25 February, 2014

Cosmecuticals are closer...

As I sit here, pestered by 3 days of facial growth that I wish didn't exist. I think again of the low hanging fruit areas that recent spate of revolutions in genetic engineering technology will soon be able to provide in the ability to allow fine grained cosmetic changes to human phenotype.

Targeted Hair growth.

Targeted Hair elimination.

Hair texture change in vivo.

Hair color change in vivo.

Eye color change in vivo.

Skin color change in vivo.

:These 6 variations are likely to be huge multi billion dollar industries once several things are done now that we have technology in the form of CRispR and the rapid development of several efficient means for targeting and changing genetic sequences in specific cell types.

First step is to refine the methods, CrispR is barely 2 years old and I am not sure the inventors are focused on applications that go beyond the pitri dish at this point. This is where the input of cross disciplinary professionals who are aware of the work and business professionals who understand the opportunities can come in to bring critical funding that can birth what I have called the "cosmecuticals" industry because of the focus on modifications to human superficial traits.

Second step is to engage the research necessary to identify the full genetic contributing factors to the development of each of the traits and construct the targeted treatments to efficiently perform them in individuals in a safe and reversible fashion.

Safety goes with out saying, reversibility is important as enabling people to perform these modifications at will will ensure the industry is continuously profitable and doing so over the globe where variable demand for traits will *always* present, the market opportunity swells.

Are you ready for the cosmecutical revolution???





23 January, 2014

Facebook and other prominent social networks are akin to cancer not the common cold.

A recent study is getting the zeitgeist in a fluff over the possible survival of Facebook.


Eh. No.

Like most such analysis it fails to factor in the importance of network effects that tie people to the social network in the first place.

The main advantage that Facebook has (and all similar social networks across the globe that have gained dominance in those areas) is that they have enabled people to connect in one system a distributed set of nodes of people they have interacted with in real life plus people they interact with virtually.

The value of this network of connections far exceeds any disadvantage that comes from being bored on the service.

Over and again I've seen people claim that they are leaving FB ONLY to come back, the pattern is that those with established and large networks simply can't escape the convenience of being able to chirp to their entire life network (from childhood friends to college class mates to coworkers) via one tool.

This should sound familiar, it is the same reason that most of us have only one major email provider. Once on it, and once we've created our common contact patterns we have no desire to move as telling those contacts our new email is often annoying (it's not hard, but it's annoying).

It's even more difficult on a social network where you have to get each node to MOVE to the new location you are headed to...this is exponentially more difficult the more nodes you have in your network and thus harder for people to move. Also, by consolidating features of interest across the things people do online it makes it difficult to hop.

This is why Google+ is a separate island of people situating themselves there instead of on Facebook, once their networks are built there...they will similarly be immune to hopping over to another network (Facebook being the only viable option in the US).

The correct analogy then for a social network is not any viral or bacterial disease...no it is an oncogenic one, cancer. And as we all know cancer doesn't die .........................until it has either been directly handled via treatment otherwise it goes on to always kill the host. ie. people will die on facebook.

I wrote about this in a blog post from 4+ years ago:


"The proof of all this consolidation is clear in the numbers, users spend incredible amounts of time on the Facebook network...doing all these things they formerly did on different sites. Now, think...with such a huge investment made in having all ones interaction, content and community in one site...what on Earth can get them to switch en mass ?

I'll answer,

nothing. Barring a catastrophe on Facebook's end...they will be the last of the social networks and if they avoid Google's response (their only real competition in that they are the only ones with a suite of products that can be woven together to provide a similar experience fast enough and have a user base broad enough to maybe slow their growth) "

21 January, 2014

On Movements, counter points of noteriety to those of social good.

The common element of all movements, be they those that have been seen to realize social good (like civil rights) and those that are inspired by some perceived injustice that has been generally seen as delusion (white power movement) is fear.

