Russ McCutcheon

Social Robotics has its roots in the mid-20^th century work of William Grey Walter, a neurophysiologist and roboticist who constructed autonomous electronic robots to demonstrate that complex behavior could arise from robust connectivity between just a few neurons. As robots became more sophisticated and animations more realistic, it was found that our empathy for these human analogues grew with their similarity to ourselves. But theres a catch: As robots become increasingly humanoid in appearance and behavior past a certain point, a phenomenon known as the uncanny valley emerges.

A phrase introduced in 1970 by robotics professor Masahiro Mori, the uncanny valley is best described as the reaction we have to robotic appearance or behavior when it is perceived as almost human. The gap between barely human and fully human leaves us feeling uneasy as a result of the way evolution has shaped our brains when perceiving familiarity especially that of anthropomorphic forms. As Mori wrote in his original paper about a prosthetic hand that is lifelike o the eye but not to the touch (and as translated by Karl F. MacDorman and Takashi Minato), In mathematical terms, strangeness can be represented by negative familiarity, so the prosthetic hand is at the bottom of the valley. So in this case, the appearance is quite human like, but the familiarity is negative. This is the uncanny valley.

This experience of strangeness or even revulsion in turn prevents us from experiencing empathy for the robot or animation and empathy is essential for optimal human/robot social interactions. In terms of robot behavior, this means that social robots must successfully operate with the complex web of societal rules that humans learn primarily through implicit experience rather than explicit programming.

At a recent New York Academy of Sciences event, Familiar but Strange: Exploring our Relationships with Robots, two exceptional speakers roboticist extraordinaire Heather Knight and motion capture, computer vision and animation wizard Christoph Bregler explored this mysterious space in considerable depth.

Enlarge

Geminoid Research. Copyright Hiroshi Ishiguro Laboratory, ATR

Heather Knight currently conducting her doctoral research at Carnegie Mellons Robotics Institute approaches social robotics in innovative ways. Founder of Marilyn Monrobot Labs in New York City, which creates socially intelligent robot performances and sensor-based electronic art, one of her more engaging projects is the integration of robot design and theater as demonstrated by her creation and production of Robot Film Festival, which took place in New York City on July 16-17, 2010. (The next Robot Film Festival is scheduled for 2012; submissions will be accepted for consideration starting in January.)

As we go about designing our future, Knight says, some of the things I think about are creating intelligent machines, building relatable robotic characters, and creating companions that can exist and help us in our everyday lives. Knight sees the integration of robotics and theater and a key pathway to that future.

Robots and theater have a long history together, Knight points out a history beyond the legacy of RUR. Artists tend to use the medium of their times and right now, that medium is technology. Moreover, she observes, making robots responsive to their audience, as well as applying physical theater techniques through gestural communications, allows emotion to infuse the entire robotic form. Knight illustrates this point with the example of look-step-reach-grab behavior: Even without a word being spoken, every such sequence and its associated timing profile embodies and communicates a robust amount of specific but distinct intentional, emotional and cognitive meaning.

However, Knight whose previous work includes robotics and instrumentation at NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory, interactive installations with Syyn Labs, field applications and sensor design at Aldebaran Robotics, as well as being an alumnus of MIT Media Labs Personal Robots Group cautions that its not a matter of simply taking existing templates already successful in acting and embedding them in robots. I think actual collaboration the procedural knowledge of working with performance, performers and directors is really important, because not everything can be codified in words.

When discussing the uncanny valley, Knight cites how culture influences not only how we react to a robot perceived as being almost human, but also the way we represent robots and other technology in the world, as well as how we select the types of robotic research we fund and pursue. I think that if we create modern narratives, perhaps we can reshape some of the current emphasis of where were going with technology.

Chris Bregler, Associate Professor of Computer Science at NYUs Courant Institute and director of the NYU Movement Lab, inhabits the world of animation and entertainment, focusing on Hollywood robots virtual characters and actors without physical embodiment. Conducting interdisciplinary research in the virtual world of motion capture, animation, computer vision, graphics, statistical learning, gaming, biomedical applications, human-computer interaction, and artificial intelligence work that has resulted in numerous publications, patents, and awards from the National Science Foundation, Sloan Foundation, Packard Foundation, Electronic Arts, Microsoft, Google, US Navy, US Air Force, and other sources – he has a visually demonstrable take on the uncanny valley.

Final Fantasy image. Copyright 2001 FFFP All rights reserved.

Hollywood robots were previously played by human actors, Bregler notes, commenting on the film AI: Artificial Intelligence. Over the last 10 years, however, theres been a huge revolution in Hollywood. Today those same Hollywood robots would be played by virtual robots due to advances in animation, special effects, and live action and, he adds, Everything changes every year.

For Bregler, the uncanny valley is also evident in motion capture as applied to virtual actors, such as the animated characters in Final Fantasy which have achieved astounding realism as stationary images but all familiarity is lost once theres facial movement. Due to technological limitations, body and face motion capture cannot reproduce subtle small-scale movements that communicate essential real-world information. Without these present, viewers immediately enter the uncanny valley.

