Fwd: APB Daily There are 6 new posts in "All Points Blog"
Locked
Fwd: APB Daily There are 6 new posts in "All Points Blog"
 
|
FYI.
Modelling in Wired <http://www.feedblitz.com/t.asp?/21296/1578027/http://apb.directionsmag.com/archives/3094-Modelling-in-Wired.html> * (Adena Schutzberg)* Wired explains how the Bureau of Land Management is using HEC-RAS and ArcGIS to model what will happen when the dammed Vetura River becomes "undammed." Lots of nice graphics, too. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/07/dam ? Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/t.asp?/21296/1578027/http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=21296;152646;http://apb.directionsmag.com/archives/3094-Modelling-in-Wired.html;Modelling+in+Wired;72160>? Related<http://www.feedblitz.com/t.asp?/21296/1578027/http://www.feedblitz.com/related.asp?http://apb.directionsmag.com/archives/3094-Modelling-in-Wired.html>? ========================================== J. T. Johnson Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA www.analyticjournalism.com 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.us "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." -- Buckminster Fuller ========================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070714/19366a4f/attachment.html |
|
|
The SASO conference last week
http://projects.csail.mit.edu/saso2007/program.html was on engineering communication system self-organization and self-adaptation behaviors, and quite remarkable for both the things people are doing and the broad new perspectives that seem to be coming out. The two I found most telling were that Self-Org, & Self-Adap. behaviors are being looked at now as two distinct things, the one roughly the invention of new organization and the other the integration of those new organizations in a larger context, and the other, that we may have unexpected big problem. There's lots of creative work being done on the design side, and some cautious poking around at the nature of the unexpected problem. My contribution to the conference was a lot of good questions about how engineered systems need to fit into and engage with natural systems, and I found the group remarkably receptive, even absent the general lack of any recognized physical science model for natural systems for us to use for the connection (me just speaking from my own w/o discussing it). I also posted a short paper that hopefully they'll read and be able to understand ( http://www.synapse9.com/PICS.htm ) These guys, like the NetSci-06 group in May were all definitely looking 'outside' the normal engineering box, moving away from 'system' as 'thing in a box' to 'complex system' as 'learning thing in a box'. The appearance of a surprise big problem comes partly from a new understanding of how weak the core science is for how to build these things and then understand what's been built. There is no theory, just experiments, and for proofs only test sampling, nothing but statistical measures for things, no behavioral ones, so that it seems clear that it'll be very hard to know what behavior is being designed. This is important because one of the main motives for commercializing these methods is to find new control strategies for the ballooning complexity of the global net that is exceeding the capacities of the engineers to design for in other ways. One simple example of the problem came up in discussing Peer-to-Peer hosting of the routing tables of the net. You need some model of trust, and in nature one of the most prevalent forms of failure is the auto-immune reaction where the trust mechanism turns on itself. That problem, was one of the kinds of things not foreseen in the papers presented, demonstrating both how ready the engineers are to work with the real problems, and how big the real problem really is. The 2nd half of that, that to continue the growth of complexity in the system people are thinking we need to move the world's information control structures to this new paradigm of organization, indicates a growing recognition that any way we're going seeming unlikely to work. I think they're talking about about the same thing I have for a while. For a few years I've been describing it as an approaching 'wall of complexity' from a natural systems perspective, a natural product of growth beyond the organizational limits of the growth system, having to do with systemically developing mismatching lag times. You could also consider it at a 'ceiling of complexity' or just just the proverbial 'hitting the fan' in which something you care about gets chopped to bits and can't be reassembled. A better physical model is turbulence, perhaps, where the smooth flows of a system explosively disintegrate. Watching the transition to turbulence in any physical system of flows helps you understand the basic problem. It's one of these things that is good to see coming....! ;-) btw, my patent, still languishing for indecision in reviews at the PTO after 12 years (!!!!), is for a way to extend the domain of smooth flow using a general principle that may be extendable to other things.... Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070715/2c7de806/attachment.html |
|
|
MessageNorvig's article "Adaptive Software" (http://norvig.com/adapaper-pcai.html) gave me more then this conference :-( --Mikhail
