Stephen E. Arnold: Google Glass as Goose Poop

Categories: IO Impotency
Stephen E. Arnold

Stephen E. Arnold

Glass: Looking through the Obvious

I read “How Google Screwed Up Google Glass.” The capitalist tool does not have its heart in the analysis. Here’s the tip off: “It really is a great idea.”

What exactly is great about a virtual reality headset? As I wrote in Information Today, I have two or three devices that connect on my shelves. What became of them? Not too much.

In my view, Glass is less about wearing crazy eye glasses and more about dragging red herrings across real journalists’ paths, than a different play. I a report I prepared for an investment bank, I focused on the technology which is used to create the headgear and the contact lens demonstration.

The key figure in this technology is a fellow named Dr. Amir Parviz (aka Babak Parvis, Babak Parviz, Babak Amirparviz, and other variations). He studied at the elbow of Dr. George Whitesides at Harvard. This dynamic duo has demonstrated some chemistry in their research and patents. The contact lens work has roots which reach back to Dr. Parviz’s days at the University of Washington and its research group.

I am not going to rehash the information presented in the Information Today article and the financial institution’s report. Suffice it to say that Glass is less about wearing wonky headgear and more about nanoengineering. Is this self assembly work related to robots. By the way, yummy photos of Google’s X Lab at http://read.bi/1hkHTKl do not include the biomedical facilities. Slight oversight or Loon misdirection?

Seeing through Glass is important. There are strong personal motivations for Google’s top dogs behind the biological engineering research. Maybe running a query on Glass will sharpen the focus?

Stephen E Arnold, April 22, 2014

Comments Off
Apr 23

Stephen E. Arnold: Open Source Search Sucks, Google Hides, Norvig’s Law Skins Singularity

Categories: IO Impotency
Stephen E. Arnold

Stephen E. Arnold

Open Source Search: Just Like Good Old Proprietary Search

The more search changes, the more it remains the same it seems. Come to think of it: Most of today’s vendors are following the scripts written for Fulcrum Technologies and Verity who stomped around the C suite in the 1980s. Is the search sector running an endless loop?

Google Promptly and Quietly Erases Lists of Government Partners

This story shares screenshots taken before and after the revelatory article was posted a couple days before. These images show Google’s Enterprise- Government page displaying lists of government partners. The second shows a page in perpetual-load mode.

Norvigs Law – No Doubling Past 50%

But if you’re counting percentage of people (or households), there’s just no more doubling after you pass 50 percent.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments Off
Apr 21

Berto Jongman: Australian Foreign Minister Calls Into Question Professionalism and Value of Australian Secret Intelligence

Berto Jongman

Berto Jongman

Seems to confirm all that the OSINT movement has been saying for twenty years. He also takes on the Zionist lobby.

Read all about it, spying misses intelligence quotient

Daniel Flitton

The Age, 18 April 2014

It costs about 10 bucks to buy a weekly issue of The Economist, and about $1 billion a year to fund the secret operations of Australia’s intelligence agencies. Which source gives better value for money?

Bob Carr: "One must not be seduced by spies."

Bob Carr: “One must not be seduced by spies.”

This is the fascinating but as yet largely overlooked question to emerge from Bob Carr’s diary of his time as foreign minister. ‘‘Intelligence figures larger in the job than I would have imagined,’’ Carr writes, and describes the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, tucked in its crypt inside Foreign Affairs headquarters, as ‘‘My own little CIA, my own spies’’.

. . . . . . .

Nothing in the book appears to put any secret sources at risk, even though security types expecting strict control over information will doubtless squirm from the attention.

But for all Carr’s devouring of intelligence reports, he doesn’t seem overly impressed by the shadowy world from whence they emanate. ‘‘One must not be seduced by spies and their agenda,’’ he writes after meeting the CIA chief in Washington. At an earlier meeting, fresh in the job, Carr also spoke with CIA officers on topics ranging across Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and China, and came away underwhelmed.

‘‘All this was solid but unexciting. Where were the revelations? Was there anything here one would not pick up from The Economist, let alone [diplomatic] cables? This thought stirred my instinctive scepticism about intelligence. How often do we get to relish the knockout revelation that we can whole-heartedly believe and on which we can base policy, taking our rivals altogether by surprise?’’

