Here's an interesting set of high-leverage CoDIAK capabilities. E.g.,
DNA as IP for wireless sensor webs linked to Cognitive Radios for extra
bootstrapping leverage of "onto-diversity knowledge" for the Global
Brain?
Bernard Vatant (universimmedia@wanadoo.fr) says:
... "If we do not want to feed the totalitarian and colonialist soil,
the tools we are now thinking about and develop have to preserve and
sustain what I like to call *ontodiversity*. But we have learnt from
nature that biodiversity is grounded on a single strong and versatile
information code. That is the most amazing discovery of the past
century. DNA is without contest the better information standard so far,
allowing very subtle information interchanges between very different
organisms. So what we have to invent is something like DNA for knowledge
technologies. Some minimal common standard toolkit, able to support and
help develop a large scope of views of the world and knowledge
communities, allowing them to live independently but to share whatever
they want anytime they want, and not forcing them to share everything
all the time (we have to admit there is over 90% of human knowledge that
you and I really don't care to share)." ...
Jack Pack (jackpark@thinkalong.com) says:
"Is there a dna in there? I don't know. I rather think that the tool
itself is the dna -- a convenient way to hang the particles of
understanding that the learner evolves onto a picture frame (a map of
the phenotype?)."
The flowthrough MEMS-based DNA chip Genosensor project at ORNL
(http://homer.hsr.ornl.gov/cbps/Genosensors.htm) says:
The porous substrates have several important advantages over the flat
surface DNA chips
* greatly improved hybridization kinetics
* superiour detection sensitivity
* ability to analyze dilute solutions of nucleic acids
* direct detection of heat-denatured PCR fragments without prior
isolation of single strands
Prof. Bob Feanza (bfranza@u.washington.edu) says:
MetaGraph/Labscape is a collaborative effort to produce a framework and
set of tools for modeling, storing, and querying biological information.
Paul Saffo (Dir. Institute for the Future) suggests potential
CoDIAK-Activities in the future are:
“In the next decade, we are going to add sensory organs to our devices
and networks. Processing plus sensors will set the stage for the next
revolution—interaction. We mean the interaction of electronic devices
with the physical world on our behalf. Sensors do not just have to stop
at mere sensing. The sensor decade will really be a sensor/effector
decade, where devices will not only observe things; they will also
manipulate them.”
< http://www.saffo.org/ideas.html >
BusinessWeek says:
* "In the next century, planet earth will don an electronic skin. It
will use the Internet as a scaffold to support and transmit its
sensations. This skin is already being stitched together. It
consists of millions of embedded electronic measuring devices:
thermostats, pressure gauges, pollution detectors, cameras,
microphones, glucose sensors, EKGs, electroencephalographs. These
will probe and monitor cities and endangered species, the
atmosphere, our ships, highways and fleets of trucks, our
conversations, our bodies--even our dreams.
* Ten years from now, there will be trillions of such telemetric
systems, each with a microprocessor brain and a (Cognitive) radio.
Consultant Ernst & Young predicts that by 2010, there will be
10,000 telemetric devices for every human being on the planet.
They'll be in constant contact with one another. But the
communication won't be at our plodding verbal pace. ''Fifty
kilobits per second is slow,'' huffs Horst L. Stormer, a Nobel
prize-winning physicist employed by Lucent Technologies Inc.'s Bell
Laboratories and Columbia University. Machines will prefer to talk
at gigabit speeds and higher--so fast that humans will catch only
scattered snippets of the discussion.
* What will the earth's new skin permit us to feel? How will we use
its surges of sensation? For several years--maybe for a
decade--there will be no central nervous system to manage this vast
signaling network. Certainly there will be no central intelligence.
But many scientists believe that some qualities of self-awareness
will emerge once the Net is sensually enhanced and emulates the
complexity of the human brain.
* Sensuality is only one force pushing the Net toward intelligence.