----- Original Message ----- From: phil henshaw To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 9:30 AM Subject: [FRIAM] SASO conference & things The SASO conference last week http://projects.csail.mit.edu/saso2007/program.html was on engineering communication system self-organization and self-adaptation behaviors, and quite remarkable for both the things people are doing and the broad new perspectives that seem to be coming out. The two I found most telling were that Self-Org, & Self-Adap. behaviors are being looked at now as two distinct things, the one roughly the invention of new organization and the other the integration of those new organizations in a larger context, and the other, that we may have unexpected big problem. There's lots of creative work being done on the design side, and some cautious poking around at the nature of the unexpected problem. My contribution to the conference was a lot of good questions about how engineered systems need to fit into and engage with natural systems, and I found the group remarkably receptive, even absent the general lack of any recognized physical science model for natural systems for us to use for the connection (me just speaking from my own w/o discussing it). I also posted a short paper that hopefully they'll read and be able to understand ( http://www.synapse9.com/PICS.htm ) These guys, like the NetSci-06 group in May were all definitely looking 'outside' the normal engineering box, moving away from 'system' as 'thing in a box' to 'complex system' as 'learning thing in a box'. The appearance of a surprise big problem comes partly from a new understanding of how weak the core science is for how to build these things and then understand what's been built. There is no theory, just experiments, and for proofs only test sampling, nothing but statistical measures for things, no behavioral ones, so that it seems clear that it'll be very hard to know what behavior is being designed. This is important because one of the main motives for commercializing these methods is to find new control strategies for the ballooning complexity of the global net that is exceeding the capacities of the engineers to design for in other ways. One simple example of the problem came up in discussing Peer-to-Peer hosting of the routing tables of the net. You need some model of trust, and in nature one of the most prevalent forms of failure is the auto-immune reaction where the trust mechanism turns on itself. That problem, was one of the kinds of things not foreseen in the papers presented, demonstrating both how ready the engineers are to work with the real problems, and how big the real problem really is. The 2nd half of that, that to continue the growth of complexity in the system people are thinking we need to move the world's information control structures to this new paradigm of organization, indicates a growing recognition that any way we're going seeming unlikely to work. I think they're talking about about the same thing I have for a while. For a few years I've been describing it as an approaching 'wall of complexity' from a natural systems perspective, a natural product of growth beyond the organizational limits of the growth system, having to do with systemically developing mismatching lag times. You could also consider it at a 'ceiling of complexity' or just just the proverbial 'hitting the fan' in which something you care about gets chopped to bits and can't be reassembled. A better physical model is turbulence, perhaps, where the smooth flows of a system explosively disintegrate. Watching the transition to turbulence in any physical system of flows helps you understand the basic problem. It's one of these things that is good to see coming....! ;-) btw, my patent, still languishing for indecision in reviews at the PTO after 12 years (!!!!), is for a way to extend the domain of smooth flow using a general principle that may be extendable to other things.... Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070715/8609f3ef/attachment.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Phil Henshaw-2
MessageIt's interesting how they will attack the same problems on this workshop http://paris.utdallas.edu/iwsc07/ --Mikhail
----- Original Message ----- From: phil henshaw To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 9:30 AM Subject: [FRIAM] SASO conference & things The SASO conference last week http://projects.csail.mit.edu/saso2007/program.html was on engineering communication system self-organization and self-adaptation behaviors, and quite remarkable for both the things people are doing and the broad new perspectives that seem to be coming out. The two I found most telling were that Self-Org, & Self-Adap. behaviors are being looked at now as two distinct things, the one roughly the invention of new organization and the other the integration of those new organizations in a larger context, and the other, that we may have unexpected big problem. There's lots of creative work being done on the design side, and some cautious poking around at the nature of the unexpected problem. My contribution to the conference was a lot of good questions about how engineered systems need to fit into and engage with natural systems, and I found the group remarkably receptive, even absent the general lack of any recognized physical science model for natural systems for us to use for the connection (me just speaking from my own w/o discussing it). I also posted a short paper that hopefully they'll read and be able to understand ( http://www.synapse9.com/PICS.htm ) These guys, like the NetSci-06 group in May were all definitely looking 'outside' the normal engineering box, moving away from 'system' as 'thing in a box' to 'complex system' as 'learning thing in a box'. The appearance of a surprise big problem comes partly from a new understanding of how weak the core science is for how to build these things and then understand what's been built. There is no theory, just experiments, and for proofs only test sampling, nothing but statistical measures for things, no behavioral ones, so that it seems clear that it'll be very hard to know what behavior is being designed. This is important because one of the main motives for commercializing these methods is to find new control strategies for the ballooning complexity of the global net that is exceeding the capacities of the engineers to design for in other ways. One simple example of the problem came up in discussing Peer-to-Peer hosting of the routing tables of the net. You need some model of trust, and in nature one of the most prevalent forms of failure is the auto-immune reaction where the trust mechanism turns on itself. That problem, was one of the kinds of things not foreseen in the papers presented, demonstrating both how ready the engineers are to work with the real problems, and how big the real problem really is. The 2nd half of that, that to continue the growth of complexity in the system people are thinking we need to move the world's information control structures to this new paradigm of organization, indicates a growing recognition that any way we're going seeming unlikely to work. I think they're talking about about the same thing I have for a while. For a few years I've been describing it as an approaching 'wall of complexity' from a natural systems perspective, a natural product of growth beyond the organizational limits of the growth system, having to do with systemically developing mismatching lag times. You could also consider it at a 'ceiling of complexity' or just just the proverbial 'hitting the fan' in which something you care about gets chopped to bits and can't be reassembled. A better physical model is turbulence, perhaps, where the smooth flows of a system explosively disintegrate. Watching the transition to turbulence in any physical system of flows helps you understand the basic problem. It's one of these things that is good to see coming....! ;-) btw, my patent, still languishing for indecision in reviews at the PTO after 12 years (!!!!), is for a way to extend the domain of smooth flow using a general principle that may be extendable to other things.... Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070715/feb7a2a3/attachment.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mikhail Gorelkin
yes, thanks. The article looks like a good one to read carefully.
I've got some train time tommorow.... Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Mikhail Gorelkin Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 7:24 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] SASO conference & things Norvig's article "Adaptive Software" ( <http://norvig.com/adapaper-pcai.html> http://norvig.com/adapaper-pcai.html) gave me more then this conference :-( --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: phil henshaw <mailto:[hidden email]> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity <mailto:friam at redfish.com> Coffee Group' Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 9:30 AM Subject: [FRIAM] SASO conference & things The SASO conference last week http://projects.csail.mit.edu/saso2007/program.html was on engineering communication system self-organization and self-adaptation behaviors, and quite remarkable for both the things people are doing and the broad new perspectives that seem to be coming out. The two I found most telling were that Self-Org, & Self-Adap. behaviors are being looked at now as two distinct things, the one roughly the invention of new organization and the other the integration of those new organizations in a larger context, and the other, that we may have unexpected big problem. There's lots of creative work being done on the design side, and some cautious poking around at the nature of the unexpected problem. My contribution to the conference was a lot of good questions about how engineered systems need to fit into and engage with natural systems, and I found the group remarkably receptive, even absent the general lack of any recognized physical science model for natural systems for us to use for the connection (me just speaking from my own w/o discussing it). I also posted a short paper that hopefully they'll read and be able to understand ( http://www.synapse9.com/PICS.htm ) These guys, like the NetSci-06 group in May were all definitely looking 'outside' the normal engineering box, moving away from 'system' as 'thing in a box' to 'complex system' as 'learning thing in a box'. The appearance of a surprise big problem comes partly from a new understanding of how weak the core science is for how to build these things and then understand what's been built. There is no theory, just experiments, and for proofs only test sampling, nothing but statistical measures for things, no behavioral ones, so that it seems clear that it'll be very hard to know what behavior is being designed. This is important because one of the main motives for commercializing these methods is to find new control