Bregler points out another problem with virtual characters: Theres no weight or force in their virtual body or captured movements. When you do animation, there are reverse kinematics a bit like a puppet. In other words, the force is externally applied rather than being an intrinsic component of the characters physicality. This was perfectly fine with the aliens in Avatar, Bregler illustrates, but if the same performance was applied to people, the illusion would have dissolved and the same holds true for more ephemeral issues, such as the way evolution has enabled us to tell, for example, if someone may be lying from facial, gestural and tonal cues we may not be explicitly aware of (familiarity) until theyre absent (uncanny valley). Surprisingly, even higher primates have an uncanny valley regarding others of their species.

Moreover, he adds that The uncanny valley is now a common problem everywhere In the game industry, in the motion capture industry and while there are movies that dance around the uncanny valley, others fall right into it. Bregler sees The Incredibles, which was hand-animated, as being in the former category but the precisely motion captured Polar Express in the latter.

Were not there yet with primary human motion and behavior, he explains. Were also very far away from being able to simulate the human brain even the spinal cord. We need a shortcut.

More information: Masahiro Mori, The Uncanny Valley. Energy, 7(4), pp. 33-35, 1970, Translated by Karl F. MacDorman and Takashi Minato

Toward Social Mechanisms of Android Science, Vancouver, Canada, 26 July 2006

Heather Knight, Eight Lessons Learned about Non-verbal Interactions through Robot Theater. SOCIAL ROBOTICS: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2011, Volume 7072/2011, 42-51, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-25504-5_5

Heather Knight: Silicon-based comedy. TED Initiatives, TED Women, December 2010

Christoph Bregler, Next Generation Motion Capture: From the Silver Screen to the Stadium. MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, March 2-3, 2011

Christoph Bregler et al., Squidball: An Experiment in Large-Scale Motion Capture and Game Design. Intelligent Technologies for Interactive Entertainment, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2005, Volume 3814/2005, 23-33, DOI: 10.1007/11590323_3

Copyright 2011 PhysOrg.com.

All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com.

Despite the common misconception that technology is advancing at a blinding pace, things are moving way too slowly for geeks. Sure, we have quad core tablets and 4G phones, but its  nearly 2012, and we still dont have flying cars, cloned organs, or robotic servants that can do much more than vacuum. But after many years of false starts and broken promises, we may finally get the chance to live as cyborgs thanks to a new generation of wearable gadgets that allow us to stay connected even when our smartphones are buried in a purse or pocket. 

Though phones and tablets allow you to access the Internet from anywhere and most even have cameras that let you combine real world information with virtual objects, theyre way too clunky to use continuously, all day long. Imagine holding your phone in front of your face for an hour as you walk down the street, just so you can see what information it overlays on top of the landmarks you pass. 

The World Information Technology Forum (WITFOR), 2012 would be held in New Delhi in cooperation with Ministry of IT Communications, government of India.

WITFOR theme for the New Delhi event is Sustainable Human Development and will be held in Vigyan Bhawan on April 16-18, 2012.

The event will focus on the developmental potential and experience of ICT in agriculture, education/human resources, health, and e-governance. It will also accommodate discussion on underlying social, ethical and legal issues regarding ICT and development, on infrastructure, economic opportunities, and environmental issues.

WITFOR is initiated by the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) and has been held in Lithuania (2003), Botswana (2005), Ethiopia (2007), and Vietnam (2009).

WITFOR brings together ICT ministers, senior policy-makers, academics, NGOs, government organizations, ICT experts, and private ICT sector people under one platform. The last WITFOR in Hanoi, attracted around 1,500 delegates from 30 countries.

WITFOR investigates successful, sustainable ICT strategies in developing countries and examines different initiatives and projects on effective and context sensitive development. The organization also develop guidelines and advise governments to formulate and follow the best strategy for the use of ICT in order to achieve global ICT-equity.

Page(s)1

IFIP WITFOR 2012

The 2012 edition of the World IT Forum, WITFOR 2012, to be held in New Delhi in April 2012 will provide a good knowledge sharing opportunity on mobilising ICTs for change.

The World Information Technology Forum (WITFOR) is a unique global forum initiated by the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP), which was formed under the auspices of UNESCO.

IFIP has been organising WITFOR every second year since 2003 in cooperation with the government of the host country. The inaugural WITFOR was held in Lithuania in 2003, followed by Botswana in 2005, Ethiopia in 2007 and Vietnam in 2009.

The fifth IFIP World IT Forum, WITFOR 2012, will be held at Vigyan Bhavan in New Delhi, on 16th – 18th April 2012, under the overall theme of ‘Sustainable Human Development’, with a focus on four key areas:

• Agriculture
• Education
• Health
• E-Governance

Organised in partnership with the Department of Information Technology (DIT), Government of India, WITFOR 2012 will provide a unique opportunity for sharing knowledge on mobilising ICT for change, among a diverse range of professionals and across countries with different development conditions.

Source: http://www.witfor.org/

Google is never afraid of taking on risks, and one such risk was to allow a journalist to spend hundreds of hours with it employees, look over engineers shoulders as they developed products and sit in on internal confabs, acknowledges Steven Levy in In the Plex: How Google thinks, works, and shapes our lives.