An eerie symbiosis of human and machine effort is also starting to
evolve. The Internet creates a channel for thousands of programmers
around the world to collaborate on software development and
debugging. That has produced an evolutionary leap in software: The
''open source'' movement that spawned the Linux operating system.
The Linux world behaves as an ecosystem--''a self-correcting
spontaneous order,'' as open-source pioneer Eric Raymond describes
it in his Net manifesto, The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Through
collaboration, this community can push past the technical barriers
to machine intelligence." -- 21 Ideas for the 21st Century
< http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644001.htm >
In a bootstrapping perspective, Doug Engelbart says:
[Figure 3 shows an organization with activity A representing the core business activity (i.e. product R&D, manufacturing , marketing, sales, operations...), supported by activity B representing the activity of improving A. B should be a permanent continuous improvement activity. Note that B is improving A''s Human-Tool Augmentation System.]
[Figure 3 shows an organization with activity A representing the core
business activity (i.e. product R&D, manufacturing , marketing, sales,
operations...), supported by activity B (e.g, internet browser/email)
representing the activity of improving A. B should be a permanent
continuous improvement activity. Note that B is improving A''s
Human-Tool Augmentation System.] 4A1
< http://www.bootstrap.org/augment-132811.htm#Figure-3 >
Executive efforts to assess and improve B-Activity funding, staffing,
and high-level approach would qualify as a C Activity. C Activities
would also include introducing new knowledge and skills into the B
Activity, providing better means for participatory interaction with its
A-Activity clients, or improving how pilot operations are managed. 4B
Doug says C-Activities provide "extra bootstrapping leverage" for
multi-payoff capability:
[Figure 5 shows the same organization with B boosting A and C boosting B. Added are two feedback loops to illustrate B''s output boosting itself as well as A, and C''s output boosting itself as well as B. C''s output highlighted with the text: Investment criteria: going after the point of greates leverage--a high-performance knowledge-work capability launched by C boosts A, B, and C.]
[Figure 5 shows the same organization with B boosting A and C boosting
B. Added are two feedback loops to illustrate B''s output boosting
itself as well as A, and C''s output boosting itself as well as B. C''s
output highlighted with the text: Investment criteria: going after the
point of greater leverage--a high-performance knowledge-work capability
launched by C boosts A, B, and C.] 5D1
< http://www.bootstrap.org/augment-132811.htm#Figure-5 >
Over the years I have tried various ways to label and characterize the
above-mentioned key knowledge capabilities. For lack of an established
term, I have settled on an acronym that embraces the main concepts of
this cluster of high-leverage capabilities - CODIAK: 6A
The COncurrent Development, Integration and Application of Knowledge.
6A1
As complexity and urgency increase, the need for highly effective CODIAK
capabilities will become increasingly urgent. Increased pressure for
reduced product cycle time, and for more and more work to be done
concurrently, is forcing unprecedented coordination across project
functions and organizational boundaries. Yet most organizations do not
have a comprehensive picture of what knowledge work is, and of which
aspects would be most profitable to improve. 6B
The CODIAK capability is not only the basic machinery that propels our
organizations, it also provides the key capabilities for their steering,
navigating and self repair. And the body of applicable knowledge
developed represents a critically valuable asset. The CODIAK capability
is crucial in most A Activities across the organization, whether in
strategic planning, marketing, R&D, production, customer support, or
operations. It is also crucial in the B and C Activities, whether
identifying needs and opportunities, designing and deploying solutions,
or incorporating lessons learned - which of course is also used in key
A-Activity work. As such, the CODIAK capability should be considered a
core business competency in the organization's capability
infrastructure, and is an ideal candidate for early improvement to
achieve the extra bootstrapping leverage discussed above in Figure-5. 6C
For best exposure to full CODIAK issues, it helps to consider heavy
knowledge-intensive activities such as a large, complex project.