strategies for the ballooning complexity of the global net that is exceeding the capacities of the engineers to design for in other ways. One simple example of the problem came up in discussing Peer-to-Peer hosting of the routing tables of the net. You need some model of trust, and in nature one of the most prevalent forms of failure is the auto-immune reaction where the trust mechanism turns on itself. That problem, was one of the kinds of things not foreseen in the papers presented, demonstrating both how ready the engineers are to work with the real problems, and how big the real problem really is. The 2nd half of that, that to continue the growth of complexity in the system people are thinking we need to move the world's information control structures to this new paradigm of organization, indicates a growing recognition that any way we're going seeming unlikely to work. I think they're talking about about the same thing I have for a while. For a few years I've been describing it as an approaching 'wall of complexity' from a natural systems perspective, a natural product of growth beyond the organizational limits of the growth system, having to do with systemically developing mismatching lag times. You could also consider it at a 'ceiling of complexity' or just just the proverbial 'hitting the fan' in which something you care about gets chopped to bits and can't be reassembled. A better physical model is turbulence, perhaps, where the smooth flows of a system explosively disintegrate. Watching the transition to turbulence in any physical system of flows helps you understand the basic problem. It's one of these things that is good to see coming....! ;-) btw, my patent, still languishing for indecision in reviews at the PTO after 12 years (!!!!), is for a way to extend the domain of smooth flow using a general principle that may be extendable to other things.... Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> _____ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070715/e5349603/attachment-0001.html |
|
|
MessageThe problem is it was written in 2001! And since than no articles of the subject I can recommend for reading. --Mikhail
----- Original Message ----- From: phil henshaw To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:43 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] SASO conference & things yes, thanks. The article looks like a good one to read carefully. I've got some train time tommorow.... Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com -----Original Message----- From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Mikhail Gorelkin Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 7:24 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] SASO conference & things Norvig's article "Adaptive Software" (http://norvig.com/adapaper-pcai.html) gave me more then this conference :-( --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: phil henshaw To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 9:30 AM Subject: [FRIAM] SASO conference & things The SASO conference last week http://projects.csail.mit.edu/saso2007/program.html was on engineering communication system self-organization and self-adaptation behaviors, and quite remarkable for both the things people are doing and the broad new perspectives that seem to be coming out. The two I found most telling were that Self-Org, & Self-Adap. behaviors are being looked at now as two distinct things, the one roughly the invention of new organization and the other the integration of those new organizations in a larger context, and the other, that we may have unexpected big problem. There's lots of creative work being done on the design side, and some cautious poking around at the nature of the unexpected problem. My contribution to the conference was a lot of good questions about how engineered systems need to fit into and engage with natural systems, and I found the group remarkably receptive, even absent the general lack of any recognized physical science model for natural systems for us to use for the connection (me just speaking from my own w/o discussing it). I also posted a short paper that hopefully they'll read and be able to understand ( http://www.synapse9.com/PICS.htm ) These guys, like the NetSci-06 group in May were all definitely looking 'outside' the normal engineering box, moving away from 'system' as 'thing in a box' to 'complex system' as 'learning thing in a box'. The appearance of a surprise big problem comes partly from a new understanding of how weak the core science is for how to build these things and then understand what's been built. There is no theory, just experiments, and for proofs only test sampling, nothing but statistical measures for things, no behavioral ones, so that it seems clear that it'll be very hard to know what behavior is being designed. This is important because one of the main motives for commercializing these methods is to find new control strategies for the ballooning complexity of the global net that is exceeding the capacities of the engineers to design for in other ways. One simple example of the problem came up in discussing Peer-to-Peer hosting of the routing tables of the net. You need some model of trust, and in nature one of the most prevalent forms of failure is the auto-immune reaction where the trust mechanism turns on itself. That problem, was one of the kinds of things not foreseen in the papers presented, demonstrating