auditing/accountability/visibility aspects of networks/services are not going to allow organizations to keep their heads in the sand for much longer.

IT Security; hobby, hindrance or hegemony?

Shake it up Wednesday

Props to Wade from an old email...

Security bingo from funsec

http://www.crypto.com/bingo/pr

Monitoring and visibility, old'y but a...

From :http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0107.html#5

"Without monitoring, you're vulnerable until your security is perfect. If you monitor first, you're immediately more secure."

"Monitoring should be the first step in any network security plan. It's something that a network administrator can do today to provide immediate value. Policy analysis and vulnerability assessments take time, and don't actually improve a network's security until they're acted upon."

"It's specious logic for a CIO to decide to wait until his network is stable, he understands his security, and all his patches are up to date. It'll never happen. Monitoring's best value is when a network is in flux -- as all large networks always are -- due to internal and external factors."

From the ensuing comments:

"However if you insist on war as the metaphor, here are two thoughts along those lines. First, the war, if that is what it is, is surely a guerrilla war. The entities being attacked are large, visible, slow-moving and part of the power structure. They have much greater resources than the attackers, but no effective way to apply them. The attackers and few, dispersed, hidden and have few resources. But what they have is the free choice of when and where to attack.

To fight guerrillas it is necessary to a) identify them; i.e., distinguish them from civilians and b) control some resource that is essential to their survival. Given the Internet as it exists today, I don't see much hope of doing either of these. If the authorities decide to employ broadly targeted, draconian measures, they will find like the British in America and the Americans in Vietnam, that the collateral effects on innocent civilians are simply unacceptable.

My second thought about hacking as war is that the situation can be compared to that in many wars, but most especially the American Civil War. While some people were busy fighting and dying, war profiteers made fortunes selling rotten food, unserviceable uniforms and non-working weapons. With a market full of snake oil security, bug-ridden applications and vendors who are more interested in suing or prosecuting people who reveal security problems than fixing them, this seems like the kind of war we are in."

Nice segway to this post by Bejtlich re: Schneier and Cyberwar;
http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/2007/04/taking-fight-to-enemy-revisited.html

ROI or NPV?

If you understand the acronyms above, maybe have a trek over here : http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/000939.html

otherwise you may want to move quickly on :)

Time to think the unthinkable

So the problem as quoted many times before is, "how to demonstrate that
security practices are both working and effective?".

As in most production network and system footprints, the goal posts,
risks and processes are ever moving and changing. How do we measure
security and track a risk management program effectively without making
comparison to some baseline or standard configuration?

The answer is we don't. There isn't any and there never will be for
*your* IT footprint.

So, you ask, what can we measure when trying to prove the unprovable?

The answer lies in making a comparison to something, but to what? Other
organisations perhaps? Too tough it seems, as they don't have nor share
relevant data or reports for obvious reasons. Each IT footprint and
business is built on similar building blocks but is fundamentally
different as the "superorganism" morphs, grows and responds to different
traffic and needs constantly.

What is required is a clone. A sometimes inferior and sometimes superior
clone of the organism. A test subject if you will.

I am not talking about development systems or sub-models of the organism,
but a live fully functional version of the entire entity, which can
assume many states at a whim.

With todays focus on virtualisation and seemingly never ending
processing and storage, surely we could construct a clone of our
business residing all in memory on a single or distributed platform.
This is what we would perform change management upon and measure
against. Think of it, not as a "honey-net", but a "honey-org".

Yeah, yeah, needs X memory and won't be perfect, but better than nothing
and the "honey-org" could be constantly updated from the live management
systems.

With a form of total information awareness we could build a clone of our
systems, nodes and processes - exclusively in software, running on
lower spec hardware perhaps. Here, only time becomes the key factor.

Using something akin to enterprise management systems the information
and images could be gathered to build a clone of our organisation or
enterprise in as much detail as possible which would facilitate a form
of testing that would see us able to demonstrate what would, and does
happen, if certain policies or changes are not enforced.

Three, is the magic number. A production network, a clone network, and
whatever other development or model systems are required.

