Call God

I read an interesting news article on BBC lately. It showed how the very faithful would go any direction to make contact with god. It was a project in the Netherlands called God's Hotline. If you are interested in the story, you may wish to read the full article.

A Dutch artist set up the project and designated a mobile phone number as the telephone number of God. People could call this number, but they would have to leave a message. It was part of an art installation in the town of Groningen. The telephone would first play a voice mail message which said: "This is the voice of God, I am not able to speak to you at the moment, but please leave a message." Within a week, there were 1,000 messages left on the answer machine.

The artist claimed that the focus of the project was on changes to the ways Dutch people perceived religion, although some critics said the project would mock those with religious belief. The artists said that the content of the messages would remain confidential and would not form part of the art project. But who knows, now that the voice recordings were permanent records.

Such Call God behaviour is not new. There was another articles in the archive which was equally interesting. It was about a phenomenon arising from the movie Bruce Almighty, starring Jim Carrey.

Jim Carrey was a man chosen by God to be Him for a few days. Morgan Freeman was God. The movie exposed many misconceptions on religion. In proving to Jim Carrey, God would guess how many fingers Jim was hiding behind. Of course God was right every time. At last, God said "Seven fingers", and Jim gladly showed his hand to prove God wrong, only to find that he really had seven fingers.

The moral of this scene to me was that God was always right, even when he was wrong he could make it right. There was no real truth in him because he could make anything false true. True and false are relative. When there is no falseness, there is no truth.

In the movie, God gave his telephone number to Jim. The tragedy then began. Several people in the UK and USA using the same telephone number then received phone calls from unknown persons asking for God's help. A man in Manchester received as many as 70 such phone calls a day, asking for help and forgiveness and all sorts of weird questions.

Normally, phone numbers used in movies were non-existent so as not to flash a real number on the screen, but this time it was not. The victim was now considering taking legal action against the movie company..... of nuisance being God.

Foxy 禍

個人資料經互聯網洩漏的事件在三月又再發生，禍首又是Foxy軟件。屈指一算去年至今的同類事件，十隻手指竟然不夠用。已曝光受傳媒報導的有：

2008年4月5日：透過Foxy搜尋，可尋獲多份警察內部表格、程序手冊。
2008年5月8日：用Foxy發現入境處多份機密文件，包括監視人士名單、檢查護照的機密細節等。
2008年5月27日：有市民使用Foxy搜尋時，發現警方的機密檔案，包括臥底探員的資料。
2008年6月1日：透過Foxy找到警隊商業罪案調查科機密檔案，包括一份督察及警長辦公室電話及手提電話號碼。
2008年6月14日：有網民從Foxy搜尋，找到一份海關落馬洲管制站關員撰寫的案件口供紀錄，另 外找到三份屬於兩名公立醫院的女病人病歷。
2008年7月7日：入境處再度經Foxy洩漏多份機密文件，包括印尼及伊朗旅客使用假證的調查報告。
2008年8月8日：警方再度經Foxy洩漏六份機密文件，包括口供紙，劫案及毒品案的報告等。
2008年9月30日：有網民經Foxy發現警方內部文件，包括衝鋒隊隊員須知，嚴重案件的處理程序。
2009年2月8日：消防處內部資料在網上外洩，包括一批消防員的考核報告、月薪及職級等個 人資料。
2009年2月8日；一名警員向聚賭疑犯錄取口供的資料文件透過Foxy 流出，包括列明個人資料的會面紀錄。
2009年3月7日：上水及大埔警署的內部文件在Foxy外洩，其中多是上水警署的內部文件，包括口供紙等。

以上只是和政府部門有關的洩密事件，其實還有很多其他資料，例如律師樓內部文件、球隊出糧記錄等等，經Foxy洩漏。有同事因此十分恐慌，認為Foxy神 通廣大，世上再無私隱；他詢問我是否應該繼續上互聯網，甚至是否應該將個人資料放在電腦。我安慰他這些事件被傳媒跨大，最重要的是自己小心。