both how ready the engineers are to work with the real problems, and how big the real problem really is. The 2nd half of that, that to continue the growth of complexity in the system people are thinking we need to move the world's information control structures to this new paradigm of organization, indicates a growing recognition that any way we're going seeming unlikely to work. I think they're talking about about the same thing I have for a while. For a few years I've been describing it as an approaching 'wall of complexity' from a natural systems perspective, a natural product of growth beyond the organizational limits of the growth system, having to do with systemically developing mismatching lag times. You could also consider it at a 'ceiling of complexity' or just just the proverbial 'hitting the fan' in which something you care about gets chopped to bits and can't be reassembled. A better physical model is turbulence, perhaps, where the smooth flows of a system explosively disintegrate. Watching the transition to turbulence in any physical system of flows helps you understand the basic problem. It's one of these things that is good to see coming....! ;-) btw, my patent, still languishing for indecision in reviews at the PTO after 12 years (!!!!), is for a way to extend the domain of smooth flow using a general principle that may be extendable to other things.... Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070716/90ffe76a/attachment.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mikhail Gorelkin
thanks for the links - it's very helpful to have a nice overview from
the software perspective, I thought to pass them on as a note on my PICS.htm page for the SASO audience. 07/16/07 - Messages from the Softside... SASO was more about the theory of control systems, and a friend sent me some links on how the software people are now looking at the same transition to flowing organization from static structure. The first link is to an overview article by Norvig & Cohen's about Adaptive Software, and using the term a little differently. It's of a 2007 perspective but seems slightly dated in some things, like leaving out the distinction between the software's own 'self-' adaptive and the 'user-' adaptive and the 'designer-' adaptive modes of that. They also seem poised to realize that turning software a gents around to use them for watching the behavior of the complex natural systems in which we operate, is a way to see the complexity of the larger systems and 'see' what's coming which is neat. re: <http://norvig.com/adapaper-pcai.html> http://norvig.com/adapaper-pcai.html - a nice overview understanding of complex software design environs, though note interesting error, in giving the date as 'today' as if 'today' would still be that when it's read tomorrow...:-) - some advertisement angle, but great overview perspective and links re: <http://paris.utdallas.edu/iwsc07/> http://paris.utdallas.edu/iwsc07/ - a July,24 07 conference in China discussing many of the same things Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Mikhail Gorelkin Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 7:34 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] SASO conference & things It's interesting how they will attack the same problems on this workshop http://paris.utdallas.edu/iwsc07/ --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: phil henshaw <mailto:[hidden email]> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity <mailto:friam at redfish.com> Coffee Group' Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 9:30 AM Subject: [FRIAM] SASO conference & things The SASO conference last week http://projects.csail.mit.edu/saso2007/program.html was on engineering communication system self-organization and self-adaptation behaviors, and quite remarkable for both the things people are doing and the broad new perspectives that seem to be coming out. The two I found most telling were that Self-Org, & Self-Adap. behaviors are being looked at now as two distinct things, the one roughly the invention of new organization and the other the integration of those new organizations in a larger context, and the other, that we may have unexpected big problem. There's lots of creative work being done on the design side, and some cautious poking around at the nature of the unexpected problem. My contribution to the conference was a lot of good questions about how engineered systems need to fit into and engage with natural systems, and I found the group remarkably receptive, even absent the general lack of any recognized physical science model for natural systems for us to use for the connection (me just speaking from my own w/o discussing it). I also posted a short paper that hopefully they'll read and be able to understand ( http://www.synapse9.com/PICS.htm ) These guys, like the NetSci-06 group in May were all definitely looking 'outside' the normal engineering box, moving away from 'system' as 'thing in a box' to 'complex system' as 'learning thing in a box'. The appearance of a surprise big problem comes partly from a new understanding of how weak the core science is for how to build these things and then understand what's been built. There is no theory, just experiments, and for proofs only test sampling, nothing but statistical measures for things, no behavioral ones, so that it seems clear that it'll be very hard to know what behavior is being designed. This