This would not address physical security in tandem with virtual
security, nor would it be able to fully simulate all users or business
processes, but it is what we are approaching with products like Cisco's new provisioning platforms, Opnet's modeler and risk management via Skybox. The ability to then generate traffic and incidents is also required. SmartBits, IMix, VA and fuzzing till your heart's content including session replay all in one go? Easy huh?

The main problem today is we don't know enough about our environments.
We need to know more. We need to build a fully virtual infrastructure to fully understand our real infrastructure. We may be still quite some
distance away, but in extrapolating the possible futures, this seems to
me to be the only way of demonstrating the "what if" scenarios!

Open up the virtual infrastructure to the net. Offer up your virtual
systems to the bad guys. Transparency is the key both for the bad guys
and the good guys if we really want to make progress. Perhaps.

In theory this is what we pretend to do with "Change Management" today, though the results are more often than not guessed at, divined from experience and faith and are totally subjective.

Yes it is time to slow down the rate of change, make a copy, offer it up
or strip bits away from our clone to see where and how the security
dollars are really being spent. Gimme' a clone, drop it in the lions
den, and I'll give you, at least in part your ROSI(Return on Security
Investment).

Zen and back again...

What follows are some "modern" haiku (interspersed with images *to come*) which are based partially on my notes over the past few months, and also, to a degree upon, some of my experiences in this wonderfully calm and quaint Rinzai Zen Temple outside of Kyoto.

Traditional or formal haiku should not only have a 5-7-5 syllable count, but should be composed during a pure moment of Zen which reflects and invokes an empathic experience in the reader. Also present should be a characteristic of, or reflection on, a season by virtue of an appropriate subject or action. Due to the pace and disconnectedness from nature of today's society I have dispensed with some of the more traditional aspects, in the hope of evoking in the reader a similar experience to mine. There are perhaps more messages than moments in the below, and of course some information technology!

Many distractions,
information overload.
Where is the wisdom?



Internal battles.
Elephant for dinner.
Morsel at a time.



Physical struggle,
gateway to inside, not out,
receiver go deep.



Faith in science,
No moral compass found here.
Perhaps in Zen?



Arrogant mind.
Our attachments and desires.
Wake up time.

So many "sheeple",
asleep at the wheel.
How to de-program?

Input and output,
constantly processing them.
Who does the work?

Watching the watcher.
One of us is a tool.
Wield with respect.

Bits in, bits out.
Quality information,
computer mind?

Symbiotic "we".
Both need constant attention,
unplug the machine.

All is nature,
what can we not control?
Begin with yourself.

Symmetry desired.
Where is the fun in that?
Let's remain human.

Dirty fingernails.
Ground is moist and warm.
Food from the womb.

Dappled sunlight,
much potential energy,
free-wheeling downhill.

Sooner or later,
worry grips the mind, draining.
How much is enough?

Half full, half empty.
Begin again. A new cup.
Paradigm shifting.

Summer decisions.
Experience of last year.
Life's moving goal posts.

Mind management,
herding cats, bees and mice,
welcome to the zoo.

Energy in thought,
our most prized possesions,
content and intent?

True nobility,
Improve upon former self,
ad-infinitum.

Criticise, gossip,
matter not when others speak,
self-judgement.

No unhappiness,
curious, energetic,
spirited, joyful.

All basic questions,
unanswered, never stupid.
Reluctant probing.

Form expectations,
plain as the nose on your face,
perceptions altered.

Too young, too old.
Deceive oneself, just do it.
Too rich, too poor.

Control your thoughts,
failure, no courage to try.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Future shock, peak oil,
adaptational breakdown.
Disease of change.

Ogburn culture lag.
Rate of human response,
obsolete people?

Premature future,
incompetent neurosis.
Avalanching change.

Death and permanence,
Suffocating complexity.
Impermanent rise.

Bleeding edge I.T.
Security, assurance,
nowhere to be found.

Always hurry forward,
Moulded mass education,
de-school society.

Early adopter,
enumerate the pitfalls.
Risk or reward?

Guaranteed future.
Where is the fun in that?
Step to the unknown.

Neural feedback loops,
"Thin slicing" situations,
partial involvement.

Avoid human ties,
flow through of people slowing down.
Nomadic children.