The prologue begins with the question, ‘Have you heard of Google? posed to villagers in Ragihalli, thirty miles outside Bangalore. Twenty-two people from a company based in Mountain View, California, had driven in SUVs and vans up an unpaved road to this enclave of seventy threadbare huts with cement floors, surrounded by fields occasionally trampled by unwelcome elephants, narrates Levy, as an observer on the annual trip of Google associate product managers (APMs), a select group pegged as the companys future leaders. The trip in 2007 had begun in San Francisco and touched down in Tokyo, Beijing, Bangalore, and Tel Aviv before returning home sixteen days later, he says.

The APMs on the trip worked all over Google, one learns. In search, advertising, applications, and even stealth projects such as Googles attempt to capture the rights to include magazines in its index Every activity had an underlying purpose to increase the participants understanding of a technology or business issue, or make them more (in the parlance of the company) ‘Googley.

An example mentioned in the book is of an activity in Tokyo, when teams of participants engaged in a scavenger hunt in the citys legendary Akihabara electronics district, to buy with $50 the weirdest gadgets they could find like USB-powered ashtrays shaped like football helmets that suck up smoke, a plate-sized disk that simulated the phases of the moon, a breathalyser you could install in your car, and a stubby wand that when waved back and forth spelled out words in LED lights. Another Tokyo high point was the 5 am trip to the Tsukiji fish market. It wasnt the fresh sushi that fascinated the APMs but the mechanics of the fish auction, in some ways similar to the way Google works its AdWords program.

Andys Android

In a chapter titled ‘Outside the box you would meet Andy Rubin, ‘a maniacal robot aficionado he would haunt the Akihabara district of Tokyo for weird Japanese toys, and build a few of his own. Rubin had co-founded Danger to make a mobile communication device called the Sidekick, less a cell phone than a tiny computer, arguably the first smart phone with a measurable IQ, the author traces. Instant messaging, not phone calls, was the Sidekicks main purpose; you held it sideways, slid out a keyboard, and began thumb-punching IMs, which appeared in colourful pop-ups on a bright screen. It became popular with teenagers and rap musicians.

While Sidekicks built-in search engine was Google, what would bring Rubin closer to the search giant was to be Android, the company he founded for creating an operating system that would power whole families of smart phones. Rubins idea was to give the system to the big network carriers like Verizon or Sprint for free, the book recounts. This would save the carriers money, since they wouldnt have to license an operating system from a company like Microsoft or build their own. (Typically a carrier pays 20 per cent of the per-phone cost for an operating system.) Rubins plan was to make money by selling back-end services to go with the operating system, such as storage, support, and security.

Googles bet

A turning point in the story was the idea of Larry Page to buy Android, to get deeper into the mobile phone industry. It was 2005, and Googles mission was to access and organise the worlds information, the author notes. He explains that, interpreted broadly as Page did, it meant that what was good for the web or for the cloud was good for Google, and what was good for the growing universe of wireless communication over mobile phone carrier networks would also be good for Google. Because the carriers tightly controlled the software that ran on phones using their networks, Google had reason to worry that it might not have the opportunity to place its services on those nets. An open network would give Google unlimited opportunity, so that even if Google spent millions of dollars to develop an operating system and then gave it away for free it would still come out ahead.

The book cites an interesting snatch of conversation between Rubin and his boss Alan Eustace, Googles director of engineering, on the process Google used to improve itself. Did Rubin hear Eustace talk about quality assurance teams and focus groups? No, Eustace instead likened Googles brain to a babys, an omnivorous sponge that was always getting smarter from the information it soaked up. He said, for instance, that when a Google user searched for Nike shoes, there were sets of algorithms that determined search results and another set that figured out which ad should appear alongside the results, then another set of algorithms would run an instant auction. But the system was always learning. Rubin liked hearing that; his own companies had evolved from protean ideas. Danger had originally been centred on digital cameras before becoming a cell phone company

Dream, dream

The person to manage the Android product in Google was to be Erick Tseng, a CS masters from MIT who had spent a few years as a McKinsey amp; Company consultant before going back to school to get an MBA from Stanford. And, over a lunch with Google CEO Eric Schmidt who lectured at the school, Tseng would change his mind from taking a job as a venture capitalist with Sequoia.

What Schmidt told Tseng was to imagine a world where a company like Google can provide cell phones to everyone in the world for free. Now imagine the possibility of what that can enable. Its not just about the phones. Whether youre in the US or youre in Africa, you will be connected to your family, your friends and to all the content on the web. That is something Google is possibly working on. Importantly, the APMs who visited Ragihalli found the villagers to be using mobile phones though unaware of Google.

At first the Android team worked on two different systems, the author writes. One was called the Sooner, based on the existing Android prototype, with a keypad sitting underneath the screen, and designed to get into the market quickly, he adds. For the long term, Rubins group wanted to develop a more advanced platform with a touch screen. He dubbed that version the Dream.

But, when Apples new iPhone redefined the smart phone in January 2007 and delivered the future ahead of schedule by offering touch screen, tightly integrated software, and sharp display ‘Sooner became never, and Android went straight ahead to the Dream, Levy recalls.