但Foxy為什麼如此神通廣大呢？這個軟件只是一個點對點檔案共享軟件；互聯網上有不少這類軟件提供點對點檔案共享服務，這個通訊模式是世界趨勢，亦是 Web 2.0重要的一環。資訊在互聯網上流通當然會有洩漏的風險，這個問題資訊科技保安人員非常了解，而各種保安措施亦已蓬勃發展，那麼Foxy出了什麼問題？

在正常操作下，Foxy只使用兩個主資料夾，一個是由用家自己設定的共享資料夾，這個資料夾內的檔案是用家放入和其他人共享，多是照片、 音樂或需要傳遞的文件。因為會和他人共享，所以用家應該不會放入私人資料或敏感資料。另一個是儲存下載檔案的資料夾，這個資料夾只用來暫時儲存下載的 檔案，不應儲存私人資料。第一個重要的問題就是這兩個資料夾的設定。如果用家不小心將敏感資料檔案放在這裡，就有機會被他人下載。第二個問題是如果用家不 熟識檔案夾架構而選擇將下載的檔案放在桌面或『我的文件』內，它們所有的子資料夾，即是電腦內所有的檔案都可以經Foxy找到。第三個問題是Foxy的基本搜 索功能，可以自動將它接觸到的檔案排序編成目錄，使所有的用家很容易就可以用一兩個關鍵字找到資料；一些敏感的字眼在互聯網上經常被搜索。第四個問題 是Foxy的標準設定是當用家開著電腦，系統就會在背景自動執行Foxy；其用意是想搜索檔案時更有效率，但當有洩密情況時危險就會被擴大。這些其實都是 可以避免的，只需在資料夾設定時小心，又不要將敏感檔案放在Foxy使用的資料夾，亦可將Foxy改為手動執行。

但Foxy的危險並不止於不小心使用。有電腦保安專家認為Foxy軟件的界面本身存有漏洞，它的設定是需要用家自行將防火牆減弱，變相打開了網絡保安的缺 口；有 人甚至為了下載檔案，而將防毒軟件暫時關閉。坊間流傳的Foxy版本，多經過 改裝，可能被混入間諜或木馬等程式；而Foxy本身並未有安全的版本下載，故無法確定用家可百分百安全使用。

互聯網和其他地方一樣，是沒有百分之一百安全。我們經常聽到有些很重要的機構都有保安事故發生，電腦保安和互聯網匪徒是經常在競賽，互有勝負。我們可以希 望專業匪徒只針對高價值目標，但我們仍需做好合理的保安措施，應付常見的滋擾。很多人說互聯網是一個森林，內有猛獸。我覺得互聯網是一條繁忙的街道，危機 四伏，馬路如虎口，路上有扒手，行人有時是劫匪，兩旁的商店有不少是黑店；但我們總要出門，只要小心謹慎，街道上其實五光十色，機會處處。

退休再就業

昨天在網上看到下面這篇有關公務員退休後再就業的報導，講述前教育局常秘羅范椒芬不可做教育工作，而前郵政署署長譚榮邦亦有可能不能再做與郵政有關的工作。這個議題和人力資源有關，是專業人力資源經理要深思的問題。

一個公務員在職多年，有不少寶貴工作經驗，對政府部門非常有用，但到相當年紀就要退休，理由是體力腦力因年齡大而可能下降，不能勝任工作。但現代醫學進步，人類老化速度減慢，很多人到了 "規定" 退休年齡就要退休，但他們卻仍有正常工作能力。"規定" 退休年齡只是一個人為的標準，而再被官僚制度擴大，超過退休年齡就不能留任。但要繞過官僚制度有很多辦法，退休人士經驗有價，就有其他機構肯聘用。

這麼寶貴的工作經驗用在那裡呢？當然就是和在職時有關的工作；若不是如此，其他機構不用聘用已退休人士。但現時高官退休後申請再就業的準則，並不是人盡其才，而是政治考慮，即如果高官再從事和以前職位有關的工作，就會有利益衝突。這個利益衝突不止於在退休後就業時發生，而是引申至退休前有利益衝突而為退休後的利益作準備。這個說法非常牽強，高官現時理所當然地被認定是邪惡一派，而且似乎是未犯罪前已被定罪，難怪一眾高官都氣憤不平。

