Author Archive
The Future of Augmented Cognition (circa 2005)
Posted by Dustin Burke in augmented cognition on December 12th, 2011
Augmented Cognition headset
A short film set in 2030 where analysts are monitoring economic activities to detect anomalous patterns of activity. The basic idea is the headset uses various neurophysio sensors such as EEG, pupilometer and galvanic skin response to measure the stress level of the analyst. The closed-loop system is able to sense the cognitive overload and adapt the display to optimize for the human.
I wonder how far to achieving this vision we are after 6 years?
ResearchForge - An open access repository of scientific papers, shared data and open source software
Posted by Dustin Burke in uncategorized on December 4th, 2009
A recent position paper from ACM Communications titled “Assessing Open Source Software as a Scholarly Contribution“, calls for publishing open source software as part of scientific contributions to become standard practice and advocates a software review process to ensure the software meets adequate level of quality. Furthermore, the authors would like to see scientists to continue maintaining and supporting their software. Some bibliometrics are even suggested as a means to measure the impact of the implemented software.
Digging deeper, I expected PLoS (Public Library of Science) as an innovator in this space to already have this solved. Although not there yet, PLoS makes Open Access, Data Sharing and Open Source Software publication a policy and their IT Director is a believer in open source, even making it a part of job descriptions on their site. Software must (or should) be submitted to one of the listed software repositories (SourceForge, etc.). I think its more than just making source code available, its also integrating it with a well-established open source platform. For instance, anyone publishing data mining algorithms these days should integrate it into Weka, otherwise applied researchers will likely either choose an alternate algorithm that IS implemented in Weka (especially if upon a deadline) or custom develop the algorithm as described in pseudocode. The applied researcher might not even be aware that your algorithm exists since the software repositories and scientific citation databases are disjoint. Custom developing a pseudocode algorithm increases the likelihood of software implementation errors, the obvious consequence of which is erroneous scientific findings derived from its use.
Weka’s acceptance criteria for new classifiers is that they be published in a reputable journal or conference proceedings and that they outperform standard algorithms. I guess that makes the challenge a bit of “chicken and egg” problem. Further complicating the adoption of publishing open source software as an accepted scholarly practice, the selection of programming language for the software implementation will always be a contentious issue.
Seems like there’s an opportunity for a “ResearchForge” site that combines open source software repository (like SourceForge) with a citation and publishing platform (like CiteULike or others) with a dataset repository, all nicely packaged together. I suppose the same could be accomplished if existing repositories published semantically annotated content so that a machine could automatically connect the dots between the paper citation, the accompanying datasets, and the software implementation, all residing in disparate repositories.
Semantic Annotation and the Tipping Point for Semantic Web
Posted by Dustin Burke in uncategorized on December 4th, 2009
Semantic annotation capabilities embedded within publishing platforms is necessary (but not sufficient) for semantic web adoption to reach its tipping point. We already have Semantic Mediawiki extension for semantic wikis, Wordpress RDFa plugin for annotated blogging, and a recent paper in ACM Communications from Microsoft Research titled “A ‘Smart’ Cyberinfrastructure for research” discusses add-in support within Microsoft Word for semantic annotations first announced in March 2009 and available from CodePlex. Drupal bundles RDFa annotations within its Content Management System (CMS) as a core, out-of-the-box feature. Bundling semantic annotation out-of-the-box is key to widespread adoption; community plugins/extensions like Semantic Mediawiki and Wordpress RDFa plugin will not lead to the same level of user adoption as publishers of semantic content, thereby not fully realizing the potential on the consumer side of semantic technologies. I anticipate other publishing platforms will follow their lead, first with a community extension available for semantic annotation and then working the capability into the roadmap to become a core feature. I wonder how long until a semantic annotation capability exists within PDF? This 2007 paper “An Annotation Tool for Semantic Documents” demonstrates a Protege ontology editor plugin that allows users to semantically annotate PDF documents.