Apparently, it took a while for Steve Jobs to understand that Google was becoming his competitor, as the author underlines.

A tale that can keep you enthralled, even as the New Year rings in.

Tailpiece

After all the debate what we got was

The lokpal?

No, a blockpal!

Know it all guide to Discovery – The Know-IT-All’s Guide to eDiscovery
Take the eDiscovery quiz, read laughable comics, and amusing factoids all interspersed with in-depth real-world information on eDiscovery. This is it – the complete guide to eDiscovery all in one download.

The end of one year and beginning of the next means all kinds of retrospective views and prognostications. I find these a little tiresome, yet, like watching a train wreck I cant seem to take my eyes off them. As I dive into these dangerous waters, I wish to remind my readers that I have proven quite inept at this in the past–I for one, doomed Twitter to the social media graveyard soon after it launched only to watch it evolve into perhaps the most important tool for emergency communications since the invention of the siren.

With that warning, I bravely dive into the shark infested pool:

1) Crisis and emergency response communication is ending as we have known it.

We have seen it in the past as a sort of separate and distinct form aspect of public communication. Suddenly, an organization finds itself under the hot lights of TV cameras and on the front pages of newspapers around the neighborhood, country or world. What do you do to prepare for that, and how can you plan to avoid the catastrophes that have ruined many a brilliant career and powerful organization? Crisis communication seen in this way is far from business as usual. But I really believe that is changing. As more and more organizations communicate and engage directly with their audiences on a daily basis crisis and emergency communication is like what happens everyday except on steroids. What changes is not what is said and how it is said, what changes is the mere intensity of the interaction.

When you are already engaged in direct communication and interaction with key audiences on a regular basis, you dont do a lot different in a major crisis. You keep up the same stuff, except maybe increase the frequency, and certainly the sheer amount of direct interaction increases. If you are already talking regularly with reporters, key stakeholders, employees, neighborhood leaders, customers, suppliers and others important to you future, isnt that what you would do in a big event? Clearly, there are a lot of organizations who are not directly and regularly engaging with the right people. For them, crisis communication as a distinct process is still very much a reality. Everything changes when bad things happen and the worlds attention is focused on them. But increasingly major corporations and emergency management organizations are learning the value of engaging directly and regularly. Coca Cola has 35 million fans on their Facebook page. What do you think they will do if it hits the fan and CNN walks across the street to talk to them (both in Atlanta, you see)? They will continue their on-going conversation on Facebook in addition to talking to CNN. And if CNN gets it wrong (quite certain to happen actually), then Coca Cola can quickly get the facts straight to the 35 million they are engaging directly. And those 35 million will use the social networks they are part of to help tell the Coca Cola story.

In this overly simplistic view of things, there are those who are engaging directly and regularly and for whom a crisis is simply what they do daily on a higher level.There are those who are not engaging directly and regularly, and for them crisis communication as it has been is not only essential, but more dangerous than ever.

2) Social media channels will continue to diffuse.

The primary social media tools of crisis and emergency communication in 2011 were Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Flickr. They will likely continue to dominate, but life will not stay quite that simple. Others will chip around the edges. Google+ is causing a lot of questions. Certainly it hasnt kicked FB off the stage yet and likely wont–but it is probably something you will have to deal with if only because Google seems committed to make it work and they have a fair amount of clout. But there are others who nibble around the edges. Ive been checking out pinterest–a rapidly growing way for folks to share common interests, mostly focused around images. Im also interested in pivotshare–which looks to take the commercial use of YouTube to a new and higher level. Im not saying these will bump FB and YouTube out of their dominant spot, but as new channels proliferate and find their audiences it will be increasingly important to incorporate them in your communication plans. One answer to this problem has to be platform integration. We are already seeing communication management systems evolve as single-point management platforms for multiple social media channels (full disclosure–I founded the above referenced company but am no longer employed, an owner or financially involved). I think we will see many more solutions aimed at making it easier to manage the multiple social media channels that are becoming essential.

3) Content curation and situation awareness will be primary concerns.

If you think about the global internet as a nervous system, the nerve endings or sensors are growing exponentially. Think about all those cameras walking around in peoples pockets, hanging on light poles, in stores. Think about the texting that happens all the time (texting is now a more frequent use of cell phones than calling–they should be called texters with phone capabilities rather than phones with texting capabilities). Think about all the blogs, websites, social media channels sharing information. Now think about the hundreds of millions of phones with precise geographic information included. The internet sensors are everywhere and at some point of time in your future, the specific information provided on a few of those is going to be very very important to you. But will you be able to get it? Emergency managers will need to know what can be known at a specific point of time and space. But will they be able to get it? Right now, we have a nervous system with gazillions of nerve endings and very little brain to help us process it. Yes, Google is doing its best and a marvelous job of organizing the worlds information. But much more is needed. We need ways to capture the petabytes of data generated every moment, process it, analyze it and present it in a way that results in effective action. Real time situation analysis remains the holy grail of emergency management in this age. Ive seen some intriguing developments in this direction that Ill be sharing with you later, but we are just at the beginning stages.