如果不是高官，可能不會被牽連至政治層面。但退休長俸公務員再就業仍有很多限制，最矚目的就是有些工作會引致每月長俸停止發放。這是一個一致被認為不公平的政策。但一旦有了規則，官僚架構就會自動捍衛，其標準說法是不能用公帑同時支付一個人兩份報酬；但矛盾是不少使用公帑的機構卻不受這個規則限制，亦有其他漏洞例如退休後非全職的受薪工作。所以這個官僚制度下的規定只是一個笑柄。

人盡其才在退休EO身上盡顯。退休同事身懷絕技，當然可以再在專業經理崗位上大展所長。幸好各部門明白這個金礦的價值，所以不少退休同事，在身體仍未衰老的情況下，仍然可以在雷達下飛行，為社會出一分力。

**********
08/03/2009
公務員事務局局長俞宗怡頒發封殺令，嚴禁前教統局常秘羅范椒芬在三年內沾手涉及教育的工作，引起不少現職同退休高官不滿，質疑俞宗怡為幫梁展文事件補鑊，不合理地收緊退休高官再就業的準則，對他們不公平。不過由於他們自己都在準備退休，或者在等待公務員事務局審批再就業申請，沒有誰會公開發言。繼前民航處處長樂鞏南之後，昨日又有人打破沉默，公開批評同挑戰公務員事務局，他是前郵政署署長譚榮邦。在去年十月退休的譚榮邦，在紅灣半島事件發生時擔任房屋署副署長，同梁展文事件算有關係，不過他在臨退休前仍然好有信心地說，自己將來一定會再工作，只要依足有關規定，相信政府會公正處理。不過昨天他就轉口，對自己能否再就業顯得相當悲觀。

政策搖擺不定
譚榮邦為羅太抱不平，說她申請出任東華三院執行總監，不應該有利益衝突。他又說除羅太不滿之外，很多退休或準備退休的高官都好不滿，覺得政府政策搖擺不定，毫無準則，如果忽然轉去另一邊，就什麼都不能做，比天氣還要飄忽！

譚榮邦又自嘲說，全港大小商業機構但凡有寄過信，都算同郵政署有過生意來往；如果政府用審批羅太申請的準則，將所有申請都捉到最緊，他就任何機構都不能申請；相反，表面看來與郵政署工作最重疊的速遞公司，反而可能和郵政署沒有往來，他會考慮試試！不知他是否純粹講笑、或是想成立一間「榮邦快遞」，但他話帶雙關，擺明車馬挑戰公務員事務局。

譚榮邦意猶未盡繼續發牢騷，說很多高官退休後再做事，其實志不在錢，而是想貢獻社會，不想做孤獨老人。例如他自己，由於未過一年冷河期，只能到處求學打發時間，最近去學法文。如果到最後不獲批准做合適工作，唯有轉行去法國餐廳做侍應，但工作範圍一定不可以包括寫信同寄信，否則又會說他企圖利用過往在郵政署的人緣關係，令餐廳信件寄得比其他人快！
**********

Charles Darwin

If Charles Darwin were still alive today, he would be 200 years old. Many people know Charles Darwin as the person who proposed the evolution theory. However, many are not fully aware of the extent of the impact of this theory. Scientific American dedicated the entire January 2009 issue to Charles Darwin. From the numerous and diverse articles in this issue, one may appreciate the effect of the evolution theory on science. It is not just about species or the origin of mankind. It is a philosophy and a way of thinking that can be adopted in many corners of scientific research.

The following are the titles of these articles found in the website.

** Darwin's Living Legacy -- Evolutionary Theory 150 Years Later by Gary Stix
This article is on the history of Charles Darwin. He was a Victorian amateur who undertook a lifetime pursuit of slow, meticulous observation and thought about the natural world, producing a theory 150 years ago that still drives the contemporary scientific agenda.

** Putting Evolution to Use in the Everyday World by David P. Mindell
The evolution theory has a profound impact on the everyday world. Understanding of evolution is fostering powerful technologies for health care, law enforcement, ecology, and all manner of optimization and design problems.

