January 2008

Artificial intelligence (AI) is the ability of a computer system to perform functions that generally require intelligent thought. Although the system can make choices and determinations about problems posed to it, it can only respond to the extent it’s programming allows. The computer systems inability to think outside this programming ultimately limits its usefulness. What exactly is the limiting factor?

According to the Business Encyclopedia, the intent of AI research is to develop computer systems having the ability to perceive and to learn, to accomplish physical tasks, and to emulate human decision making.” Furthermore, researchers attempt to design and develop intelligent systems as well as understand them. Although there has been significant advancement in the field of AI, such as neural networks and expert systems, the key factor restricting AI evolution is the lack of commonsense knowledge.

Researcher Philip Eni-Dor, in writing Artificial Intelligence-A Short History and the Next 40 Years, explains that commonsense knowledge is that knowledge everyone should possess and

is essential to interpreting the information acquired by the senses and in understanding natural language, which itself consists basically of real-world phenomena, sensory stimuli, and behaviors.

Understanding natural language requires the ability to process speech. Speech processing is all about input and output, and each is accomplished with varying levels of difficulty. Speech synthesis (output) is already well developed and is used extensively across the computing world. However, speech recognition (input) is limited in use and much more difficult to master because understanding speech requires an understanding of context, which requires cognition. Furthermore, interpersonal differences in speech patterns are greater than individual differences. Therefore, I believe the future of AI hinges on the ability of computers to understand human speech. The ability to understand speech at the phoneme-level and to differentiate between nuances such as voice inflection is the key to obtaining commonsense knowledge.

To understand how speech recognition relates to commonsense knowledge, consider the following statement: “I took the money.” This is a simple admission of guilt, but if one of the words is stressed, the statement actually becomes a question and an implication:

• “I took the money?” says I didn’t take the money, but I may know who did.
• “I took the money?” says I didn’t take the money, but I may have done something with it.
• “I took the money“ says I didn’t take the money, but I may have taken something else.

As one can see, a computer system’s ability to differentiate between voice inflection, tone and pitch would provide significant insight into understanding human emotion. In fact, there’s software in use in call centers today that will automatically alert supervisors when a customer’s voice pattern indicates frustration or anger. The software actually understands the customer’s behavior and acts accordingly. This will only improve as time advances.

Artificial intelligence is the imitation of cognitive (human) thought by a computer system. Artificial intelligence systems certainly help humans better understand data relationships; however, this helpfulness is limited because the computer system can not think past its programming. The ability to understand human speech could change this and would possibly allow the computer system to actually communicate on a cognitive level with a human being. The implication of this achievement is the word “artificial” may no longer accurately describe the computer system. It might just be considered “intelligent”.

I’ve once again changed the shyspeak.net theme.

The new theme is called “Tarski”, an elegant and very flexible theme developed by Ben Eastaugh and Chris Sternal-Johnson. The theme is named in honor of Alfred Tarski, a 20th-century logician and mathematician. Tarski is considered a pioneer in the study of formalized logical systems as purely algebraic structures. His famous paper The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages established a mathematical definition of truth for formal languages. This paper helped form the foundation of model theory and has had a profound influence both in logic and the philosophy of language. He is considered one of the founders of the discipline of semantics and may be best known for his groundbreaking theory of truth

That makes about four theme changes for this blog in the past year or so. Not that there was anything wrong with the other themes, mind you, there just always seemed to be something missing. Tarski provides the look and functionality I’ve been searching for. I’ll have to tweak a thing or two, but Eastaugh and Sternal-Johnson make that a relatively easy task.

Pakistan President Pervez Musharaf on the first leg of his “European Tour” and speaking to an international assembly in Brussels decried the West’s “obsession” with democracy and pleaded for more time to allow his country to achieve higher standards of human rights and civil liberties. Musharaf said,

“While we believe in democracy and human rights and civil liberties please allow us time to reach what you have reached. And you have taken centuries to reach it.”

(what have you achieved in the last eight years, Mr. President?)

Musharraf explained that the “feudal, tribal environment [i.e. culture] in some…provinces” is a significant obstacle to democracy. This requires Pakistan to take a different approach to achieving it. Musharraf explains,

“Therefore in accordance with our environment we have to adapt democracy, human rights and civil liberties.”