I mention content curation in this context because I see them related. We not only have in our internet nervous system all these sensors, we also have a tremendous amount of content being continually added–and all of it is accessible to us. Working on some writing projects I am continually amazed at the way I can so quickly access virtually any small but important fact–thanks again to the likes of Google and Wikipedia. The things that most interest you, the things you need to know quickly, are most likely there. But we cant be wading through it all. I cant get through all the email newsletters and messages that interest me. So having help with curating that content–organizing, prioritizing and effectively presenting it in a way that suits my particular needs–is and will be a primary concern of those in the business of presenting information. One of the best sources I have seen for discussions about this is Nieman Journalism Lab–a program of Harvard University. You may want to subscribe. And if you want examples of great curated content on the subject of social media and emergency management, you cant beat Patrice Cloutiers feed and Kim Stephens idisaster2.0 blog. I believe we will rely more and more on credible curators of information that is important to us–keep it up Patrice and Kim!

4) We will speak in video and images

Words matter, they really do ( I say this hopefully as I pound at my keyboard). But what matters more and more are pictures. Video and still images. The use of YouTube and Flickr provide an important key. There are more than 120 million videos on YouTube. If you wanted to watch every one it would take you 600 years. Many receive a few views, but a surprising number receive tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and even millions. We havent been paying attention too much to the continuing movement of globalization but the world is becoming smaller due to our ways of communicating and video and images are universal languages–even more than English. If you are involved in crisis and emergency comms and you are not thinking about how you are going to provide your vital info visually, you may find yourself in the wrong century. One quick example close at hand–power outage information. Sure, you can list all the communities, streets, locations with outages. But nothing communicates more quickly, efficiently or powerfully than a map. Especially one that tells you when the lights will come back on.

This is one lesson I am trying to practice as well as preach. Some of you saw my initial attempt at video production with the Social Media–A Whole New Game video. It may be a pathetic attempt, but Im learning a lot and Im not giving up–watch for more soon.

5) Mobile power.

This seems so obvious now that it may be not worth saying. Steve Jobs has passed on, but what he left behind has changed the world and will continue to change it in almost inconceivable ways. What you carry in your pocket or your purse in computing power is beyond any imagining just a few short years ago–and yet it is nothing compared to what is coming. People a lot smarter than me, like my son Geoff, tell me that things like Siri and Bluetooth 4 are about to change the world big time. I wont try to explain it, but I will tell you this. If you need to do urban search and rescue, say after a major earthquake, chances are you will be using things like Bluetooth 4 in the not too distant future to save lives. We still call these computers in our pockets and purses smartphones, but as I mentioned earlier, using them to phone others is becoming a minor use. They are game machines. They are personal assistants. They are newspapers and TV sets. They are key and car finders. They are recipe books. They are grandkid connectors. They are loudspeakers, sirens, printing presses, broadcast transmitters and on and on and on. They will become so much more. Yes, they have tiny screens and inconvenient key pads. But I recently played with an iphone projector, and key pads? Well, go back to Siri and see how we will be inputting info soon.

What that means is if you are not planning your communication to be managed on and distributed to mobile devices you will soon be left behind. Now, not tomorrow, is the time to plan for mobilization. I complained recently in this blog about a power outage and what I as a customer needed from my utility provider. I thought maybe I was blueskying it a bit, but then I got an email from the emergency management department of Seattle City Light and he showed me that they indeed have an interactive map that shows in essentially real time the status of power outages. Not only that they have a mobile app that will provide access to Seattle City Light including outage info. Thanks Jerry for the heads up and congrats to Seattle City Light for meeting todays expectations.

6) Threats to the internet will rise.

It is not all goodness and light in the world of internet communications. The dark cloud of SOPA hangs over everything and it has many of the folks I trust about these things positively terrified. I dont know much about it but it seems a typical extremely heavy-handed approach to solving an intellectual property concern in a way that will have devastating consequences.

While I worry about that, I worry even more about the impact of what I would call instant rage and toxic talk. This post is already way too long but I will just highlight the problems that Lowes and Chiquita have been having as examples. Its one thing for ham-fisted politicians to do in the internet and the freedom and transparency that it brings, it is another for those hypersensitive individuals who misuse the power of the internet to intimidate others and heighten outrage.

Toxic talk has been a problem on internet discussion since the very beginning. Many who participate in internet discussions hide behind anonymity and spew the most hate-filled venom and the most foul language that is possible. What they would not say in public they say without accountability–and the results are potentially very damaging. Lowes for one had to shut down comments on its Facebook page after its TV show sponsorship problems because their Facebook page became a platform for the screaming, disgusting rage of those on both sides of the Muslim vs fundamentalist Christian divide. Its disgusting, horrifying and potentially deadly to our society and the free and open use of the internet.

I find it a bit ironic (as a cigar smoker, admittedly) that a society that is so intolerant of the slightest whiff of smoke from someones questionable habit, is so completely tolerant of the venom, hate-filled language and outrage that sometimes seems to dominate our public discourse (and Im not just referring to political debates). I hope and pray that a backlash against this will develop–nothing involving legislation–just a reaction against those who participate in this sort of thing so it becomes as socially unacceptable as passing gas in polite company. (Realizing of course that that somewhat scatalogical reference may put me in the category of toxic talk.)

