SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: altair19 who wrote (185985)1/31/2010 2:08:15 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361732
 
Smart Dust? Not Quite, but We’re Getting There

nytimes.com

By STEVE LOHR
New York Times
January 31, 2010

In computing, the vision always precedes the reality by a decade or more. The pattern has held true from the personal computer to the Internet, as it takes time, brainpower and investment to conquer the scientific and economic obstacles to nudging a game-changing technology toward the mainstream.

The same pattern, according to scientists in universities and corporate laboratories, is unfolding in the field of sensor-based computing. Years ago, enthusiasts predicted the coming of “smart dust” — tiny digital sensors, strewn around the globe, gathering all sorts of information and communicating with powerful computer networks to monitor, measure and understand the physical world in new ways. But this intriguing vision seemed plucked from the realm of science fiction.

Smart dust, to be sure, remains a ways off. But technology’s virtuous cycle of smaller, faster and cheaper has reached the point that experts say sensors may soon be powerful enough to be the equivalent of tiny computers. Some ambitious sensor research projects provide a glimpse of where things are headed.

Last year, Hewlett-Packard began a project it grandly calls “Central Nervous System for the Earth,” a 10-year initiative to embed up to a trillion pushpin-size sensors around the globe. H.P. researchers, combining electronics and nanotechnology expertise, announced in November that they had developed sensors with accelerometers that were up to 1,000 times more sensitive than the commercial motion detectors used in Nintendo Wii video game controllers and some smartphones.

The use of accelerometers in consumer products points to the changing economics of sensors, notes Peter Hartwell, a senior researcher at H.P. Labs. In the 1980s, accelerometers began to be used in automobiles, to detect crashes so that air bags would inflate. That was a specialized, costly application of motion sensing. But today’s low-cost sensors, Mr. Hartwell says, are opening the door to widespread use, linking the physical world to computing as never before.

In places like desktops and data centers, computing power marches ahead relentlessly. “But it is still as if the computer is a brain that is blind, deaf and dumb to its surroundings,” Mr. Hartwell says. “Closing that gap is what the sensor revolution is all about.”

Microchip-equipped sensors can be designed to monitor and measure not only motion, but also temperature, chemical contamination or biological changes. The applications for sensor-based computing, experts say, include buildings that manage their own energy use, bridges that sense motion and metal fatigue to tell engineers they need repairs, cars that track traffic patterns and report potholes, and fruit and vegetable shipments that tell grocers when they ripen and begin to spoil.

Power consumption has long been the Achilles’ heel of sensor-based computing. Smart dust, observed Joshua Smith, a principal engineer at Intel Labs in Seattle, proved impossible because the clever sensors needed batteries. Instead of dust, he said, the sensor nodules would be the size of grapefruits.

But the power barrier, Mr. Smith says, is rapidly eroding. Advances in sensor chips are delivering predictable, rapid progress in the amount of data processing that can be done per unit of energy. That, he said, expands the potential data workloads that sensors can handle and the distance over which they can communicate — without batteries.

At Intel, Mr. Smith is doing sensor research that builds on commercial RFID technology (for remote identification) and adds an accelerometer and a programmable chip — in a package measured in millimeters. Its power, he explains, can come from either a radio-frequency reader, as in RFID, or the ambient radio power from television, FM radio and WiFi networks. (For the latter, Intel is developing “power-harvesting circuits,” he adds.)

“The ability to eliminate batteries for these sensors brings the vision of smart dust closer to reality,” Mr. Smith says.

In this model of computing, the sensors are servants. They exist to generate data. And the more sensors there are, the better the data quality should be. When mined and analyzed, better data should in turn help people make smarter decisions about things as diverse as energy policy and product marketing.

If sensor-based computing takes off, it will ignite fresh demand for a wide range of hardware and software to store, process and search the new oceans of data for nuggets of useful knowledge. So it could be a boon to business, a foundation for what analysts call “the Internet of Things.”

“It does feel almost like the beginning of the Internet,” says Katharine Frase, vice president for emerging technologies at I.B.M. Research. “You can see that sensor computing is going to be important and useful, but it’s not possible to see in advance just how it will transform things.”

The recent advances in stand-alone sensors may be impressive, but some researchers are pursuing a different path. “We already have massively distributed wireless sensors — they’re called cellphones,” explains Deborah Estrin, a computer scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Ms. Estrin and her colleagues at the university’s Center for Embedded Networked Sensing have designed several projects that use cellphones and people in data-gathering and analysis. Cellphones, they say, are versatile data collectors and are becoming more powerful all the time — with cameras, GPS, accelerometers and Internet connectivity. Their work is at the forefront of an emerging field called participatory sensing.

One project involves collecting travel, time and location data that is fed into Web databases to calculate an individual’s personal environmental impact and exposure to pollutants (peir.cens.ucla.edu). Another project, in cooperation with the National Park Service, uses a smartphone application to identify, photograph and track the advance of invasive plants, like Harding grass and poison hemlock, which can crowd out local species and undermine biodiversity (whatsinvasive.com).