** The Human Pedigree: A Timeline of Hominid Evolution by Kate Wong
The evolution of the human species is the most controversial aspect of the evolution theory. Some 180 years after unearthing the first human fossil, paleontologists have amassed a formidable record of our forebears. We now have a good understanding on how hominid evolved into present human.

** Evolution of the Mind: 4 Fallacies of Psychology by David J. Buller
Some evolutionary psychologists have made widely popularized claims about how the human mind evolved, but other scholars argue that the grand claims lack solid evidence.

** Testing Natural Selection with Genetics by H. Allen Orr
The understanding of genes is a recent scientific development. Technologies in this area have great improvement in recent times leading to a good understanding of genes in the process of evolution. Biologists working with the most sophisticated genetic tools are demonstrating that natural selection plays a greater role in the evolution of genes than even most evolutionists had thought.

** Diversity Revealed: From Atoms to Traits by David M. Kingsley
Charles Darwin saw that random variations in organisms provide fodder for evolution. Modern scientists are revealing how that diversity arises from changes to DNA and can add up to complex creatures or even cultures.

** The Science of Spore -- The "Evolution" of Gaming by Ed Regis
A computer game illustrates the difference between building your own simulated creature and real-life natural selection.

** The Evolutionary Origins of Hiccups and Hernias by Neil H. Shubin
How biological traits inherited from fish and tadpoles evolved into human maladies.

** The Future of Man -- How Will Evolution Change Humans? by Peter Ward
This is the most interesting article. Contrary to popular belief, humans continue to evolve. Our bodies and brains are not the same as our ancestors' were, or as our descendants' will be. The article speculates on the possible courses of future human evolution, and what could we become.

** The Latest Face of Creationism in the Classroom by Glenn Branch and Eugenie C. Scott
The greatest impact of the evolution theory is on religion. The first is the evolution of man, not from Adam and Eve; and the second is the evolution of all living things, not from a stroke of creation. This is in direct contradiction with all religious teaching. It is no wonder that Charles Darwin was the enemy of religion from the very beginning. However, Charles Darwin was a religious person. He went to Cambridge to become an Anglican clergyman in his early days. Although he was critical of the Bible as history, and thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver. He had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and he said that “an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.”

After many years of struggle with the truth, the Roman Catholic Church finally admitted that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution should not have been dismissed and claimed it is compatible with the Christian view of Creation. I am not saying that the Roman Catholic Church had been wrong all along and is now right. The point is that she has taken an about turn in religious belief, and interpreted the bible in another way, that Genesis is still right as seen in the light of the evolution theory.

Not all churches are that flexible. Many fundamentalist Christian churches have taken a different view, that the world is created by God as in the bible, period. Under the auspices of religious freedom, every man is entitled to his own religious belief. However, the creationists as they are known, do not stop at religion. They want such religious idea to be taught as a scientific fact in public schools. The first wave of actions was to block the teaching of evolution in schools, claiming that it was an unverified theory. That failed. The second wave of actions was to portray creationism as a scientific alternative to evolution under the disguise of intelligent design. That also failed. The latest tactic was to misrepresent evolution theory as scientifically controversial, and pretend that advocates for teaching creationism would be defending academic freedom. There was a concerted effort in several states of USA in proposing anti-evolution bills in 2008. Five such bills were defeated in May/June 2008. Two more in the state of Michigan are in the committee stage. If you wish to know how the battle is going on, you may go to the Scientific American website to read the article.

Making Web 2.0 work

Web 2.0 has been here for several years. They mainly include technologies and applications such as blogs, wikis, podcasts, information tagging, prediction markets, and social networks. Many companies have taken advantage of the trend and engaged web 2.0 in the business environment, with some degree of success. McKinsey recently conducted a study on the success factors. The result can be found in a published article: 6 ways to make web 2.0 work.

These new tools of communication have a strong bottom-up element and engage a broad base of participants. They need a mind-set different from that of earlier IT programs, which were instituted primarily by senior managers. What distinguishes them from previous technologies is the high degree of participation they require to be effective. They are highly interactive and require users to generate new information and content or to edit the work of other participants.