Just one more thing before I get off my high horse and start slipping quietly into the new year. One thing I think John Naisbitt got right in Megatrends a long time ago was the idea of high tech-high touch. The higher we go in technology, the more there will be a balancing need for the human relationship and interaction. We are so ridiculously connected via high technology right now and admittedly, much of that has to do with maintaining our human relationships and connections. But the sheer amount of connectedness has to be doing something to us as people and particularly in our relationships with each other. My wife has often brought to my attention the way people who go out to eat in a restaurant are often spending much of their precious time together hunched over their pocket/purse computers (aka phones). It was sad watching a grandmother go to dinner with her 14ish old grandson, only to have him spend almost the entire time texting his friends while she watched quietly and ate. What opportunity that young man missed–and wont he some day regret it? Heres what I propose–a sabbath day for connectivity. One day a week to completely and totally disconnect. No cheating. Just see if you can do it.

Blessings on all of you in the new year!

Gerald

Ventana Research Finds Business Analytics in Telecommunications Progressively Advancing
Research still finds needed improvement in business confidence and analytics processes.

SAN RAMON, CA, December 20, 2011 /24-7PressRelease/ — New benchmark research from Ventana Research finds that although telecommunications organizations are ahead of most other vertical industries in their use of analytics, many of these organizations still have opportunity for significant improvement.

With telecommunication business people under increasing pressure to operate more efficiently and make better decisions, it is important they comprehend the full potential of business analytics and how to best take advantage of them. This new benchmark research from Ventana Research, the leading business technology research firm, presents comprehensive, research-based information on telecommunication organizations attitudes towards business analytics.

The research revealed that 39 percent of organizations indicated most of their data is stale or outdated, while nearly half (48 percent) said the data they use for analytics is only somewhat accurate. These two factors can contribute to low analytics confidence levels: the research shows that 41 percent of telecommunications business people are only somewhat confident or not confident in the quality of data being generated by their analytics, while 21 percent are very confident in it. Similarly, 47 percent of telecommunications organizations are not satisfied with the process currently used to create analytics, while 45 percent are satisfied with it.

Our research continues to indicate that the prevalence of spreadsheet use is to blame for stale, inaccurate data as well as the dissatisfaction with the processes used to create analytics, said Mark Smith, CEO and Chief Research Officer of Ventana Research. Even though this research found telecommunications organizations are the most Innovative of any vertical industry, just 21 percent of all telecommunications organizations attain the highest Innovative level of maturity. This new research details how telecommunications organizations can mature and make improvements with the help of accurate, accessible, easy-to-use analytics.

This in-depth benchmark research on business analytics in telecommunications assessed the maturity and direction of organizations efforts around the world. Ventana Research undertook this research to acquire real-world information about maturity, trends and best practices in how they use analytics and key indicators. It explores how they do this now, how they view their existing processes and tools, plans they have to change or improve them, and the benefit they hope to gain by doing so.

To view the webinar, visit: http://www.ventanaresearch.com/telcobawebinar

Those interested in learning more about this benchmark research can find additional information at http://ventanaresearch.com/Telcoba/. As a part of your registration you will receive insights and education from Ventana Research on using technology effectively in business. Ventana Research thanks those that participated in the benchmark and our media and association partners who helped make this vertical industry research a reality. Ventana Research provides guidance to organizations in business analytics through its Ventana OnDemand (http://www.ventanaresearch.com/ondemand) and with its assessment and educational services offerings. (http://www.ventanaresearch.com/services/).

About Ventana Research

Ventana Research is the most authoritative and respected benchmark business technology research and advisory services firm. We provide insight and expert guidance on mainstream and disruptive technologies through a unique set of research-based offerings including benchmark research and technology evaluation assessments, education workshops and our research and advisory services, Ventana On-Demand. Our unparalleled understanding of the role of technology in optimizing business processes and performance and our best practices guidance are rooted in our rigorous research-based benchmarking of people, processes, information and technology across business and IT functions in every industry. This benchmark research plus our market coverage and in-depth knowledge of hundreds of technology providers means we can deliver education and expertise to our clients to increase the value they derive from technology investments while reducing time, cost and risk.

Ventana Research provides the most comprehensive analyst and research coverage in the industry; business and IT professionals worldwide are members of our community and benefit from Ventana Researchs insights, as do highly regarded media and association partners around the globe. Our views and analyses are distributed daily through blogs and social media channels including Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and Business Weeks Business Exchange.

To learn how Ventana Research advances the maturity of organizations use of information and technology through benchmark research, education and advisory services, visit www.ventanaresearch.com.

Media: Copies of benchmark research report and interviews are available upon request.

Media Contact:

Bailey Donoghue

(925) 242-2412

marketing@ventanaresearch.com

—

Press release service and press release distribution provided by http://www.24-7pressrelease.com

RAY SUAREZ: Hong Kong, 1997, a virus that kills chickens and other fowl is seen for the first time in a major outbreak among humans. Since then, there have been several other occurrences of the H5N1 bird flu, mostly in Asia.