STILL another is a Twitter application for self-reported data on one’s daily life (your.flowingdata.com), which can be assembled into small graphs that show a person’s behavior over time. The most common use since the site went up last fall, says Nathan Yau, a graduate student who created the application, has been to track personal health — eating habits, weight, blood pressure, glucose and sleep times.

The cellphone is a constant companion — immediate and intimate, always there to inform, remind and prompt. “The killer app for this is personalized health and wellness,” Ms. Estrin says. “The potential to help people make behavior changes and lead healthier lives is tremendous.”

Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company



To: altair19 who wrote (185985)1/31/2010 6:00:14 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361732
 
Obama Needs to Take His Inside Politics Outside:

Commentary by Albert R. Hunt /

Jan. 31, 2010 -- (Bloomberg) -- John Gardner, the estimable founder of Common Cause and former secretary of health, education and welfare, said one of the conditions for effectiveness in Washington is to employ “inside-outside alliances.”

He was talking about citizen action. The need to walk that line between outdoor politics, summoning public support with some explanatory eloquence, and indoor politics, making the essential compromises, cutting the deals with legislators and vested interests, that are the essence of most vibrant democracies. This is even more applicable to governing.

President Barack Obama’s inability to practice this art over the past year is a major factor in some of his difficulties. While winning legislative victories on the economic stimulus and health care, the administration allowed the opposition to define the measures.

“There’s a disconnect,” says Bill Carrick, a top Democratic strategist in California. “They’re doing some good things and people don’t know it.”

This isn’t simply a matter of message or public relations. Obama advisers delude themselves when they say that most of their setbacks stem from process issues such as not televising the health-care deliberations on C-Span.

Obama has saturated the media with interviews -- far more and diverse than anything his predecessors did -- and the public arena with speeches, some superb. Yet he has failed to convey any overarching vision; his initiatives aren’t centrally connective.

Defining the Message

Thus, the stimulus bill, to most Americans, was about parochial pork-barrel projects, not about the millions of jobs saved and the more severe economic dislocation it avoided. To be sure, the stimulus was bracketed between and associated with the U.S. Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, which most Americans see as an unconscionable bailout of Wall Street fat cats, and the rescue of the auto industry, which remains unpopular though it’s turning out pretty well.

To many in the public, the health-care bill was more a matter of death panels or special deals for Senator Ben Nelson and Nebraska or labor unions than about insuring 30 million more Americans, or ending discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions, or, most important, improving the economy and creating jobs.

Deals always are cut to grease legislation, the bigger the spending or tax measure, the more special provisions. The issue is, which dominates: the pieces or the whole?

Reagan Tax Cuts

A telling example is Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts in 1981, the centerpiece of that president’s agenda. He proposed huge but simple across-the-board tax reductions intended to spur economic growth. A congressional bidding war ensued and the bill was laden with so many corporate loopholes and special favors that budget director David Stockman later said “the hogs were really feeding” as it “just got out of control.” The end product was so bad that Reagan had to increase taxes each of the next three years.

Yet that wasn’t the message conveyed. Reagan’s optimism in articulating the purpose overwhelmed any criticism of the particulars.

By contrast, the Obama White House, which was intimately involved in shaping the particulars of both the stimulus and the health-care bill, became so obsessed with the inside game that it lost sight of the vision or the narrative. Supporters had little idea what they were supposed to be supporting.

Health-Care Plan

Many Americans embrace the concept of overhauling health care and many of the particulars of the Democrats’ plan. It is the vague Obama plan, as defined by his opponents, that worries them, even in Massachusetts.

This discord, or disconnect, is more important for the White House to try to address than the other suggested changes to the Obama presidency.

The political left insists the problem is the president has lost his moorings and needs to energize the liberal base. The reality is that Obama is no left-winger, and liberals lack a majority in the Congress and the country.

The other side says, move to the center, eschew those far-out policies. This is equally false. The health-care measure rejects any government option and is embraced, in varying degrees, by the drug and insurance industries and the medical associations. They aren’t members of any liberal cabal; neither is Obama; he’s a pragmatic progressive.

No Time to Wait

Well, some say, then he took on too much; he should have waited to take on health care. The current measure’s fate hangs in the balance. But if Obama had waited there is little chance any major effort would have been enacted in his presidency, whether it’s one or two terms. Ask former President George W. Bush about entitlements.

The Obama slide has little to do with ideology or a too-ambitious agenda. Is a reflection of both the difficulty of the situation he inherited and the administration’s inability to balance conflicts, which is what effective leaders do.

In few places is this value more necessary than the approach to big banks and Wall Street. Anti-corporate populism is a bankrupt policy for governance and often has a short political shelf life. Still, Obama can ill afford to cede the very legitimate populist anger over bailouts and bonuses and back to business as usual on Wall Street.

On this, he is off to a good start by channeling this anxiety into more than just a populist rant with the looming presence of Paul A. Volcker and the “Volcker rule” on limiting banks’ risks.

State of the Union

The president threaded some of these needles in his State of the Union speech last week, adhering to his basic principles and articulating them well, while offering some concessions to political opponents. It won’t be easy to build on that over the next few months.