McKinsey identified six critical factors that determine the outcome of efforts to make web 2.0 work.

1. The transformation to a bottom-up culture needs help from the top.
A direct quote from the article: "These projects often are seen as grassroots experiments, and leaders sometimes believe the technologies will be adopted without management intervention - a “build it and they will come” philosophy. These business leaders are correct in thinking that participatory technologies are founded upon bottom-up involvement from front line staffers. Successful participation, however, requires not only grassroots activity but also a different leadership approach: senior executives often become role models and lead through informal channels."

I have said something like this a few years ago. This is exactly why the EGRIN discussion forum failed. I suggested in EGRIN that the forum would need to be nurtured to look busy. I even suggested that GGO officers should take turn to post at least one message in the forum everyday. I also suggested that some senior members, DGG included, could write in the forum from time to time as a role model. All these fell on deaf ears. The attitude of GGO was the “build it and they will come” philosophy, and it was the staff's fault of not coming.

2. The best uses come from users, but they require help to scale.
Most organizations have specific targets in using these new technologies. However, the study reveals that the applications that drive the most value through participatory technologies often are not those that management expects. When management chooses the wrong uses, organizations often do not switch to the applications that were thought to be successful. One company introduced some participatory tools to help new recruits settle in their jobs. The intended use never caught on, but people in the recruiting department began using the tools to share recruiting tips and information about specific candidates. At AT&T, rather than dictating the use of the web 2.0 tools, management broadened participation by supporting an awareness campaign to seed further experimentation.

3. What’s in the workflow is what gets used.
Participatory technologies have the highest chance of success when incorporated into the daily workflow. If their implementation is viewed as additional tasks to the normal workflow, participation level will fall. Google Inc. is an example of good use of the technologies. It modified the way work is typically done and made web tools relevant to how employees actually do their jobs. The company’s engineers use blogs and wikis as core tools for reporting on the progress of their work. Managers stay abreast of their progress and provide direction by using tools that make it easy to mine data on workflows. Engineers are better able to coordinate work with one another and can request or provide backup help when needed. The easily accessible project data allows senior managers to allocate resources to the most important and time-sensitive projects.

4. Appeal to the participants’ egos and needs.
Traditional management incentives are not particularly useful for encouraging participation. Techniques such as management by objectives are not effective. The study found some failed attempts: reward according to the frequency of postings on the company’s newly launched forum, and management pressure to get individuals to post on it. These can only generate low quality participation which is not self-sustaining. A more effective approach is to target the web’s ethos and the participants’ desire for recognition: bolstering the reputation of participants in relevant communities, rewarding enthusiasm, or acknowledging the quality and usefulness of contributions, through prizes for contributions handed out at prominent company meetings.

5. The right solution comes from the right participants.
Targeting users who can create a critical mass for participation as well as add value is another key to success. With participatory technologies, it is obvious which individuals will be the best participants. Without the right base, efforts are often ineffective. To select users who will help drive a self-sustaining effort, a thoughtful approach is required. Proter & Gamble targeted technology-oriented and respected opinion leaders within the organization to be active participants. Some of these people ranked high in the corporate hierarchy, while others were influential scientists or employees to whom other colleagues would turn for advice or other assistance.

6. Balance the top-down and self-management of risk.
A common reason for failed participation is discomfort with it, or even fear. In some cases, the lack of management control over the self-organizing nature and power of dissent is the problem. In others, there are potential repercussions of content that is detrimental to the company. Some participatory initiatives were stalled by legal and HR concerns. Companies often have difficulty maintaining the right balance of freedom and control. Some organizations have adopted total laissez-faire policies, and lack basic controls on inappropriate postings. In some cases, these have serious consequences to the organizations. Managers should work with the legal, HR, and IT security functions to establish reasonable policies, such as prohibiting anonymous posting. Fears are often overblown and the social norms enforced by users in the participating communities can be very effective at policing user exchanges and thus mitigating risks. Companies must recognize that successful participation means engaging in authentic conversations with participants.