Okay. Although there are various forms of democracy, the basic premise is that citizens participate in the governing of the nation; human rights are the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled; and civil liberties impose limits on government control over personal lives.

I’ll be interested to see how Pakistan “adapts” democracy, human rights and civil liberties to their feudal, tribal culture. Personally, I don’t think Musharraf’s heart is in it, and I wonder how long the West is willing to put up with his fence-straddling approach to leadership?

Mohammed Mansour Jabarah, a 25-year old Canadian citizen of Iraqi descent, was sentenced to life in prison after planning to kill federal agents and prosecutors. Jabarah was an al-Qaeda member who admitted to being sent by Osama bin Laden to bomb U.S. embassies in Manila and Singapore. He pleaded guilty to the foiled bombing plots and provided information to authorities that led to the capture of the architect of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. However, during a search of Jabarah’s room in 2002, prosecutors discovered that he intended to kill FBI agents and prosecutors with whom he had contact. After the accusation, he subsequently refused to cooperate any further.

Assistant U.S. Attorney David Raskin said the agents found two steak knives, a 3 1/2-foot length of nylon rope and notes in Arabic among Jabarah’s possessions. In one note, he said “I swore to life in dignity or to die.” In a letter to his parents, he wrote “I have a mission that I can’t ignore.”

Defense attorneys argue that it was the FBI that chose to stop dealing with Jabarah after discovering the items, which BTW, were obtained for “legitimate” purposes.

(maybe so, but…)

What else did authorities find?

• a list of prosecutors and federal officers involved in terrorism cases in Manhattan, including the case of Ramzi Yousef, convicted of masterminding the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
• The lists also included officials involved in the cases of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who was found guilty in a plot to bomb New York landmarks, and the four bin Laden followers convicted of involvement in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
• A photo of Mohammed Atta, a Sept. 11 hijacker, and had written over the picture “Commander of the 11 September units, may God bless his soul.”
• A photo of bin Laden, Jabarah allegedly wrote “God keep you” and “May he grant you the highest, most lavish and sweetest honors of heaven.”
• A note written in Arabic stating, “Oh God, make my aim accurate, balance my feet on the ground, protect my heart.”
• A list of FBI agents, New York police detectives and prosecutors with whom he had contact and a list of tasks he wanted to complete.
• Directions for how to make an explosive device
• A map of Fort Dix, the U.S. Army installation in New Jersey where he was held for part of his time in secured custody.
• A U.S. Army memo describing New York City’s drinking water system and a map of the city’s water supply and testing results.

After the discovery of these items, the prosecutors argument that

“Jabarah had secretly disavowed cooperation and was affirmatively planning further jihad operations,including in all likelihood the murder of government officials in some sort of suicide operation.”

seem very reasonable.

Of course, Jabarah told U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones,

“I do not believe in terrorism, violence or killing,” … “I am not, I repeat, I am not an infamous terrorist who was indoctrinated at an early age to kill Americans on a terrorist mission.”

and asked to be allowed to return to live with his family, which has relocated to Kuwait, instead of being sent to prison. He said he would like to study medicine and become an ophthalmologist.

(…and not, certainly not, a terrorist. I promise, your honor!)

Evidently, Judge Jones didn’t have too much faith in his veracity.

An important aspect of network management and potentially the most unpredictable is information security. As the name implies, information security is concerned with monitoring and controlling access to data on a network. This in itself is a daunting task, but companies with a web presence can be even more vulnerable to security breeches.

According to an April 2007, PC World article, eight out of ten web sites contain common flaws that could allow attackers to access networks and steal customer data, create phishing exploits or craft a variety of other attacks. In fact, network security analysis company, WhiteHat, says that 30% of analyzed computer sites contain an urgent vulnerability, such as one that allows direct access to company databases with customer information.

On a positive note, WhiteHat also reports that a type of database vulnerability allowing SQL injection attacks is becoming less common. Fewer than one out of five sites contain this type of vulnerability, but a successful incident can give a sophisticated attacker access to everything in a company’s database. Still, overall WhiteHat’s reporting echoes an increasingly common theme, which is that web-based attacks are growing in prevalence and have grown considerably in the last two years. As web programming grows more sophisticated and complex, allowing for desktop-like applications, it also becomes even more vulnerable. So what is the problem?