Some companies publish RDF already (see Good Relations ontology for e-commerce, BestBuy publishes its store information and inventory as RDF) but this practice won’t become more widespread until e-commerce sites are at a competitive disadvantage to NOT publish RDF of their inventory.
In terms of the research community eating its own semantic web dogfood, I think Semantically Annotated LaTeX holds a lot of promise, as I would expect Computer Science and related scientific disciplines to be the earliest adopters, but I guess the bioinformatics field already has them beat.
As a case in point, I plan to add Wordpress RDFa extension to this blog as soon as I get around to it.
UAV or UFO? Reporting of UAV sightings as terrorism pre-indicator
Posted by Dustin Burke in uncategorized on November 25th, 2009
How to discern UAV sightings amidst UFO reports?
I started thinking out loud on Twitter today about the potential use of UAVs by terrorists within the US. Use by Hezbollah dates back at least to 2004. I began wondering how long before a suspicious UAV sighting over New York City made the news and caused at least a moderate wave of panic. How would the Intelligence Community (IC) respond to the event? Would the IC have the ability to look back at similar UAV sightings in the past and possibly discern a pattern to understand likely targeting by a terrorist group? My short investigation into this issue seems to indicate this would not be possible.
Looking further into how UAV sightings are reported, I discovered there is no credible source specific to UAV sightings. It occurred to me that UAVs are likely either reported to local law enforcement or as UFO sightings. Unless the police think it suspicious enough to warrant tipping off the FBI and the FBI thinking it warrants DHS involvement (based on this DHS Information Bulletin on Remotely Piloted Vehicle Threats), the only way the incident would see the light of day is if the media picked up on it. This is concerning as there’s the possibility for multiple UAV surveillance/reconnaissance flights over a period of time by a terrorist cell in the US to “fly under the radar” so to speak and the pattern would not emerge to uncover the plot (unless through other means).
I found a few articles on the topic of “UAV or UFO” discussing the issue of UAV sightings being reported as UFOs - space.com article from 2003 “UFOs vs UAVs: How to Tell Friend from Faux” explains that the increase in UAV projects is making it more difficult to separate UAV sightings from supposed UFO sightings. The article mentions a National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS) hotline was setup for reporting sightings, but the institute has since shuttered operations in 2004. A WikiHow article explains “How to Report a UFO Sighting“, but makes no mention of UAVs. There are a few websites where UFO sightings can be reported, the National UFO Reporting Center and Mutual UFO Network seem to be the most complete and (dare I say) credible sources. These sites encourage users to submit a report with detailed characteristics about the incident, including the shape of the craft (e.g., blimp, boomerang, disc, triangle, etc.) and behavioral characteristics (e.g, emitted beams of light, left a trail, had lights, etc.) and further encourages the user to upload a photo. Unfortunately, these sites make no mention of UAVs and their classification schemes are not amenable to capturing UAV characteristics sufficient to classify a UAV sighting. Just for fun, here’s a “true believer” perspective on “Are UFO’s Nothing but the next generation of UAV?” (I’m sure 95% of comments were by X-Files fans).
This NASA/Georgia Tech UAV Database provides the specifications of many UAVs, but doesn’t include photos which could be used for identification purposes.
Should a National UAV reporting database be setup to track (and possibly regulate?) UAV activities? What rules and regulations are currently enforced for UAV systems in urban areas in the US? Do you think the threat of UAV use by domestic terrorists in the US either for offensive weapon purposes or for surveillance/reconnaissance poses a real threat to our homeland security and requires closer scrutiny? I’d appreciate your perspective, sound off below.
Next, I’ll take a closer look at FAA policies regarding UAVs.
UAV: a tool for Terrorists?