is important because one of the main motives for commercializing these methods is to find new control strategies for the ballooning complexity of the global net that is exceeding the capacities of the engineers to design for in other ways. One simple example of the problem came up in discussing Peer-to-Peer hosting of the routing tables of the net. You need some model of trust, and in nature one of the most prevalent forms of failure is the auto-immune reaction where the trust mechanism turns on itself. That problem, was one of the kinds of things not foreseen in the papers presented, demonstrating both how ready the engineers are to work with the real problems, and how big the real problem really is. The 2nd half of that, that to continue the growth of complexity in the system people are thinking we need to move the world's information control structures to this new paradigm of organization, indicates a growing recognition that any way we're going seeming unlikely to work. I think they're talking about about the same thing I have for a while. For a few years I've been describing it as an approaching 'wall of complexity' from a natural systems perspective, a natural product of growth beyond the organizational limits of the growth system, having to do with systemically developing mismatching lag times. You could also consider it at a 'ceiling of complexity' or just just the proverbial 'hitting the fan' in which something you care about gets chopped to bits and can't be reassembled. A better physical model is turbulence, perhaps, where the smooth flows of a system explosively disintegrate. Watching the transition to turbulence in any physical system of flows helps you understand the basic problem. It's one of these things that is good to see coming....! ;-) btw, my patent, still languishing for indecision in reviews at the PTO after 12 years (!!!!), is for a way to extend the domain of smooth flow using a general principle that may be extendable to other things.... Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> _____ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070716/21c09632/attachment.html |
|
|
MessagePhil,
There is one error: > It's of a ***2007*** perspective but seems slightly dated in some things Actually, the article was written in ***2001***! --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: phil henshaw To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:52 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] SASO conference & things thanks for the links - it's very helpful to have a nice overview from the software perspective, I thought to pass them on as a note on my PICS.htm page for the SASO audience. 07/16/07 - Messages from the Softside... SASO was more about the theory of control systems, and a friend sent me some links on how the software people are now looking at the same transition to flowing organization from static structure. The first link is to an overview article by Norvig & Cohen's about Adaptive Software, and using the term a little differently. It's of a 2007 perspective but seems slightly dated in some things, like leaving out the distinction between the software's own 'self-' adaptive and the 'user-' adaptive and the 'designer-' adaptive modes of that. They also seem poised to realize that turning software a gents around to use them for watching the behavior of the complex natural systems in which we operate, is a way to see the complexity of the larger systems and 'see' what's coming which is neat. re: http://norvig.com/adapaper-pcai.html - a nice overview understanding of complex software design environs, though note interesting error, in giving the date as 'today' as if 'today' would still be that when it's read tomorrow...:-) - some advertisement angle, but great overview perspective and links re: http://paris.utdallas.edu/iwsc07/ - a July,24 07 conference in China discussing many of the same things Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com -----Original Message----- From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Mikhail Gorelkin Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 7:34 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] SASO conference & things It's interesting how they will attack the same problems on this workshop http://paris.utdallas.edu/iwsc07/ --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: phil henshaw To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 9:30 AM Subject: [FRIAM] SASO conference & things The SASO conference last week http://projects.csail.mit.edu/saso2007/program.html was on engineering communication system self-organization and self-adaptation behaviors, and quite remarkable for both the things people are doing and the broad new perspectives that seem to be coming out. The two I found most telling were that Self-Org, & Self-Adap. behaviors are being looked at now as two distinct things, the one roughly the invention of new organization and the other the integration of those new organizations in a larger context, and the other, that we may have unexpected big problem. There's lots of creative work being done on the design side, and some cautious poking around at the nature of the unexpected problem. My contribution to the conference was a lot of good questions about how engineered systems need to fit into and engage with natural systems, and I found the group remarkably receptive, even absent the general lack of any recognized