Recently in Digital Technology Category

Appearing on Slashdot, Using Bacterial DNA For Data Storage:

This is an attempt to achieve the ultimate in archival storage (one of the modified bacteria can tolerate 1000X more radiation than a human being). Now just suppose that the "junk DNA" in the human genome is the documentation package for the machine code. Who wrote that manual?

Reminds me of that Star Trek episode The Chase, in which Dr. Galen, Captain Picards old Archaeology professor, found genetic data-blocks from various species around the galaxy stored in the junk portion of each species DNA, including our own. When a sufficient number of these data blocks were put together it completed a stellar map, identifying the precise location of the original origin of life on our planet and countless others. The jury is still out on the Panspermia Theory, but my own hunch is that there is lots of intelligence out there vastly older and greater than we are.

By Paul | Permalink | Comments (2) |

Imagine a time in the near future when almost everyone has a real-time always-on connection to the Net via ubiquitous wearable "augmented reality" devices. As part of this package, made possible with advance miniaturized heads-up displays, video cameras, location aware devices, GPS, swarmbots, emotion-sensitive and adaptive algorithms (i.e. Affective Computing), and sophisticated reputation systems, you are able to surf an augmented version of reality itself in real time.

Lets break this down. You would be able to, in real-time see precisely whats going on anywhere in the globe by jacking in to the collection of real-time video blogs. As part of this collection, sophisticated 3-D rendering engines would be able to take the collective video footage and extropolate a real-time VR scene, allowing you to transcend the viewing angle of any single camera. Better still, you could jack in to that part of the world from a variety of, not only physical perspectives, but political, intellectual, and emotional as well based on whatever any individual user makes public as part their unique sliding-scale trust system such as the type that Joi Ito has proposed with moblogs. All of this meta-data would form its own collective smart-mob based on individually selected criteria.

What this means is that you could then view the "scene" from virtually any angle. Imagine the possibility here. Some spontaneous news event occurs, and almost instantly as hundreds of people appear on the scene with wearable video cameras broadcasting on the net, you would be able to view this real-time scene from any angle, while simultaneously gaining the collective emotional assesment of the situation from those people choosing to broadcast their emotional indices, as well as the blogging that will invariable start occuring at rapid pace from your customized reputation/trust criteria.

All of this combines to gives you a real-time augmented, yet customized view of real-time reality. One that is rich in social and emotional context, providing and extending intimacy by empowering you to feel and touch the whole world.

By Paul | Permalink | Comments (1) |

I think as wireless, wearable internet access become ubiquitous, we are going to see consumer power re-assert itself in an unprecedented way. Imagine for example, CueCat (a technology previously with little purpose), except this time each barcode is cross-referenced with a moblog not only neatly containing everyone's opinion of this product, but also its ethical/corruption index. These types of measurements would be made via decentralized adhoc smart mobs in conjunction with individual reputation systems. So, not only will you be able to vote with your pocketbook, but you will be able to make informed, even ethical consumer decisions based on people you trust. I can see this web-of-trust rapidly superseding top-heavy "consumer" capitalism, transforming it into a bottom-up grass-roots participatory capitalism.

By Paul | Permalink | Comments (1) |

Scott Rosenberg's new article in Salon provides a well balanced review of: The geek-driven world of new "decentralized" technologies like Wi-Fi, blogging and Web services is more about cutting out the middleman than finding a business model.

The internet is first and foremost a communication medium, like the telephone, only potentially infinitely more rich. David Isenberg's elegant view of a Stupid Network with all of the intelligence located at the peers just makes more sense. Attempting to make money by creating the artificial need of a middlemen is ultimately doomed to failure. Only the strong arm of the law could possibly make it otherwise, which is why the policies around Open Spectrum, the Broadcast Flag, the DMCA and others are so important in this crucial struggle for communications liberty over the greed of corporations and the power-lust of governments.

Essentially we are witnessing the birth, a "Supernova" if you will, of people around the world being able to digitally and richly communicate without the need of any middle men for bandwidth or content. This threatens literally the way business and power have always been played. Think of it as analogous to the discovery of a cheap, clean and decentralized energy source without the need of anyone else to provide it. *** Decentralization threatens central power hierarchies ***. So look for the telecom big boys to do everything in their power to prevent such decentralization from occurring. I expect the governments recent branding of Wi-Fi as a terrorist threat, to be the first in a long line of attempts to stop this communications revolution.

By Paul | Permalink | Comments (2) |

I just discovered Headmap.org, and it's pure technology-fueled counter-culture at its best. From their website:

location aware devices . nomads . mapping sex . future architecture [life without buildings] . human geography . hyp(g)nosis . esoteric energy intelligence . community schisms . waypoints . psychogeography . community and spatial interfaces.

By Paul | Permalink | Comments (2) |

I found this article of the same title by David Isenberg and David Weinberger. This paper makes a good case why the best networks are the ones least likely to be profitable for the provider. Essentially we are talking about a shift away from centralized bandwidth distribution in the same way that p2p file-sharing networks decentralize content distribution. Original link posted on Infoanarchy.

Telephone companies are not the only institutions goaded by new network technology. We can see from the reaction to today's Internet that the Paradox of the Best Network is not kind to the recording industry, to book publishers, or to any other group that makes its living by controlling access to content. These groups have already called in the lawyers and lobbyists to protect their current business models. Nor will the new network be popular with any institution, economic, political or religious group that seeks to shield itself from conflicting cultures and ideas.

In fact, the best network embodies explicit political ideals so it would be disingenuous to pretend it didn't. The best technological network is also the most open political network. The best network is not only simple, low-cost, robust and innovation-friendly, it is also best at promoting a free, democratic, pluralistic, participatory society; a society in which people with new business ideas are free to fail and free to succeed in the marketplace.

