If

by Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

If you can keep your head when all about you
   Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
   But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
   Or, being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don’t give way to hating,
   And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
   If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
   And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
   Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
   And stoop and build ’em up with wornout tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
   And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
   And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
   To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
   Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on”;

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
   Or walk with kings—nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
   If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run—
   Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

Update in 2019: Kipling in America

Kipling has been variously labelled a colonialist, a jingoist, a racist, an anti-Semite, a misogynist, a right-wing imperialist warmonger; and—though some scholars have argued that his views were more complicated than he is given credit for—to some degree he really was all those things. That he was also a prodigiously gifted writer who created works of inarguable greatness hardly matters anymore, at least not in many classrooms, where Kipling remains politically toxic.

[…]

Kipling was profoundly altered by his experience of America, and that America, in turn, was altered by its experience of Kipling. But you could also make a case that neither was changed enough. Kipling never learned to lighten up—or to appreciate American humor and informality—and America, by his lights, never got over being headstrong and overly sure of itself.

I Am Not Yours

by Sara Teasdale (1884-1933)

I am not yours, not lost in you,
Not lost, although I long to be
Lost as a candle lit at noon,
Lost as a snowflake in the sea.

You love me, and I find you still
A spirit beautiful and bright,
Yet I am I, who long to be
Lost as a light is lost in light.

Oh plunge me deep in love — put out
My senses, leave me deaf and blind,
Swept by the tempest of your love,
A taper in a rushing wind.

Nigerian ISPs now liable for 419ers

The BBC reports on changes in Nigeria that are meant to help fight 419 fraud:

Virtually anyone with an email account will be familiar with this crime, which involves sending emails or faxes to potential victims around the world, sucking them into a highly attractive but utterly false financial deal.

Back in Nigeria, the rewards are potentially highly lucrative – but now, owing to a crackdown and much-improved co-operation between police forces globally, it has become more risky for the perpetrators.

[…]

[I]nternet service providers who allow online fraudsters to operate will face criminal charges, while decades in jail await the scammers themselves – with little chance of early parole.

Still, with rich pickings still to exploit, Nigeria’s criminals will not give in easily.

Israeli pilots worry about PR and Intel

In a striking example of the importance of data integrity, as well as personal integrity, Israeli pilots are reportedly either unable to trust the target information they are given or their targets are successfully using civilians to shield themselves from air attacks:

Yonatan Shapiro, a former Blackhawk helicopter pilot dismissed from reserve duty after signing a ‘refusenik’ letter in 2004, said he had spoken with Israeli F-16 pilots in recent days and learnt that some had aborted missions because of concerns about the reliability of intelligence information. According to Shapiro, some pilots justified aborting missions out of ‘common sense’ and in the context of the Israeli Defence Force’s moral code of conduct, which says every effort should be made to avoiding harming civilians.

Shapiro said: ‘Some pilots told me they have shot at the side of targets because they’re afraid people will be there, and they don’t trust any more those who give them the coordinates and targets.’

He added: ‘One pilot told me he was asked to hit a house on a hill, which was supposed to be a place from where Hizbollah was launching Katyusha missiles. But he was afraid civilians were in the house, so he shot next to the house …

‘Pilots are always being told they will be judged on results, but if the results are hundreds of dead civilians while Hizbollah is still able to fire all these rockets, then something is very wrong.’

It seems very probable that a guerilla strategy could be for rockets to be fired from and around houses (e.g. roof-tops) and to then shuttle civilians into the house immediately afterwards, moving the launchers to the next house. This not only keeps the target hard to find, but increases the likelihood of blowback to Israel from any Israeli defensive actions. Maybe that gives them too much credit and they just move the launchers around the civilians. Either way, I do not envy the pilot who has to question the integrity of mission intelligence in the split second before they launch a missle. Compare that with the Hizbullah militants firing rockets willy-nilly into a huge urban area like Haifa.

On the Internet there are many examples of guerilla tactics that the Hizbullah use, such as the “Smurf attack“. This is when someone (A) uses a fake return address of a large or powerful site (B) to overwhelm a target (C) with packets. If/when C tries to fight back, it ends up hitting B instead of A, which either makes C look like the agressor (shaky proof of A) or escalates into a fierce battle between C and B, with only a tiny fraction of effort from A. If A is smart enough to use return addresses D through Z as well as B the problem of intelligence is that much harder to resolve and the cost to C to respond can quickly become prohibitive. A good, albeit dated, background on this issue and proposals for how to address the fundamental issue of attacker identity can be found here.