 Fear, is the engine that inspires the movements to the planks that they represent...coupled with the spark of ignorance. The difference though between movements of social good and movements of notoriety is that consistently for those of noteriety, when evidence is brought to bare on the veracity of the claims upheld to represent the movements wishes they are consistently invalided with logic and data.

 Racism has no foot to stand on because we are one human race with superficial differences far LOWER than in lineage differences (and that's all that matters). All claims to superiority based on such superficial claims are thus de facto false. Argumentation beyond this point by those engaged in a debate is tangential to the fact.

 This thus bolsters the claims for civil rights by eliminating one of the main accusations for establishment of different reasons for treatment of one person over the next due to some perceived difference (not that ...even if those distinctions existed it would then be valid, ultimately the rights to individual pursuit of self determination as outlined in our constitution should be held for all humans and now ...as we infer the minds of our animal brethren...all sentient beings!)

 Men's rights is likewise based on a fear charged by ignorance, fear of female domination in the work place, fear of emasculation by females in social situations in preference to continuing to enjoy the advantages of the dominant patriarchy...that males should assert and females should be subservient. fear that women exploiting the schism that changing to a more equitable system necessarily creates would take advantage of the gains made (I think this is a big one).

 It's the same reason why some are against affirmative action, to them it looks like a clear system to be gamed. After all they don't see their people of color being abused with water canons in the streets, refused entrance to shops and restaurants or spat on and called "nigger" and told to walk in the gutter...those where a nameless , faceless generation "long" gone, from which they had zero benefit.

 Just in the recounting these ideas make some one educated in the nuance chuckle before they frown but there it is, as a counter point to movements of social good.... it was at work for civil rights, was at work for women's rights, is at work for gay rights and now here it is again for the new perceived Chimera of men's rights...and just like those counter points when examined closely for logic and data, the movement comes up for the most part, equally illusory.

10 January, 2014

Workforce Emancipation: An awakening in the Zeitgeist

It's been bitter sweet watching the conversation on jobs finally start shifting to where I'd been saying it was going to go since I wrote about the telepresent workforce in 2006.


At the time I'd already invented Action Oriented Workflow in an "explicit" form, that required a workflow modeling processing to define the various stages of work and the individuals that would be delegated to them. I knew that a more efficient way would be possible if I could have the system learn from past routing activities and so set a plan in my development to build an "implicit" routing algorithm at some point.

I didn't get to do that until 2011, after a year of working at McGraw Hill and being *miserable* at what I was seeing in the office. The terrible waste of humanity...

Every day I was tasked to get up at 6 am and prepare myself to be at work for 9, so that I could sit at a computer and supposedly be "productive" for 8 continuous hours.

The absurdity of this expectation needs to be fully realized to understand why I've been evangelizing AOW and what it does for all of US.

If we could be emancipated from location and time in our knowledge work then we'd be free to multiply our skill across multiple assignments FOR multiple employees. This was the vision as expressed in that original post...which is notable as it did not mention AOW at all.

At the time I felt it was important to keep shut with my idea, that others might "steal" it and build systems to do the same things but it turns out that it has been even more difficult for technologists to even understand the value proposition until NOW...

until that recession in 2008 smacked the fuck out of people into realizing that there had to be a better way for humans to utilize their EXISTING *value landscape*, that humans had better figure out a way to work simultaneously for companies and clients in London , Moscow, Kiev and New York.

When I finally decided to come out with the AOW idea I realized I'd better do it in as public a way as possible and so I started a blog and began blogging about technology and other things of interest and in my areas of research. The AOW  white paper which had been proprietary and in house at Apriority LLC was turned into a post and put online for all to see.

The fear of stealing the idea was replaced by my confidence that the world was so behind the ideas that it would take years for people to even recognize the value of it (or admit to the viability of letting people work from wherever on their own time schedule..which even today I see silly counter arguments to...) ...so it's extra ironic that the post went online in 2009, at the height of the economic implosion that the world was going through at the time.