Read the rest of this entry »

Scotland Yard has completed their investigation of the Bhutto murder and have come to the conclusion that al-Qaeda was responsible for her death. They also concluded there was no government cover-up, simply poor police work.

Still, they can’t say exactly who is responsible for the killing. Scotland Yard disputes the Pakistani government claim that Baitullah Mehsud, a tribal leader from the Afghan border area of southern Waziristan, was the master-planner. It appears Musharraf pointed the finger at Mehsud out of political expediency due to the militant’s link to al-Qaeda.

Scotland Yard has insisted their job wasn’t to determine who killed Bhutto, but just exactly how she died. How can they do that when they can’t examine the body, and the crime scene and Bhutto’s vehicle were sanitized within hours of her death? If “evidence” points toward al-Qaeda, where was this evidence obtained?

(the Pakistani government, of course.)

(h/t Snooper at Wake up America). President Bush, in the middle of a six-nation tour of Middle East states and riding the wave of the troop surge success, is poised to deal a damaging blow to the cut-and-runners in Washington. In a Newsweek article entitled, Sorry, Barack, You’ve lost Iraq, Michael Hirsh reports that “Bush said that negotiations were about to begin on a long-term strategic partnership with the Iraqi government modeled on the accords the United States has with Kuwait and many other countries.” Specifically,

“the new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president. It will become just another piece of the complex global security framework involving a hundred or so countries with which Washington now has bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements.”

This is huge! A SOFA is is an agreement between a country and a foreign nation stationing military forces in that country. We have SOFA agreements with the U.K., Germany, Korea, Japan and others. Currently, we have no SOFA agreement with Iraq, which means, technically, we (coalition forces) fall under Iraqi jurisdiction. In theory, Iraqi Courts have the right to try Coalition forces for any alleged offenses, though this right has never been exercised. It also means we’re in this for the long haul with the establishment of a permanent U.S military presence in Iraq. I believe this is an important achievement for the U.S. and is a necessary step to ensure the security of our homeland. As things stand right now, stability in the Middle East will only be achieved with active U.S. involvement in the region.

Of course, this move doesn’t play into the political strategies of Hillary Clinton and, especially, Barack Obama, who promises to remove a brigade a month until every U.S. service member is home (a plan that I believe demonstrates a very naive view of the situation in the Middle East).

Unlike his political rivals, President Bush doesn’t appear to be playing games. I admire his ability to stand up for what he believes in the midst of significant resistance from Congress and the MSM. I believe he is truly doing what he thinks is “right” for America, and is leaving his legacy to history. It’d be nice to see our other elected officials get behind our President and start acting in America’s best interest instead of pursuing personal political agendas.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the “trade group that represents the recording industry.” With member organizations that include the “Big Four”, EMI, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group. In addition to certifying gold, platinum and diamond sales awards, the RIAA,

“works to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists; conducts consumer, industry and technical research; and monitors and reviews state and federal laws, regulations and policies.”

The RIAA is a fierce opponent of copyright infringement through file-sharing over the internet using P2P software, and rightly so! The RIAA claims the recording industry loses over $4 billion dollars per year through illegal distribution of music over the internet. However, the RIAA now seems to be extending the definition of “copyright infringement” to the copying of a legally owned CD to a personal computer for personal use in an MP3 player, such as an Apple iPod.

Wired magazine posted a letter written by the RIAA to the U.S. Copyright Office, that said “creating a back-up copy of a music CD is not a non-infringing use.” Despite the double-negative, the RIAA leaves no doubt that it believes ripping legally owned CDs is illegal. However, this contradicts their previous stance.

In an archived FAQ page, the RIAA said making personal digital copies of CDs is just “great,” in fact they encourage it!

“There are lots of legal MP3s from great artists on many, many online sites. The problem is that some people use MP3 to take one copy of an album and make that copy available on the Internet for hundreds of thousands of people. That’s not fair. If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that’s great. It’s your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail. But the fact that technology exists to enable unlimited Internet distribution of music copies doesn’t make it right.”

(emphasis added)

As one can easily see, the RIAA didn’t have a problem with personal digital copies, only the distribution of those copies to third parties. So why the change of heart?