Amazon Page

Amazon Page

Carr is not the first to doubt the value of intelligence, whose reputation is regularly burnished by Hollywood depictions of the all-seeing, all-knowing spies. He approvingly records a conversation with former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger who similarly reported having never been much surprised by intelligence reports.

Carr has a point. Open source material – the stuff of newspapers, academic journals or a chat with an expert – is often regarded as less worthy when placed alongside a report stamped ‘‘TOP SECRET’’ in big red letters. Yet the best answers are regularly to be found in plain sight.

He goes further, warning that spying for spying’s sake carries grave risk. Presumedly this is the ‘‘agenda’’ he worries over. He left the job before leaks by Edward Snowden exposed Australian bugs on the phones of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and his wife, upending ties with Indonesia.

But Carr did see hints of trouble with Jakarta over spy operations emerge during his time. ‘‘The pursuit of intelligence of questionable value has got to be weighed,’’ he writes. ‘‘Weighed against the harm if the intelligence gathering is exposed.’’

This is a debate Australia should be having, rather than beating up on the ABC and other reporters for broadcasting the Snowden leaks. Are we happy to be the kind of nation that covertly listens in on other country’s leaders? Is there a genuine advantage?

Read full article.

Comments Off
Apr 20

Eagle: Will Artificial Intelligence Lead to Extinction of Humanity? Would You Trust Your Life to the Weakest Line of Code?

300 Million Talons...

300 Million Talons…

Scientists warn the rise of AI will lead to extinction of humankind

(NaturalNews) Everything you and I are doing right now to try to save humanity and the planet probably won’t matter in a hundred years. That’s not my own conclusion; it’s the conclusion of computer scientist Steve Omohundro, author of a new paper published in the Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence.

His paper, entitled Autonomous technology and the greater human good, opens with this ominous warning (1)

Military and economic pressures are driving the rapid development of autonomous systems. We show that these systems are likely to behave in anti-social and harmful ways unless they are very carefully designed. Designers will be motivated to create systems that act approximately rationally and rational systems exhibit universal drives towards self-protection, resource acquisition, replication and efficiency. The current computing infrastructure would be vulnerable to unconstrained systems with these drives.

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments Off
Apr 20

Stephen E. Arnold: Technology Flopping – Thinking Still Out of Style

Stephen E. Arnold

Stephen E. Arnold

Concern about the Future of Technology

I suggest you read two articles.

The first is from folks who make their living cheerleading technology. The article “What Does the Recent Tech Stock Downturn Meant? The Truth Is Nobody Knows.” is an admission that the future of technology is—well—not too clear. With increasing class tension in the City by the Bay, I suppose some reflection is warranted. I sort of knew this when I was a wee lad. Apparently for those surfing technology, the notion that the fancy analytics systems with their clever predictive methods are clueless is interesting. I assume not even insider information is illuminating the dark corners of what seems to be a somewhat trivial issue compared with some of the national and international news.

The second is “We got Bookies to Predict the Future of Tech.” Crowdsourcing the future is not too interesting. I checked out the investment and threat markets and concluded that the Ivory Tower folks had time on their hands. This article contains a quote I noted. The comment is about Google Glass. Few items of headgear trigger assaults, so I was intrigued:

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments Off
Apr 20

Lee Camp: Is the USA a Democracy?

A new scientific report took into account 1,779 policy issues as well as many variables and found that the people of the United States have little, if any, say in the policies that impact them. You won’t believe the rest.

Comments Off
Apr 19

Berto Jongman: Cyber-Threats Current & Emerging

Categories: IO Impotency
Berto Jongman

Berto Jongman

Current and Emerging Cyber-Threats

Security expert Steve Durbin discusses nation-state espionage and the dangers lurking in cyberspace, and urges organizations to become cyber resilient.

QUESTIONS ONLY

What should CIOs be most concerned about in Threat Horizon 2016?

How can enterprises mitigate nation-state espionage?

What threat intelligence-sharing forums should enterprise CIOs be following? What are useful security resources they might not be aware of?

Why do you think the Balkanization of the Internet is a large threat? Only a few nations are trying to create geopolitical borders on the Internet.

Regarding the unintended consequences of nation-states policing the Internet, what are the most likely types of incidents we’ll see in 2014?

How can enterprises reduce the vulnerabilities posed by third-party service providers? What’s a good action plan you’ve observed?

Your advice about using encryption now that it appears that encryption isn’t the fail-safe tool that we’d believed it was.