The great adjustment was in progress and would finally get other minds to start thinking about work as I'd been thinking about it already for nearly 10 years....and had built (not was building) HAD BUILT a solution.

Here we are 2014, the zeitgeist is alive with this and that about the meaning of work...and I am shaping a startup around the AOW technology and the ADA (action delta assessment) extension of that technology I completed in 2011.


Today, "marketplace" services like amazon's mechanical turk, taskrabbit, elance, freelancer and others all are jumping on the bandwagon of trying to enable companies to find free workers...to make outsourcing easier...but that is not what emancipates the *workforce*.

A workforce already has a corporate home, AOW is for both outsourcing (to build marketplaces for outsourcing is trivial on the platform) and ..what I call INSOURCING, liberating existing workers to derive their best work on their time schedule ...not just reaching out to a pool of hungry nodes looking to do atomic units of your work. Insourcing also allows companies to retain the integrity and privacy of business processes while enabling those companies to continuously harness their global workforce. However, insourcing is where ADA was most critical, the holistic discovery of work patterns and then automatic routing of work to available agents was a key requirement and that was achieved in the second half of 2011 when ADA, the implicit workflow and work routing algorithm API was implemented in AOW.

In my last post on the blog I described the importance of retaining ideas until they were ready to be implemented and drive adoption.


If you can't execute it...don't talk about it unless you want others to try to execute it, well AOW and ADA are executed and I am excited to show how they are going to enable human workforces to be emancipated one vertical at a time now that the world finally sees the importance of such ideas.

Took you guys long enough. ;)

I look forward to presenting the first vertical disruption which leverages AOW and ADA to solve a very present work related problem to all human beings via the first service to be presented by WorkNetz.

Are you ready to be emancipated from work??


08 January, 2014

Don't share your startup ideas until after you have implemented them yourself.

The startup zeitgeist in the United States is energized by many trends and philosophies over how startups should be run and how technology ideas should be spread in order to gather investor interest. From the lean startup concepts to the idea of fast failing and pivoting around processes that fail to grow or fail to achieve the desired growth at the birth of a company.

The marketplace of startups seeking investors, team members, mentors and advisers is huge...yet we hear over and over again from mostly the investors, the angels and the vc's that it is okay to share your idea without providing an NDA. That there is no value in an idea and because there is no value one should not fear sharing it.

This is utter bullshit.

The value that exists in an idea is potential value, it is like the energy that a boulder at the top of a cliff has, stored up potential within the context of the Earth - Boulder system that can do smashing results once the boulder hits the bottom. Ideas are the same way, except the potential is exercised in a distributed fashion within the people who hear the idea.

Also, angel investors and vc's are particularly clued into networks where they can take an idea they feel is good and then sprinkle it in the minds of people who can implement it in their network. So you get to share your idea with them and they get to have some team else where implement it. A year later you hear of a new startup that implements something like your idea and you don't put two and two together. This is why the only time you should be talking your idea to angels or vc's who you can't trust (NDA or not) is AFTER you've already gotten traction selling your implementation and those angels and VC's have come to you after having heard of how good your product or service is.

Take for example Mark Zuckerberg, now that the history of Facebook has been thoroughly aired out we know at the least that he was not thinking of anything like a social network when he was approached by the Winkolvos twins and had they not approached him he likely would not have been the person to build Facebook. In fact, he was busy building Facebook based on the Winkelvos twins idea when they thought he was building their service. He simply stole the idea and all it's boulder on cliff like potential and created his own implementation (since the Winkelvos twins couldn't do it).

Had they kept the idea close, learned to code and built the site themselves its possible they would be in Mark Zuckerberg's shoes but they didn't they decided to share it with Zuckerberg who promptly stole the idea and implemented it, converting the stored potential into real value. Without the sharing of the idea Zuckerberg would have likely graduated from Harvard instead of quitting to go found Facebook.