physical science model for natural systems for us to use for the connection (me just speaking from my own w/o discussing it). I also posted a short paper that hopefully they'll read and be able to understand ( http://www.synapse9.com/PICS.htm ) These guys, like the NetSci-06 group in May were all definitely looking 'outside' the normal engineering box, moving away from 'system' as 'thing in a box' to 'complex system' as 'learning thing in a box'. The appearance of a surprise big problem comes partly from a new understanding of how weak the core science is for how to build these things and then understand what's been built. There is no theory, just experiments, and for proofs only test sampling, nothing but statistical measures for things, no behavioral ones, so that it seems clear that it'll be very hard to know what behavior is being designed. This is important because one of the main motives for commercializing these methods is to find new control strategies for the ballooning complexity of the global net that is exceeding the capacities of the engineers to design for in other ways. One simple example of the problem came up in discussing Peer-to-Peer hosting of the routing tables of the net. You need some model of trust, and in nature one of the most prevalent forms of failure is the auto-immune reaction where the trust mechanism turns on itself. That problem, was one of the kinds of things not foreseen in the papers presented, demonstrating both how ready the engineers are to work with the real problems, and how big the real problem really is. The 2nd half of that, that to continue the growth of complexity in the system people are thinking we need to move the world's information control structures to this new paradigm of organization, indicates a growing recognition that any way we're going seeming unlikely to work. I think they're talking about about the same thing I have for a while. For a few years I've been describing it as an approaching 'wall of complexity' from a natural systems perspective, a natural product of growth beyond the organizational limits of the growth system, having to do with systemically developing mismatching lag times. You could also consider it at a 'ceiling of complexity' or just just the proverbial 'hitting the fan' in which something you care about gets chopped to bits and can't be reassembled. A better physical model is turbulence, perhaps, where the smooth flows of a system explosively disintegrate. Watching the transition to turbulence in any physical system of flows helps you understand the basic problem. It's one of these things that is good to see coming....! ;-) btw, my patent, still languishing for indecision in reviews at the PTO after 12 years (!!!!), is for a way to extend the domain of smooth flow using a general principle that may be extendable to other things.... Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070716/779529a2/attachment.html |
|
|
Oh, thanks much. I didn't know quite what to say since it did seem
dated (in thinking) somehow, and I wanted to complain that the article had no date on it. Then I noticed that the file name had a 2007 date. So I guess it had a falsified date... I study process, and it makes a huge difference to whether you can put things together to have successive changes in at least the correct order. btw, did my other suggestion ring true, that one of the things self-organizing and self-adaptive programming is looking for is a 'Cambrian' explosion of new body forms, that might be spawned by looking at the body parts of natural systems? Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Mikhail Gorelkin Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 12:10 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] SASO conference & things Phil, There is one error: > It's of a ***2007*** perspective but seems slightly dated in some things Actually, the article was written in ***2001***! --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: phil henshaw <mailto:[hidden email]> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity <mailto:friam at redfish.com> Coffee Group' Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:52 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] SASO conference & things thanks for the links - it's very helpful to have a nice overview from the software perspective, I thought to pass them on as a note on my PICS.htm page for the SASO audience. 07/16/07 - Messages from the Softside... SASO was more about the theory of control systems, and a friend sent me some links on how the software people are now looking at the same transition to flowing organization from static structure. The first link is to an overview article by Norvig & Cohen's about Adaptive Software, and using the term a little differently. It's of a 2007 perspective but seems slightly dated in some things, like leaving out the distinction between the software's own 'self-' adaptive and the 'user-' adaptive and the 'designer-' adaptive modes of that. They also seem poised to realize that turning software a gents around to use them for watching the behavior of the complex natural systems in which we operate, is a way to see the complexity of the larger systems and 'see' what's coming which is neat. re: <http://norvig.com/adapaper-pcai.html> http://norvig.com/adapaper-pcai.html - a nice overview understanding of complex software design environs, though note interesting error, in giving the