The Audio Home Recording Act includes blanket protection from infringement actions for private, non-commercial digital audio copies made with digital audio recording devices. The RIAA knows this an is trying to write new legislation through the courts. I believe the RIAA is trying to take advantage of consumers by forcing them to 1) purchase multiple versions of identical music for replay via different media, or perhaps 2) adding fees for permission to rip legally purchased music. Stopping illegal distribution of copyrighted material is one thing, but holding consumers hostage through distribution control is something else altogether. What it all comes down to is corporate greed!

In the business world, the letters “CIO” ostensibly stand for “Chief Information Officer,” but there is a common misconception that they more realistically mean one’s “career is over.” At one time the CIO may have indeed faced a short lifespan within a company, but the fact is today’s CIOs are holding-on to their jobs much longer. This is largely due to the relationship between the CIO and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). So, why the misconception?

The notion of low CIO tenure seems to have its roots in the 1990’s. Allan Alter, writing for CIO Insight, explains that the early CIOs had a difficult time making the transition from “technology manager [to] something far more visible and strategic.” It was generally believed that the average tenure for a CIO during that time period was only 18 months. However, Alter questions the accuracy of the 18-month CIO:

“Critiques of CIO effectiveness, such as the February 26, 1990, Business Week article, “CIO is Starting to Stand for ‘Career is Over,’” popped up regularly in the IT, business and scholarly press. These articles claimed that CIOs had an usually short tenure, and the writers often relied on executive recruiters to provide job turnover data–although the methodologies used by these recruiters weren’t necessarily rigorous.”

Regardless of the accuracy of the reporting, many still believe achieving the position of CIO is the kiss of death, but that simply isn’t the case.

Today’s CIO has been on the job for about 5.7 years, this is an 83 percent increase compared to tenure in 2005. In fact, it appears that the CIO is actually holding his job longer than the average CEO. Allen Bernard, writing for CIO Update, believes the improved tenure resulted from IT being run “like any other operating department” and CIOs are providing some return on investment. Another reason for improved tenure is that today’s CIOs have become IT-business hybrids, rather than placing their reliance in a singular IT background. This is good news for the CEO.

Although some CEOs do not have an accurate view of the important roles CIOs play, this is likely the exception to the rule. The terrific growth in e-commerce has actually led to closer relationships between CIOs and CEOs. The CEO understands that today’s business is inseparable from IT and it is to his advantage to team-up with the CIO to respond to change and build the infrastructure necessary to ensure business success. This results in the CEO understanding more about IT and the CIO understanding more about business.

To effectively compete in today’s e-commerce marketplace requires a heavy reliance on IT. This reliance has led CEOs to partner with CIOs in building an IT infrastructure to support business goals and objectives. This relationship has resulted in increased tenure for CIOs in business organizations. The notion that “CIO” means “career is over” has had its day.

(h/t Spree at Wake up America) Army Major Andrew Olmsted was killed in Iraq on January 3rd and leaves to a friend the task of putting up his FINAL POST

I didn’t know Major Olmsted before I read Spree’s blog post this morning, and feel that I have missed a great opportunity. I wish I had found his blog sooner. In reading through it, Major Olmsted appeared to be a very practical, centered and honorable human being with a wonderful sense of humor. It appears he quit posting to his personal blog in February 2007 because

“…it turns out that I have been blogging in violation of a Department of Defense directive that restricts how much political activity soldiers may be involved with.”

Still, Olmsted kept blogging, publishing his experiences in Colorado’s Rocky Mountain News.

Major Olmsted’s final post is very emotional, extremely honest and funny!

What I don’t want this to be is a chance for me, or anyone else, to be maudlin. I’m dead. That sucks, at least for me and my family and friends. But all the tears in the world aren’t going to bring me back, so I would prefer that people remember the good things about me rather than mourning my loss. (If it turns out a specific number of tears will, in fact, bring me back to life, then by all means, break out the onions.)”

and being a military man myself, I respect and admire his singular sense of duty:

“As a soldier, I have a duty to obey the orders of the President of the United States as long as they are Constitutional. I can no more opt out of missions I disagree with than I can ignore laws I think are improper. I do not consider it a violation of my individual rights to have gone to Iraq on orders because I raised my right hand and volunteered to join the army. Whether or not this mission was a good one, my participation in it was an affirmation of something I consider quite necessary to society. So if nothing else, I gave my life for a pretty important principle; I can (if you’ll pardon the pun) live with that.”