By Paul | Permalink | Comments (1) |

I just read another great article on open spectrum by David Weinberger; something I have hyped here often. I feel I cannot post enough about this, and this is another good piece describing both the short and long-term but also the deep-term effects open spectrum could have on society - primarily that of participatory democracy. Lets hope this time it comes to pass.

Short term, we will see a sudden breaking free from wireless gridlock: New bandwidth available everywhere. New local radio stations. Wireless connectivity among appliances in the house. Innovations wherever action at a distance or ubiquitous access makes sense.

Long term, Dewayne Hendricks (founder of The Dandin Group and a member of the FCC's Technological Advisory Council) says that we're in the position Marconi was in 100 years ago when wireless communications were first invented. We can't begin to imagine what's possible, including -- and Hendricks is serious about this -- Star Trek-style transporters before this century is out.

Deep term, the unleashing of wireless connectivity will eat away at one of our last remaining social dependencies on broadcast media. Right now, if you want to broadcast you have to get permission from the Feds and you have to have lots of dough. We end up with a society that sits on a couch, facing forward, listening to what people with money have to say. Our freedom is defined by the channel changer nearby. With open spectrum, a bottom-up conversation can begin over the ether, helping to make participatory democracy real.

By Paul | Permalink | Comments (1) |

Thanks to developments in anonymous communication, such as Freenet and the invisible irc project, anonymous digital cash has become a reality. Yodel Bank is offering 'yodels' as a form of currency you can exchange with people who you've never met outside of anonymous means. For example, you could pay for some web design or a hosting service anonymously, play video poker with real anonymous money on IIP, or make a donation to a charity without disclosing who you are. Yodel Bank is relatively new, but now that you can transfer money over IIP and Freenet, a real vibrant anonymous economy is springing up, and it's unclear how government will react to this 'private' banking.

By Paul | Permalink |

Freenet does what people thought the internet was supposed to do - free information from censorship. But as we know, information flows through proprietary pipes and exists openly on identifiable servers. This means that not only is our surfing activity and email exposed to prying eyes, but that if certain information is offensive to individuals, corporations or governments it can be removed. More importantly, it has become increasingly difficult to post information on the internet anonymously. The ability to speak freely, openly, and anonymously assures that the person can speak their mind without fear of reprisal or even imprisonment or death. Freenet changes all that. Freenet has been a work in progress for over 2 years, and until now it has been cumbersome to use for the average user. Now, with the release of Freenet 0.5 (download here) it has an intuitive and easy to use interface. Freenet works by storing information in an encrptyed, decentralized and distributed manner. Information resides on individual computers on the network. But not even the computer owner knows exactly what information is stored on their machine. What this means is that even if a government were to demand that information be removed from Freenet at gunpoint, no one would be able to comply. Once information is published on freenet, its is essentially impossible to remove.

By Paul | Permalink | Comments (1) |

In Capital, Power and Ecology I suggested that "ecological" constraints are inherent in a global economy, and how capital rewards liberty over tyranny. So far capital has won hands down, lets hope it can survive the current onslaught of corruption and criminality long enough to see us out of global war and irreversible ecological disaster.

In the meantime there are many other developments on the technological front that hold promise for liberating capital, free enterprise, and fostering greater degrees of participatory democracy than ever seen before. Tools like reputation systems and p2p adhoc wireless mesh-networks are so disruptive in their potential its hard to predict what their effect will be, but they are sure to change society as radically as the internet itself - I would say much more so. For starters, adhoc wireless smart mobs will greater power over where capital flows. Companies like World Com and Enron who refuse to open their books and become more transparent will be much less likely to attract capital and investment than those companies that do. Therefore the drive of companies is to become increasing transparent and accountable to their "stakeholders" who in turn have the ability to move their capital around with the simple push of a button. This represents and eminent power shift away from centrally controlled hierarchies to bottom-up grass-roots capital structures. The future of the corporation is built from the bottom-up not the top-down. Meanwhile we are likely to see radical advancements in medicine, longevity, cheap space access, nanotechnology, and environmentally sustainable energy systems.

Then we have the current tyranny of the content industry as embodied by the RIAA and MPAA and other outdated business models built on scarcity. At the moment, the media giants seem to be winning with draconian legislation like the DMCA as part of their arsenal. But don't loose hope yet. These too ultimately restrict the flow of capital as well. What we are seeing are old modes of capital and collusion being increasingly threatened by more liquid and liberated economies of scale and zero duplication cost of the internet. Regardless of the legislative and technological restrictions implemented in the US, their are other countries who are not as keen to follow in the same footsteps.

China, not normally a bastion of freedom and democracy, is adopting open-source software at a blinding pace despite Microsoft's best efforts to shove their bloated, expensive and restrictive licensing schemes down their throats. And while AMD and Intel build in digital restrictions into their processors, China has started its own processor initiative called 'Dragon'. Kind of ironic, that a nation know for its gross human rights abuses could potentially be a bastion of digital liberty. China is not pursuing this path because of their freedom loving nature, but to increase their economic independence and capital liquidity. It just happens that increasing capital requires a corresponding increase in liberty if its to become sustainable. If China develops their own microprocessors and uses free open-source software, they are beholden to no one for their capitalization, especially the "imperialistic" US. So while the US chokes on expensive and restrictive digital lock-downs, China will be enjoying a more open platform. So in the global economy where do you think the capital will go? If the US hopes to compete in the global marketplace, its either going to have to loosen its digital restrictions or loose its place as the economic super-power. So the question is can the US continue as an economic superpower without bankrupting itself through global imperialism and domestic tyranny?

We will soon find out.

By Paul | Permalink |