Figure-6 represents the high-level core of such a CODIAK process. In the
center is a basic organizational unit, representing the interactive
knowledge domains of a single individual, or of individuals or groups
within a project team, department, functional unit, division, task
force, committee, whole organization, community, or association (any of
which might be inter- or intra- organizational). 6D
Each organizational unit is continuously analyzing, digesting,
integrating, collaborating, developing, applying, and re-using its
knowledge, much of which is ingested from its external environment
(which could be outside of, or within, the same organization). 6E
B boosting A?
Dave Hughes (NSF PI, Biological Science by Wireless Projects,
dave@wireless.old.com, <http://wireless.oldcolo.com/index.html >) says:
On the day after his 72 nd birthday, Dave Hughes described his latest
wireless communication project with the enthusiasm of a 12 year-old. The
National Science Foundation has granted him one million dollars to spend
the next three years developing ways for field scientists to wirelessly
retrieve and access data collected at remote locations, via the
Internet.
* “My self appointed mission is to hook up all the environmental
scientists in the whole damn world,” he says, which comes under the
umbrella of his larger goal: “To connect up all 6 billion brains on
this planet individually, each with the other, through all the ways
that information goes in - the eyes, the ears, the mouth and the
fingers. That’s what I’m zeroed in on.”
* "Anyone connected to the Internet in laboratories, science classes
in schools, or even at home, can listen in real time to the rare
tiny frogs. ... Other applications will link sensors measuring such
things as chemistry, effects of light, growth, weather, and water
properties in multiple environments." <
http://wireless.oldcolo.com/biology/progress2000/24-progressreport(09-30-2000).htm
>
* "I said every damn Cocqui frog's going to have an IP number. We may
be putting something around his neck or embedding in its ear. Or if
we're really sophisticated, we'll read it out of his DNA. DNA as IP
numbers." < http://homer.hsr.ornl.gov/cbps/Genosensors.htm ><
http://homer.hsr.ornl.gov/cbps/PhysicalSensors.htm ><
http://www2.ic.ornl.gov/pdf/progr-18.pdf >
C boosting B?
Kevin Delin, leader of the sensor web project at NASA’s Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (Kevin.A.Delin@jpl.nasa.gov) says:
* "The sensor web allows you to make measurements on a large scale,
like in remote sensing, but with the sensitivity of in situ
instruments. ... A major thrust of our current effort is to develop
a sensor web that can detect, identify and monitor any biological
activity. For example, trace biosignature gases are very important
if you are a biogeochemist trying to understand the carbon cycle on
Earth or searching for microorganisms living beneath the surface of
a planet. ... Consequently, the sensor web "can perform intelligent
autonomous operations in uncertain environments, respond to
changing environmental conditions and carry out automated diagnosis
and recovery. Sensor webs can have as much of an impact on the uses
of sensors as the Internet did on the uses of computers."
* "Sensor webs are developmental collections of sensor pods that
could be scattered over land or water areas or other regions of
interest to gather data on spatial and temporal patterns of
relatively slowly changing physical, chemical, or biological
phenomena in those regions. Each sensor pod would be a node in a
data-gathering/data-communication network that would span a region
of interest. Each sensor pod would contain two modules: (1) a
transducer module that would interact with the environment to
gather the desired data and (2) a communication module. ...
* The use of intraweb, node-to-node communication would reduce the
power needed to transmit data out of a web. It would also make it
possible to reduce the energy consumed by power-hungry sensors: Web
nodes could query each other to track the movements of
microclimatic or other fronts over the web, so that power-hungry
sensors could be activated only when a front is known to be
passing. In other words, intraweb communication enables a nonlinear
increase in the value of the local data collected in much the same
way that an aggregate of neurons exhibits more intelligence than
does a single neuron. Moreover, the synergistic interaction among
many separate node transducers would increase the value of the
collected data by providing instantaneous correlation across the
web....