When companies apply data analytics to information security problems, what are the most common things they do right? And what do they often do wrong?

Read full article with answers to each question.

Comments Off
Apr 13

Stephen E. Arnold: Google As Intrusive As Could Be…

Categories: IO Impotency
Stephen E. Arnold

Stephen E. Arnold

Google Is as Intrusive as They Come

If you see the world through Google (www.google.com) colored glasses, you might think the search king can do no wrong, such as in this recent Medium.com article, “Why the Future Belongs to Google.” https://medium.com/mobile-culture/994daa5d0fee However, it’s starting to look like even those wearing the glasses are not happy.

According to the drum-thumping Medium.com piece:

“The search giant has infiltrated almost every sphere of our digital interaction and made the experience richer, more satisfying and rather beautiful…There are many big-name brands which often try to achieve this, but either their endeavour feels too intrusive or they just fail without a whimper.”

Pardon us, but if there’s one thing Google constantly stumbles over it’s how intrusive its latest and greatest ideas are. http://www.wordstream.com/articles/google-failures-google-flops We’re not just talking long-lost flops like Google Buzz, but new “innovations” like its flu-tracker http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2014/03/23/why-google-flu-is-a-failure/ and the most recent run of backlash that seems to have finally put a bullet in the motherboard of Google Glass, according to TechCruch http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/why-we-hate-google-glass-and-all-new-tech/ and others http://www.designntrend.com/articles/11970/20140321/negative-feedback-is-dimming-google-glasss-fate.htm. We are more than a little suspicious of the Medium.com article that claims google is unintrusive. It makes us wonder how deeply Google has intruded on that writer’s brain.

Patrick Roland, April 10, 2014

Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext

Comments Off
Apr 10

Berto Jongman: Eight (Nine!) Problems with Big Data

Categories: IO Impotency
Berto Jongman

Berto Jongman

Eight (No, Nine!) Problems With Big Data

By and

BIG data is suddenly everywhere. Everyone seems to be collecting it, analyzing it, making money from it and celebrating (or fearing) its powers. Whether we’re talking about analyzing zillions of Google search queries to predict flu outbreaks, or zillions of phone records to detect signs of terrorist activity, or zillions of airline stats to find the best time to buy plane tickets, big data is on the case. By combining the power of modern computing with the plentiful data of the digital era, it promises to solve virtually any problem — crime, public health, the evolution of grammar, the perils of dating — just by crunching the numbers.

Or so its champions allege. “In the next two decades,” the journalist Patrick Tucker writes in the latest big data manifesto, “The Naked Future,” “we will be able to predict huge areas of the future with far greater accuracy than ever before in human history, including events long thought to be beyond the realm of human inference.” Statistical correlations have never sounded so good.

Is big data really all it’s cracked up to be? There is no doubt that big data is a valuable tool that has already had a critical impact in certain areas. For instance, almost every successful artificial intelligence computer program in the last 20 years, from Google’s search engine to the I.B.M. “Jeopardy!” champion Watson, has involved the substantial crunching of large bodies of data. But precisely because of its newfound popularity and growing use, we need to be levelheaded about what big data can — and can’t — do.

LIST ONLY:

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments Off
Apr 8

Google and Pricing: High Stakes WalMarting Just When Amazon Is Least Ready For A Price War

Categories: IO Impotency
Stephen E. Arnold

Stephen E. Arnold

Google and Pricing: High Stakes WalMarting

I read a number of write ups about the new Google cloud pricing. The main idea, in my opinion, that  unifies the different reports is, “Everybody loves a bargain.” Consider “Google Slashes Cloud Prices: Google vs AWS Price Comparison.”

The essay-editorial begins with the invocation of the Google-Amazon joust:

Google threw down the gauntlet to challenge AWS public cloud supremacy by announcing significant price reductions across its Google Cloud Platform. The eye-opening price cuts covered compute (32-percent reduction), storage (68-percent reduction), and BigQuery (85-percent reduction). Google also signaled that future reductions could follow Moore’s Law — citing that historically public cloud prices have dropped only 6 to 8 percent annually as compared to 20- to 30-percent reductions in hardware prices.

The fact that neither Amazon nor Google provide much detail about their actual costs, profits, number of customers, and goals for their cloud services is not of much interest. Explanations of how pricing thresholds operate and migrate excite little curiosity.

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments Off
Mar 27