Every founder who is peddling an idea with an implementation is the Winkelvos twins waiting to get robbed by some Mark Zuckerberg waiting for a great idea that they can implement and see the value of doing so for. The risk that your idea is stolen if you share it has no analog if you keep it close. If you keep it close you are guaranteed that no one else is working on YOUR implementation, you don't know if any one is working on AN implementation of a similar idea at the same time but at least by NOT talking about it, you aren't spreading the idea around to potential implementors of the concept and that I believe is why it seems so many technologies seem to emerge from multiple sources in a similar time frame...it is an effect that arises from the loose lips talking about the idea and the idea traveling until multiple potential implementers are sufficiently compelled by its viability that they start working on implementations and then all of a sudden they announce similar technology near the same time, it is not coincidence it is the math of a meme spreading.

This is particularly true in the world we live in, no longer are your ideas immobile relatively stuck to the community of physical agents you consider friends and colleagues. One mention of your idea can spread to the other side of the planet in *seconds* thanks to the hierarchical communication medium called the internet. Your idea can be in the minds of thousands of potential implementors with the knowledge and money to begin the implementation and before you have any idea who you will have built your idea...some one else is already working on code because they have the cash to front development or can get that cash from some one in their network.

In fact, your desire to share your idea should be inversely proportional to the size of your network. If you are alone in a room, share away ...as no one can hear you. However if you have a very well networked facebook profile, you'd better keep shut as "your" idea will be the worlds in seconds of you stating it and those people who implement it may not know who you are or even know you originally sourced the idea that they are marshaling their resources to implement while you dream on about how you wish you could if you only had enough money or people with the skills to help you.

So if you've got an idea and you can implement it, do so with mouth tight. When your baby is ready to test on customers then talk about it with them, build traction and then after you've already struck gold other implementations have far less ability to eclipse your momentum. Do not share it with any one without binding them to not revealing it to any one and even that should not be trusted.

The irony of this advise is that I have not taken it, this blog serves as a record of dozens to hundreds of ideas ranging from quantum mechanics and the nature of reality to the similarity between genetics and object oriented programming to my theory on how to create dynamic cognitive agents. I've received mostly silence on their expressions in this medium despite the site getting a fair amount of monthly traffic and that has been troubling to me but now I realize what it means. As I've created technologies and then watched similar technology appear later in commercial products and services its hard not to draw a connection due to what was explained above. So, I am closing the book on sharing new ideas on this blog, I'll only share implementations from now on.

27 December, 2013

A skyfull of drones: Expect it.

The main gripes I've heard and neutralized are:

1) "Oh but it's so dangerous!! what of drones falling out the sky! what of accidents??"

2) "Oh the government will never allow it, too many laws..too many regulations."

3) Doubts about scale like Jason uttered but these are coming from a fear place not a technical place, as an Engineer I can tell you *now* they are moot.

4) Doubts like my brothers which was that people would fear their adoption, that one was easy. We've got a 150 years of new technology being feared and yet still being adopted eventually once all the paranoia was neutralized.

We can start with the hilarious madness of the current wars during the late 1870's, we can move up to the late 19th century in the 1890's to see the same hilarious paranoia said about the automobile....fast forward yet again just 10 to 15 years and see the same hysteria go up about airplanes.  The same data devoid and fear based arguments were put up then....all absolutely moot today.

Also it must be kept in mind that because of the power of industry lobby pressure eventually the government will see the value proposition being made by the companies (Fedex/Amazon/Google/Tesla/UPS ...etc. It will soon be a flood after all those guys R&D programs come back with their hard data) bringing these numbers to the table. A clear explanation of how costs can be reduced and commerce increased by deploying such systems is all a senator or congressman needs to see to ask for his cut for the next election should he give his support.

Finally, the fact that these technologies need to be evaluated for future markets by a global competitive landscape puts the pressure on their implementation at costs to be even higher. What will the US economy do when super efficient drone and car and truck fleets flow across the globe from Chinese makers? Asserting dominance for producing and shipping EVERYTHING unseen (they are already dominant but mostly because the average Chinese standard of living is still far below that of a US citizen). They are surely chopping at the bit to get such research in place, funded and the US and western countries can afford to sit on the side lines.