* A sensor web would be a relatively cheap instrument because sensor
pods could be mass-produced, taking advantage of economies of
scale. Because of this cheapness, individual sensor pods could be
regarded as expendable. As a further consequence, it would be
possible to "reseed" a sensor web with fresh nodes to replace ones
that have failed; thus, the sensor web could be repeatedly renewed,
enabling it to operate for an indefinitely long time.
* A sensor web could be made as redundant and/or as dense as desired
by simply distributing as many nodes as desired over a given survey
area. Redundancy would, of course, render the sensor web tolerant
to failures of individual pods. High density could be utilized to
achieve high spatial resolution and/or to obtain statistically
significant numbers of data when surveying biological or other
phenomena that are inherently stochastic.
* Sensor webs could be useful in almost any endeavor in which there
is a need for low-power, low-bandwidth, long-term monitoring over
large areas. For example, they could be used to monitor
microclimates and concentrations of nutrients for agricultural
purposes, to track flows of toxins in ground water, to monitor
traffic, or to monitor seismicity in a survey area." <
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/web_sensor_000616.html
>
B boosting A and C boosting B?
Meanwhile, Dave Hughes (NSF PI, Biological Science by Wireless Projects)
is helping Dewayne Hendricks (CEO at Dandin.com) gain more visibility
within the FCC by using his very high profile for acquiring $6 Million
from NSF and EDUCAUSE grants for experimenting with the RF-Cognitve
Radio in the Mt. Diablo Open R&D Wireless Testbed.
Hughes says that he and Hendricks share insight into the FCC and have
both been wrestling with the same problem - the FCC rules for power and
frequencies. According to Hughes, the most significant decision that the
FCC could make is to lower the frequencies through which unlicensed
radios can operate, thereby enabling spread spectrum transmissions to
pass through buildings. He also advocates an increase in available
power, believing that with sufficient power and low enough frequencies,
remote rural areas can readily use spread spectrum radios to join an
Internet network. “The problem is that they stuffed these no license
radios up into the garbage bin bands - the part 15 bands - and that’s up
there where microwave ovens are, and cordless phones,” he says.
But Hughes is optimistic that change will come. Both he and Hendricks
talk in terms of “revolutionary” and “paradigm shifting” when describing
the impact on the communications industry of digitally modified data
being transmitted by radio waves. “We’re in this messy period of a
revolution in radio communications,” says Hughes. “This industry is only
15 years old. But the processors during that time have gotten faster,
better and cheaper; and the faster, better and cheaper they are the
higher the bandwidth, the lower the cost and the less the interference.
And that is a revolution.”
< http://www.dandin.com/pdf/Dandin_Chronicles_2.5.pdf >
< http://wireless.oldcolo.com//biology/projectplan.htm >
In an in-depth interview, Dave Hughes says:
The steps here is that National Environmental Observatory Network (NEON)
is a proposed project and they're having workshops, (this was the
second) for which they bring in scientists. The focus is across
disciplines from biological through environmental networking and
computational. And the concept is interconnecting the scientists, the
data and the databases and the visualizations and the standardization of
data across disciplines. All of which requires a step up in data
collection and reporting infrastructure.
<http://wireless.oldcolo.com//biology/progress2000/cookjul.txt>
Hughes: I'll mention NEON, which everybody seems to know about. National
Environmental Observatory Network. And the word
'observatory' is kind of key here, because what they're doing is
gathering huge amounts of data from remote monitors.
COOK Report: So you're seeing a huge movement under foot in
environmental science and in other parts of the science world to use
wireless monitors.
Hughes: I would describe it as a sudden awareness that wireless is a big
piece of the answer - data collection - to what they want to do.
COOK Report: And it's now economically feasible to do it and, if they
get out and do it, it's going to be another huge input of bandwidth into
the Internet?
Hughes: Yes. Because you must also understand the observatory concept
here, the observatory means it isn't just the scientists getting data,
it means that you and I can look at the damn thing. Everybody. Citizen
science, said Larry Smarr. Meaning you can't afford to have high paid
university researchers going out and getting all the data. This is a
direct quote from him - you need to train 9-year-olds to collect data.