It is harder, the Obama camp is right, because they inherited from the Bush administration a terrible mess: a fragile economy, out-of-control budget deficits and a dysfunctional and dangerously expensive health-care system. Recently, one top Obama aide lamented to the president how much better it would be to govern in good times.

“If it were good times,” Obama responded, “we wouldn’t be here.”

(Albert R. Hunt is the executive editor for Washington at Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Albert R. Hunt in Washington at ahunt1@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: January 31, 2010 11:00 EST



To: altair19 who wrote (185985)1/31/2010 7:09:10 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361732
 
A Social Media Scorecard – 2010 US Senate Special Election in MA

ovrdrv.com

<<...The recent special election to fill the vacated US Senate seat of the late Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts was certainly one of the most highly charged and closely followed statewide elections in recent history, both on state and national level. Not only was the Democrats filibuster-proof 60 vote majority at stake, the fact that a Republican was threatening to take the seat, in what many consider the bluest of blue states, made this an election for the ages.

In the end, it was Scott Brown, a Republican, who won the seat with a convincing 51.9% of the vote over Maratha Coakley’s 47.1%. Independent Joseph L. Kennedy (no relation) received 1%.

While there were many factors that contributed to Brown’s victory and Coakley’s surprising defeat, one area I decided to look at was how effectively the candidates used social media to get their message out and rally their base. In doing so, I looked at the following:

Facebook
Here I not only looked at how many fans each campaign garnered, but also how they each leveraged specific elements and available functionality on their Fan Pages. As you can see via the above Social Media Score Card, Scott Brown’s campaign and base were clearly more engaged than that of Martha Coakley.

Twitter
Here I looked at baseline metrics in terms of how many Followers, Tweets and times Listed. As you can see via the above Social Media Score Card, Scott Brown’s campaign and base were once again clearly more engaged, as there Total Score for Twitter was 228% higher than that of the Coakley campaign.

YouTube
With YouTube, I analyzed the volume of content posted as well as level of user engagement. While you will see that Martha Coakley had one more video than Scott Brown, his base was clearly more engaged as indicated by the number of channel views, video views and channel subscribers.

Website Integration
While this is not something you can necessarily quantify, looking at how each campaign integrated social technologies into their websites, is a sign of how well they understand the medium and how they looked to leverage it.

Again, Scott Brown is clearly the winner as his campaign integrated a Twitter feed right on the home page, and integrated Chiclet sharing technology throughout the site. So not only did users who made it to the “mother ship” see what was being communicated in the social sphere, Chiclets ensured that they also had the opportunity to share content from the site directly within their own personal social networks. This last point is very important as chiclets enable users to advocate directly to their base of friends/followers, and since the message is coming from a third party, not necessary the source itself, it adds additional credibility. Conversely, Martha Coakely did not have any of this kind of integration or technology within her site, which was a huge missed opportunity.

Additionally, one thing neither candidate did was incorporate the Facebook Fan Widget into their site, which could have made for much more effective Facebook integration for both campaigns.

The Winner – Scott Brown!

Total Social Score:
- Brown: 946,109
- Coakley: 135,053
- Margin of Victory: 601%

While Scott Brown won the election, he also clearly won the race when it comes to Social Media. As you can see via the Total Social Score outlined above, Brown’s presence was 600% greater than that of Coakley’s.

With the impact and influence that Social Media is having on today’s cultural landscape, its more important than ever to leverage this channel as it provides a huge opportunity to connect with your base, be they constituents or customers. Having a well defined social media strategy and presence will enable you more effectively reach, connect and market to your base and also give you a leg up on the competition.

This was certainly the case with this election, as while both candidates were all over the airwaves in terms of traditional media, when it came to Social Media, the Brown campaign clearly won the election, and in the end, made what seemed improbable, probable...>>



To: altair19 who wrote (185985)1/31/2010 7:26:42 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361732
 
Who Else Have We Got in the Bullpen? Red Sox Bring in New Legal Ace /

By Matt Straquadine
Corporate Counsel
February 01, 2010

When a team doesn't go deep in the postseason, management considers making changes.

In the case of New England Sports Ventures LLC, owner of the Boston Red Sox and storied ballfield Fenway Park, the shake-up came even before the Sox were knocked out of the playoffs this year.

In mid-September, Boston-based NESV announced a new hire for its legal team: Ed Weiss, a longtime media in-house vet, was called up to take over as the partnership's legal ace. According to a company release, Weiss comes on as NESV general counsel after 13 years in the legal department at Time Warner Inc., where he was most recently deputy general counsel.

Weiss is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania’s law school and Harvard College. Before Time Warner, he worked as an associate at Cravath, Swaine & Moore for four years, handling commercial litigation. Once out of law school, he clerked for a federal judge in Pennsylvania.

Weiss, a native of Norwood, Mass., was not available for comment.

Though the Red Sox face challenges filling holes in their pitching rotation this off-season, Weiss is less likely to lose sleep over upcoming professional decisions. Since its founding in 2002, the privately held NESV has expanded rapidly (and profitably) with big real estate buys around Fenway.

The company also owns stakes in New England Sports Network, a cable channel in the Northeast, a minor league baseball team, and a NASCAR team, Roush Racing.