It has happened before and it will happen again.

On this issue I am ambivalent, as such myopia has directly impacted my ability to evangelize the analogous efficiency extraction revolution that I've been trying to explain to people in the form of Action Oriented Workflow technology that I invented 10 years ago, I'd have an easier chance squeezing a neutron star!!

Ultimately AOW and ADA is about enabling the same point to point fulfillment of a good need for a consumer but using the virtual currency of "action" and a secure system for flowing it from agent to agent in order that it be committed to serve business needs.

I've said that as more and more people find themselves jobless they'll open their eyes more and more to solutions like it that allow them to "maximize their inherent value". Already freelancer.com/ elance.com (which just swallowed oDesk) and a few other marketplace services are out there and servicing one side of the coin. (Allowing people to easily freelance within a niche marketplace) but AOW addresses that side of the coin and THE other side *for all possible businesses*, allowing businesses to emancipate their *existing* employees as well as reaching out to free lancers in any desired marketplace and to add in machine learning to handle the internal expertise finding and fulfillment process ( the virtual octo/quadrocoptors for "action").

Now here barely in 2014, with such companies JUST coming out...I can say without hyperbole that when I had AOW working in 2004 it was 15 years ahead of every one else as even that is not seen in the wild *today* other than with the only system that implements AOW, my AgilEntity framework and ADA (the work routing algorithm I wrote in 2011/12) is also about 10 years ahead of every one else. So it's no doubt that it has taken a while for people to wake mostly thanks to the unfortunate circumstance of a job less "recovery" from the last recession.

I understand why people have been blind to revolutionary technology, lack of historical context, lack of technical context, lack of governmental context...but that doesn't make it any easier...the pains people are suffering now have them dancing to find other solutions and AOW/ADA is ready to feed that need.





15 December, 2013

AOW Textbook, the book that may never need to be.


A few months ago I was thinking about one day writing a book that would describe the best practices that those who implement Action Oriented Workflow or use a framework that implements it could refer to. It would provide an extensive history of how I discovered the action landscape and in my implementation of Action Oriented Workflow sought to model it using an efficient distributed computing framework. A thread on Facebook in which I mentioned casually one day needing to "write a book" on the subject led me to play a bit in photoshop and produce the image shown above.

This is a virtual textbook cover of what I'd imagine the book to look like...complete with fake reference to a real publishing company (an inside joke given I once worked there) but the book cover itself may reference something that will never need to be in terms of a formal set of best practices for workflow modeling, as explained below.

On the path to the action landscape...

Though I was working in the publishing space at TheStreet.com I had already started thinking of more holistic ways to think about managing work in organizations.  They came from seeing parallels between the task of managing the xml transformation feeds in the publishing system and how I could create an abstraction that would allow me to use hierarchical management (in part using xml) to manage ANY relations between entities. I had these ideas starting in March of 2000 and had implemented a relations based architecture in the ad management tool that I was given the task of designing at TheStreet.com a few months later.

That tool had the seeds of the idea in the form of individual database tables mapped to the main Entity types of the system and then one relations table that kept a record of how the one to many relations between those entity types varied from instance to instance. Pretty standard relational db model but I saw it as something that could be generalized beyond just for managing ad blocks on pages but for managing pages....or servers..or html files or bank accounts....or anything ......if some deeper kernel of invariance between all those Entity types could be found. This kernel of invariance would be found over two years later during my AgilEntity development as the idea of action. The action landscape, I realized was invariant to all types of Entities and was hinted at by traditional relational database construction in the common pattern used to build such systems...the CRUD approach...but CRUD was insufficient.

Building action into the machine...