But that's, of course, fundamental to the Internet. And it's fundamental
to the IP flow that's there and the wireless just permits
this in places that are inconceivable. And it's going to be extremely
important to biologists and environmental scientists, because their
problem is dealing with data and sensing and knowing what's going on in
the most remote ways, way beyond where any commercial wire line is ever
going to go.
Well, in closing, everything I am doing with wireless, from remote
cabins in the mountains to frogs in the rainforest, is laying down the
techniques for using wireless to every human being on this planet,
wherever they are. And at data rates up to full motion real
time video, affordably. There is a revolution coming for the Internet,
thanks to terrestrial, no license wireless, digital signal processors,
smart software, IP servers, satellites and the universal connectability
of the entire global net.
* Software Defined Smart (Cognitive) Radios
COOK Report: So what are they doing at the FCC?
Hughes: There's a Notice of Inquiry out and it will be discussed next
week at the recently formed FCC Telecommunciations Advisory Council -
TAC. - The NOI is brand new and that is on the subject of a Software
Defined Radio (SDR). One where smart software controls the radio - its
power, its frequency spread, and other technical characteristics.
That's what Dewayne and I recommended back in April of '98 in our
Scientific American article. We must permit the manufacture of smart
radios which set their frequencies. And set their own power levels.
Keeping the power to the minimum. It's a very, very important idea. We
are moving away from the idea that radios have to be dumb and fixed and
made for one set of emission rules. The radios now can be smart,
intelligent and self-regulating, like the Internet. But that's another
way to get not only more bang for the buck, but also to minimize
interference in congested areas.
If you have smart radios, built to FCC specifications so the
'self-regulation' really works, then the FCC could raise the power
rules! To 10, 20 watts! Then in the really rural areas, where distance
is the problem, but where interference in those bands is
minimal or non-existent, they could run full power - 20 watts, with
higher gain antennas. 50, 100, 250 miles. But at shorter distances and
in urban areas where interference is, or can be, a problem, the radios
set themselves to, say, a quarter watt. Cause that's all they need! But
it has to be approved by the regulators, the FCC, which is way behind
the power curve on approving these new possibilities. Maybe the recent
creation of the Telecommunications Advisory Council to the FCC will help
speed up change. My colleague Dewayne Hendricks is on it. And he is
doing through his Dandian company on the island of Tonga, in the South
Pacific. There, as they strive to link hundreds of islands, the Crown
Prince sets the spectrum rules, not the FCC.
I submit the principle of 'smart radios' (and smart antennas) is a very
fundamental answer to lots of 'scarce spectrum' issues
nationally, and internationally, when coupled with digitally massaged
data across wide bands of spectrum. George Glider talks about these
things theoretically. We are doing them in the field, practically.
And remember that most of these radios also have sub channels that you
can jump to. That's one way that they can it make so that
everybody doesn't have to be in the same sub set. For example, in the
Freewave radio, you can have 15 different settings within 902 to 928Mhz.
And what does that mean? That means you can have this radio sitting here
and communicating with a distant radio while you can place a radio right
next to the first, operate it on the same general frequencies, and not
have it interfere with the first radio.
Now, that can be set manually, of course, or they can even be set by
being logged into. Now you're starting to talk about having about the
little buggers scan their operating environment where they might find
other Breezecoms in the area with some potential interference. Having
done this, they make sure they do not interfere by setting themselves to
operate in a different part of the authorized spectrum. And the FCC with
the NOI (Notice of Inquiry, where it is asking 'the industry' to
comment) has thrown the possibility of a world with such capabilities
out there. There's going to be a debate, both technical and regulatory,
because technology that operates under these premises makes it possible
change the very way that the FCC regulates spectrum.