Overall, about 600 people have contracted the disease and more than half have died. The good news so far: The virus is hard to transmit from person to person. And health officials have been largely able to contain outbreaks.

ACTOR: On day one, there were two people, and then four, and then 16.

ACTRESS: Dont talk to anyone. Dont touch anyone. Stay away from other people.

RAY SUAREZ: In the popular imagination and in films like this years Contagion, viruses mutate and multiply relentlessly through the population.

In fact, scientists have looked into whether something like that could happen with avian flu, in part to better understand how it might be combated. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands were able to create a highly transmissible form of the virus in ferrets.

But, this week, in an unprecedented step, a government panel that reports to the National Institutes of Health and other agencies called the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity asked prominent journals Science and Nature not to publish some of the details of the biological experiments, recommending that: The general conclusions highlighting the novel outcome be published, but the manuscripts not include the methodological and other details that could enable replication of the experiments by those who would seek to do harm.

The question of publishing all the details of the studies has stoked a debate over balancing the need for open scientific dialogue and concerns about national security.

We look at those questions now with two principal players in this story. Dr. Anthony Fauci is the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. His institute co-funded some of the research. And he speaks on behalf of the NIH tonight. And Bruce Alberts is the editor in chief of the journal Science, deciding what to publish and not publish about this research.

Dr. Fauci, let me start with you.

Has an arm of the federal government ever asked scientists not to publish the fruits of their research?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: In the biological scientists — sciences, this truly, Ray, is — its a new paradigm. Its unprecedented. So we have really got to get it right.

I mean, theres an absolute need to do kinds of research that will help protect the general and global public, but there are times, as is the case now, where the results, if gotten into the hands of people with nefarious purposes, could, in fact, be dangerous to society.

So we need to strike a balance, an appropriate balance of not impeding the science, but at the same time protecting the general public, who has concerns over the possibility that information like this may get into the hands of people who would use it for nefarious purposes.

But the answer to your question is, this is the first time — and this advisory board that you mentioned, the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity made the recommendation to the Health and Human Services Department and to the authors and the journal editors to publish the data, but to leave out the details that would allow people who might use it for purposes that are not purposes for the public health, but nefarious purposes.

They would not have ready access to this. But, also, its important to point out that the scientists and public health officials, particularly those who are surveying and looking at this virus, particularly in Southeast Asia, have access to the information at its fullest.

And thats really the discussion right now, is, how do we do that? How do we — how do we get that delicate balance between open scientific intercourse, as well as safety of the general public?

RAY SUAREZ: And that question, I guess, Bruce Alberts, lands in your lap. This is a request. They cant make you not publish it. How do you walk that line between what can be released and what should be released?

BRUCE ALBERTS, Science: Well, its a great question, Ray. Its what weve been struggling with.

Science flourishes because of its openness and the ability of other scientists to reproduce and build on results. But, in this case, this very distinguished advisory board, which I should point out is — was set up on the recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences shortly after 9/11 and contains outstanding scientists, as well as security experts, this is the first time — after looking at many other cases over the past seven years, this is the first time they came down on this side of the decision, that is, to restrict some of the information.

So, first thing, I think, as the Supreme Court, so to speak, of this decision-making process, the journals should try very hard to comply with their request. On the other hand, we have to make sure that they have the means — and were waiting for them to demonstrate that — they have the means to get this information for those in Asia and elsewhere around the world who have a real need to know the details.

RAY SUAREZ: Dr. Fauci, this is specialist information going out to a pretty selective reading audience. Could a paper on lab work with viruses really be useful to someone who wants to create a superbug?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Well, if you have the mutations that are associated with easy transmissibility from animal to animal, in this case ferrets, as you mentioned, Ray, as well as maintaining its virulence or its lethality, someone with a degree of expertise — its not somebody thats going to do this in their backyard — but you dont want to have the blueprints for that be out for individuals who might have nefarious purposes.

But, as Dr. Alberts mentioned very appropriately, the entire basis of the scientific enterprise is to share information, so that others can verify it and go to the next step, so that the ultimate public health good will be attained. So, thats the balance that we are dealing with.

But information such as this could possibly — and I say possibly. Theres not — remember now, were dealing with an animal model. And in an abundance of caution, the advisory board made the recommendation to withhold this information.

And I think what people need to know, theres no guarantee whatsoever that this virus as it exists would be transmitted. But it has characteristics in a mammal model that is the closest we get to a human model, not a perfect model, but as close as you get.

It does maintain and develop these characteristics, which are of concern if the ability to make such a virus gets into the hands of people who would use it for nefarious purposes.

RAY SUAREZ: Bruce Alberts, you heard Dr. Faucis misgivings. Do you think someone reading your magazine could figure out how to create a superbug if they didnt already know how to do it?

BRUCE ALBERTS: Hopefully not. Thats what were dealing with. We dont want to put the information thats very useful to terrorist organizations into the public if we can be convinced that the people who need to know that information will have it.

To me, this experiment which scientists say had very surprising results — it wasnt thought to be so easy to do this. And, you know, a small — a relatively small number of mutations apparently will allow this flu virus to become transmissible through the air, through aerosols. And that could cause an enormous pandemic in a human population.