To Major Olmsted’s wife, Amanda, and his family: You’re in my thoughts and prayers. God bless you.

Looks like Intel is pulling out of the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) program. The OLPC, a noble endeavor and the brainchild of MIT’s Nicholas Negroponte, promised to provide, just as the name implies, one laptop per child all over the world. Evidently, Mr. Negroponte expected Intel to end its support of non-OLPC programs, which also produced low-cost laptops for sale to the general public.

I get the feeling Intel’s business ventures were undercutting Negroponte’s altruism. What does it matter where the laptops come from, as long as they get into the hands of people who need them (and not necessarily just children)?

Shameful!

The OLPC organization needs to reassess the reason it got into this business in the first place!

So the Iowa results are in and Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrat Barack Obama are the big winners. This will surely shake things up a bit considering the enormous amount of money Mitt Romney dolled-out on his campaign (the ratio of money spent by Romney compared to Huckabee is roughly 17:1) and Hillary Clinton’s once commanding lead in the polls.

What happened?

Simple, the Republican caucus-goers voted for Huckabee’s “values.” Christians accounted for more than half of the Republican voters, citing Huckabee as someone who shares their values. Meanwhile, bringing about change was at the forefront of the Obama campaign, and was touted by Democratic voters as the most important attribute in a presidential
candidate.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens in the upcoming primaries. Clinton and Obama are virtually neck-and-neck in New Hampshire and another poor showing will likely put a pretty big dent in her campaign. I expect she’ll change gears a little and peddle more “change” to the voters. For the Republicans, Romney and McCain are about even, and Huckabee will face a greater challenge. Social and religious issues will probably take a backseat to national security and taxes.

What about the other candidates?

Republicans: Rudy Giuliani devoted little time to Iowa, choosing instead to focus on the larger electoral states like Florida. I believe his popularity will increase significantly in the weeks to come. Fred Thompson, who surged at the last minute in Iowa, will more than likely concede the nomination within the next month or so and endorse McCain.

Democrat John Edwards although taking second place in Iowa, essentially tied Clinton. He’ll continue to take votes from Hillary with his own change message. I believe he’ll ultimately concede and back Clinton.

The coming weeks will be very interesting indeed!

Bowing to international pressure and attempting to quell domestic unrest, President Musharraf requested assistance with the Bhutto killing from Britain’s Scotland Yard. In a nationally televised address, Musharraf explained,

“We have decided to request a team from Scotland Yard,” … “This team will work on the case and solve all the issues.”

Smart move? If this is a sincere pursuit of the truth, certainly, but I don’t think Musharraf is really interested in the truth. Musharraf said Scotland Yard would “assist” local investigators. I have a feeling this means limited access to information and witnesses for the British Team. Of course, Musharraf doesn’t need Scotland Yard returning home and announcing a lack of cooperation from the Pakistani administration.

It’ll be interesting to see how this pans out.

MORE: Captain’s Quarters

As expected, Pakistan’s President Musharraf is postponing national parliamentary elections for six weeks. Formerly scheduled for January 8th, the election of a new Prime Minister will not take place before February 18. Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party and Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (N) have denounced the decision and are calling for elections to take place as previously scheduled. Mr. Sharif, who recently reversed a decision for his party to “boycott” the election, warned of serious repercussions if the elections are delayed and accused Musharraf of “trying to wriggle out of elections sensing defeat of his allies.”

Political analysts also agree that pushing-back the election date could renew the civil unrest that has subsided in recent days. So why the delay? The government’s says the reason for the postponement is due, at least in part, to the destruction of electoral facilities. Per Kanwar Dilshad of the Election Commission:

“Our offices in 10 districts of Sindh have been burned, the electoral rolls have been burned, the polling schemes, the nomination papers have been burned.”

Perhaps this is true, but elections should only be delayed if all parties agree. There are 124 districts in Pakistan and damage to offices in 10 of those districts shouldn’t be a show-stopper. I believe the government has a responsibility to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure elections take place on schedule.

MORE: In a related article, Spree at Wake up America discusses Hillary Clinton and her ignorance of the situation in Pakistan.