It's not just the dumb hardware of the past, grand fathered in forever,
and it's not just the fact that it's no license and it's
spread spectrum. But now we're getting into the area with the software
defined radios, where, if the FCC is smart, they will also
shorten the life of licenses. Manufacturers must upgrade their
capabilities or lose their certification for their unsold radios. For
we know greater capabilities are coming along in software, radios,
modulation, and antenna design. We are in an era of accelerating
progress of digital radio design and operation.
Joseph Mitola III (jmitola@mitre.org) says:
"Cognitive radio is the path along which the control systems of software
radio are migrating. Location-aware research, especially in Europe
marked the beginning of the move towards cognitive radio. As radios
embed increasingly complex and realistic models of their environments,
users, and networks, they begin to approach what an outside observer
might call rational, or common-sense behavior. … The benefits of a
standard reference ontology for radio have been argued [2], and the SDR
Forum began work in February, 2000, on the use of XML for radio domain
management "
< http://www.it.kth.se/~jmitola/cognitiveRadio.ppt >
ENDGAME
Kalle R. Kontson, IIT RESEARCH INSTITUTE, (kkontson@iitri.org) says for
CoDIAK apabilities need a wireless device Bill of Rights:
<
http://www.jacksons.net/tac/FCC-%20TAC%20-%20SDR%20and%20SM%20reg-27Sep00-v1.ppt
>
* Article 1: Any intelligent wireless device may, on a
non-interference basis, use any frequency, frequencies or
bandwidth, at any time, to perform its function.
* Article 1, Tenet 1: To exercise rights under this Article,
intelligent devices must be mentally competent to accurately
determine the possibility of interference that may result from
their use of the spectrum, and have the moral character to not do
so if that possibility might infringe on the rights of other users.
* Article 1, Tenet 2: To exercise rights under this Article,
intelligent devices must actively use the wireless spectrum within
the minimum time, spatial and bandwidth constraints necessary to
accomplish the function. Squatting on spectrum is strictly
prohibited.
* Article 2: All users of the spectrum shall have the right to
operate without harmful electromagnetic interference from other
users.
* Article 2, Tenet 1: Priority of rights under this Article may be
determined by the proper authorities only in cases of National
emergency, safety of life or situations of extreme public interest.
* Article 2, Tenet 2: Rights under this Article may be exercised
only when the systems exercising the rights are designed , as
determined by the state of the practice, to be reasonably resistant
in interference.
* Article 3: All licensing, auctioning, selling or otherwise
disposition of the rights to frequencies and spectrum usage shall
be subordinate to , and controlled by Articles 1 and 2, above.
Grant Bowman wrote:
> Local examples are SFLan and Toaster.net.
>
> http://www.sflan.com/
> http://www.toaster.net/wireless/aplist.php
>
>
> The term community networking can also mean many different things.
> Silicon Valley Public Access Link is a Free-net(sm) that began
> operation
> in Santa Clara County in 1994. There is also a national organization,
>
> the Association for Community Networking that has been involved with
> community and some economic development for almost as long. They just
>
> finished up an annual meeting in San Diego where the president gave a
> compelling closing plenary speech.
>
> http://www.svpal.org
> http://www.afcn.net
> http://www.afcn.net/docs/chaordic.pdf
>
> --
> -- Grant Bowman <grantbow@svpal.org>
>
>
>
> * Jack Park <jackpark@thinkalong.com> [010701 12:49]:
> > http://slashdot.org/articles/01/06/30/2111211.shtml
> >
> > "ink and several others sent in the latest Cringely column where he
> > discusses creating a long-range 802.11b network using high-tech
> tools like
> > a telescope and bribery. Sean Clifford sent in guide to creating
> your own
> > long-range antenna: "Have some old PrimeStar hardware laying around?
> Do
> > something useful with it by turning it into an IEEE 802.11 wireless
> > networking antenna. This electrical engineering professor uses an
> Airport,
> > but any access point should work fine." If you're at all interested
> in this
> > sort of stuff, get involved with one of the community wireless
> networks
> > springing up"
>
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
> Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
> Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 02 2001 - 12:47:58 PDT