So, to me, this work was important to do. And it has a major message, which is, we have to do even more than were now doing protect the world against this virus. Flu — I have been on many programs in the last few days talking to flu experts. And many of them feel that this is by far the greatest threat to our public health from infectious diseases.

And I think this is a call to action by scientists, even scientists who have never worked with flu, to work even harder and more effectively on protecting the public.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, quickly, before we go, I will ask you both, gentlemen, first you, Anthony Fauci, whether, now that this is done, can the information thats been derived from this research be given to those who really need it, who are combating dangerous flu viruses, without it gradually seeping out into a wider world?

Information doesnt seem to be like that in 2011.

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: That is a concern, Ray.

Very clearly, when things get out there, there certainly is a possibility, if not a likelihood, that, sooner or later, this is information thats going to get out. In fact, you know, in innocence, not thinking that this would be voted to be held down by the board, the investigators actually made a partial presentation of the data at a meeting outside of the country, a regular scientific meeting of exchange of information.

So, although we will try our best to get to that balance that Dr. Alberts and I have been speaking at, theres no guarantee that, when information gets passed back and forth to scientists, even those who have a need to know, that it might actually ultimately leak out, because, as we know from experience in other disciplines, it is very, very difficult to keep something secret when its information.

RAY SUAREZ: Quickly, Bruce Alberts, same question. Can you keep information bottled up?

BRUCE ALBERTS: Not — not forever, for sure, and this will leak out eventually.

And I think this is a wakeup call to the scientific and health communities to be more prepared than we are today for such outbreaks. And I would like to make sure that we focus on that going forward.

RAY SUAREZ: Bruce Alberts, Anthony Fauci, gentlemen, thank you both.

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Youre welcome.

BRUCE ALBERTS: Thank you.

JEFFREY BROWN: And its Science Thursday on the NewsHour online. Winter is now officially upon us. And, online, you will find a story about, yes, the science of snowflake formation, complete with a snowflake slide show. Thats on our website.

Kayak

Kayak is different. We might call it a specialized search engine. It really doesnt do anything but find flights, prices, times, etc. and, in most cases, provide a link directly to the airline. Kayak doesnt sell you anything and doesnt take any money out of your or the airlines pocket. It sells advertising on its site, just like Google, and relies on that for its revenue.

We entered the same travel parameters on Kayak and had to wait only three seconds for the results:

The results, sorted by price, came up quickly and gave us several options for booking our selected flight. We can book directly through the airline, thorugh Cheaptickets.com, Travelocity or Expedia.com.

Fair enough. The Kayak site is indeed covered with ads but it is relatively straightforward and appears to present all of the available options impartially.

Google

Using Google, we simply typed IAD to LAX into the search box and immediately (or, as Google would prefer, in 0.22 seconds) got the results in the familiar Google format — paid ads on the top, then the results, then more results for other pages related to the topic.

As on the other sites, we simply select the flight we want and hit Book. Unlike Kayak, Google didnt try to direct us to Expedia.com, Cheaptickets.com or any other third party; it took us right into the United Airlines reservation system and brought up a final purchase screen confirming the itinerary and price.

Like Kayaks pages, Googles pages contain advertising, which remains Big Gs primary revenue source.

Consumers complain about advertising, of course, but it is the basis of the free press that is in turn the basis of American democracy, so perhaps the less said about that the better.

The problem?

So whats the problem? Well, the other travel sites say the problem is that Google will in short order put them out of business by favoring its own searches. Its what theyve been saying since Google bought ITA Software Inc. last year.

ITA is the mother lode of flight data. It supplies the information used not only in Google flight searches but also in nearly all of the competing searches, including Kayak, Expedia, etc.

The Justice Department allowed the purchase to go forward after Google promised that it would build tools that would drive more traffic to airline and online travel agency sites.The other sites are now complaining loudly that Google isnt doing that.

Proper role

The question comes down to whether Google must forever more be nothing but a passive search engine, combing through data posted on the Internet by others or whether it should try to live up to its mandate to organize the worlds information.

Providing comprehensive, impartial flight data quickly seems to fit into Googles mandate and also, just in passing, would seem to be a benefit to consumers. Google is not obligated to think first of consumers, of course, but publishing has traditionally been a public service business — providing information that meets consumers needs in a reasonably impartial manner.

If other businesses are damaged by that, it may be what in other venues is called collateral damage. It wasnt many years ago that the online travel agencies were being vilified for running bricks-and-mortar travel agents out of town.

Some of those traditional travel agents found ways to adapt and survive. The Expedias of the world may have to do the same.

Caveats

A couple of points should be noted: the Google travel search is, for the moment, only domestic. International flights are available directly from the airlines and through online travel agents.

Also, the Google travel search does not include hotels and car rentals, so Orbitz, et al can continue to eke out an existence there, although hotels are putting on a full-court press to get their regular customers to book directly, promising better service and lower rates.

And finally, it should be noted that not all airlines are included. Southwest, JetBlue and a few others dont make their schedules available, preferring to handle everything themselves.