Posted by Dustin Burke in uncategorized on November 25th, 2009
Used without permission from Tim Trueman's Flickr photostream, who is in no way associated with the content of this article
The terrorist threat from the use of UAV technology isn’t anything new. Hezbollah has been using UAVs against Israel since 2004. This 2008 article on UAVs and terrorism states that “According to globalsecurity.org Iran has a supplied a number of UAV’s capable of carrying surveillance equipment as well as explosives, to Hezbollah in recent years.” A number of reports discuss the capability of and utility of UAV technology to terrorists including for aerial surveillance and reconnaissance or for targeted attacks - Institute for Defense Analysis 2005 report on “Terrorist Use of Improvised or Commercially Available Precision-Guided UAVs at Stand-Off Ranges: An Approach for Formulating Mitigation Considerations“, ArmedForces 2008 article “Military Experts Highlight Terrorist UAV Fears“, 2005 MIPT report on “Threat of Terrorism using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Technical Aspects“, 2008 RAND Monograph on “Evaluating Novel Threats to the Homeland“.
This recent DIY Drones blog post on “Do Terrorists Want UAS, too?” discusses an AUVSI article that asks how likely it is that terrorists will use UAVs. The reasoning goes that the low cost and wide availability of parts and know-how (DIY Drones is an open community boasting over 6300 members from all over the world) makes UAVs attractive to terrorists for their nefarious purposes. The major points of contention are over how terrorists would likely utilize this technology, either as a surveillance and reconnaissance platform for planning or with an explosive (or otherwise deadly, such as chemical or biological) payload as an offensive weapon. The plausibility seems undeniable.
Is the US Intelligence Community equipped to deal with this threat? This DHS Information Bulletin from July 2004 on “Remotely Piloted Vehicle Threat” (marked as FOUO classification, disclosed by NEFA Foundation) states that “Although RCAs (Remotely Controlled Aircraft) have not been used by terrorists to date, because of their novel capabilities it is prudent to consider the possibility from the point of view of potential consequences, use scenarios, and indicators of such use.”, further noting that “Although protective measures against RPV (Remotely Piloted Vehicles) attacks are not well developed, awareness of the threat is an important first step in this development.” The report suggests several unclassified level protection measures, mostly through BOLO (”Be on the Lookout”) awareness at FBI, hobby shop owners and autopilot suppliers to report suspicious purchases, and local law enforcement to report suspicious individuals taking GPS measurements. A secret-level classified annex is mentioned, and one can only hope it involves more vigilant intelligence collection and pre-indicators that flag suspicious individuals with DIY Drone kits for more in depth investigation into their intent and ties to terrorist groups (with the preservation of the privacy of DIY Drone hobbyists).
It seems more likely that a terrorist group operating in the US will be discovered through “guilt by association” types of analysis (following the flow of terrorist financing, for instance) or will raise suspicion in the process of making home-made explosives (HME) - either through the purchase of certain monitored materials, or otherwise, rather than being discovered as tinkering with UAV drones.
In my next article, I’ll discuss “UAV or UFO?”, the lack of adequate UAV sighting databases and why this should be of concern to the Intelligence Community.
Organized, without organizing.
Posted by Dustin Burke in uncategorized on February 20th, 2009
Watch the video of the GridIron Flow product.Very exciting stuff. I haven’t tried it yet, but will once the PPC release is available (I’m a few Mac generations behind with my G4 PPC). If you’ve tried it, feel free to comment below on your experiences.
I’m very passionate about personalization technologies and interface agents. In particular, the automated monitoring aspect of Flow really intrigues me. Very soon at Milcord we’ll be kicking our Commander’s Learning Agent project into high gear for Air Force Research Labs (AFRL). Essentially we’re fusing desktop- and network-based monitoring which enables all sorts of interesting capabilities for users within complex, networked environments such as Air Operations Centers (AOC).
Staying “organized without organizing” is but one example of the possibilities. Once the project resumes at full-speed in the next few weeks, I’ll begin exploring more of these possibilities and sharing my from-the-trenches accounts of the sea-changing software approaches necessary to build software that observes, learns and adapts to its users.
It’ll be fun.
See my Technorati Profile