 These new ideas became the basis for beginning AgilEntity (then the system was named "Entegra DPS" for distributed processing system but I changed the name just before 2004 to reflect the generality it was able to achieve as I realized it could model more than just a publishing system.) Initial coding started the week AFTER 9/11 on September 17, 2001 but I didn't get to the point in the development of the framework that I was building the workflow management system for the Entity formalism until nearly 2 years later.

While working,  it became clear that routing actions between human agents is a scale invariant transformation of the problem of the brain routing chemical signals between neurons and other brain cells. I didn't realize that until after I'd wired together a working implementation of an explicit Action Oriented Workflow and then could see clearly the connections which I modeled using linked spheres of potential actors on a 'stage' as shown in the attached image. I would come back to the brain neuron analog later.

I finished the implementation of explicit AOW around  2004 according to my vss notes and also projected an extension to the paradigm that would allow it to engage *implicit* workflows by eliminating the need for formal construction of the stages as described to detail in the AOW white paper, this would be accomplished by taking a measure (action delta) of completion accuracy after an action is routed to a worker and then storing that delta as a memory for future potential routing events.

The workflows would then have stages which had an ad hoc set of actors ("agents" in the white paper) who could *potentially* perform the action. I star "potentially" because that  alone was a major innovation. By enabling a loose coupling between the action and the potential committing agents I make action resolution resistant to real world blockages like users not have the right permissions and users not being available to do work at the moment they are routed it. It seems counter intuitive to slightly break the workflow in this way but what it does is provide *flexibility* that speeds convergence over the set of all possible action routing scenarios.

Further, In the explicit AOW model those agents have to be manually added to the stage but in implicit AOW the action workflow designer can simply indicate that the stage uses the users contact list...it's this change that makes all the difference in terms of ease of building workflows  since it eliminates the requirement that the workflow designer know who should or should not be added to each action stage and turns that over to the social graph created as work associated or friend associated connections are made.

Anyway, I didn't get to building out the implicit AOW implementation until mid 2011 after quitting my job at McGraw Hill after getting back from a trip to Venezuela and I still have UI implementation to finish...as I've been juggling survival cats almost consistently since then.

The reason the book cover may be for ever virtual is now clear, in the explicit AOW world the need to know which coworkers need to be in your  action Stages as you build them is a requirement and as such there are best practices (some specified in the AOW white paper) that should be employed to ensure that actions do indeed converge on agents within the organization that can perform them, it was still possible for an action in a badly designed set of workflows to have an inordinate convergence time to an agent who can perform them. Thus providing ample fodder for a book describing how not to build bad Workflows with vertical by vertical modifications depending on the type of workflows those verticals would find optimal.

The implicit workflow extension via the invention of the Action Delta Assessment algorithm which implements the mechanism,  removed the need to know specifically who could specifically be routed a work and instead makes it "any one in my contact list who has the optimal action delta value for this routed action". This would work across any workflow in any vertical industry as the ADA algorithm learned what was efficient for that process with whatever agents engaged in the social workflow built on users dynamic contact list without need for formal modeling to that vertical...thus no need for me to write a book describing how to optimize workflow design to each vertical.

From work routing actions to dynamic cognition...

Moreover, I suspect that the real time nature of this comparison between the commit potential of agents in an implicit workflow is mathematically identical to the real time chemical calculation that is done when a neuron fires off an action potential down its axon to any distally connected neurons.

This realization has led me to continue to investigate how modifications to AOW can be utilized to create not just an intelligent learning process in an action routing system but by mapping action routing to sensory data, fully dynamic cognition. I have since written a great deal on the importance of ways to self connect potential dynamic cognitive minds to ensure their functionality is not pathological. Writings on the importance of emotional and autonomic modulation have culminated in my formal description of what I call the Salience Theory of Dynamic cognition and Consciousness. I wrote an initial state diagram in 2011, that in my conception may emerge dynamic cognition, shortly after finishing the ADA class implementation in AgilEntity but I won't be getting to building code for that for several years at least as I try to use AOW and AgilEntity as the basis of a first disruptive solution to a common and well known vertical industry.