date as 'today' as if 'today' would still be that when it's read tomorrow...:-) - some advertisement angle, but great overview perspective and links re: <http://paris.utdallas.edu/iwsc07/> http://paris.utdallas.edu/iwsc07/ - a July,24 07 conference in China discussing many of the same things Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Mikhail Gorelkin Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 7:34 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] SASO conference & things It's interesting how they will attack the same problems on this workshop http://paris.utdallas.edu/iwsc07/ --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: phil henshaw <mailto:[hidden email]> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity <mailto:friam at redfish.com> Coffee Group' Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 9:30 AM Subject: [FRIAM] SASO conference & things The SASO conference last week http://projects.csail.mit.edu/saso2007/program.html was on engineering communication system self-organization and self-adaptation behaviors, and quite remarkable for both the things people are doing and the broad new perspectives that seem to be coming out. The two I found most telling were that Self-Org, & Self-Adap. behaviors are being looked at now as two distinct things, the one roughly the invention of new organization and the other the integration of those new organizations in a larger context, and the other, that we may have unexpected big problem. There's lots of creative work being done on the design side, and some cautious poking around at the nature of the unexpected problem. My contribution to the conference was a lot of good questions about how engineered systems need to fit into and engage with natural systems, and I found the group remarkably receptive, even absent the general lack of any recognized physical science model for natural systems for us to use for the connection (me just speaking from my own w/o discussing it). I also posted a short paper that hopefully they'll read and be able to understand ( http://www.synapse9.com/PICS.htm ) These guys, like the NetSci-06 group in May were all definitely looking 'outside' the normal engineering box, moving away from 'system' as 'thing in a box' to 'complex system' as 'learning thing in a box'. The appearance of a surprise big problem comes partly from a new understanding of how weak the core science is for how to build these things and then understand what's been built. There is no theory, just experiments, and for proofs only test sampling, nothing but statistical measures for things, no behavioral ones, so that it seems clear that it'll be very hard to know what behavior is being designed. This is important because one of the main motives for commercializing these methods is to find new control strategies for the ballooning complexity of the global net that is exceeding the capacities of the engineers to design for in other ways. One simple example of the problem came up in discussing Peer-to-Peer hosting of the routing tables of the net. You need some model of trust, and in nature one of the most prevalent forms of failure is the auto-immune reaction where the trust mechanism turns on itself. That problem, was one of the kinds of things not foreseen in the papers presented, demonstrating both how ready the engineers are to work with the real problems, and how big the real problem really is. The 2nd half of that, that to continue the growth of complexity in the system people are thinking we need to move the world's information control structures to this new paradigm of organization, indicates a growing recognition that any way we're going seeming unlikely to work. I think they're talking about about the same thing I have for a while. For a few years I've been describing it as an approaching 'wall of complexity' from a natural systems perspective, a natural product of growth beyond the organizational limits of the growth system, having to do with systemically developing mismatching lag times. You could also consider it at a 'ceiling of complexity' or just just the proverbial 'hitting the fan' in which something you care about gets chopped to bits and can't be reassembled. A better physical model is turbulence, perhaps, where the smooth flows of a system explosively disintegrate. Watching the transition to turbulence in any physical system of flows helps you understand the basic problem. It's one of these things that is good to see coming....! ;-) btw, my patent, still languishing for indecision in reviews at the PTO after 12 years (!!!!), is for a way to extend the domain of smooth flow using a general principle that may be extendable to other things.... Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> _____ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org _____ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070719/f290282e/attachment.html |
|
|
MessageBody forms (what Sussman had in mind) are an absolutely new paradigm that first we must study from systems theory & cybernetics point of view. A reference to natural systems is appropriate here. Self-adaptive programming is a relatively new concept of merging software design and cybernetics; and a challenge here is just digest what cybernetics can offer us. First results are: Dynamic Object Model, Stafford Beer's Viable System Model for software, the Adaptive Strategy Design Pattern, and the like what I was expected from SASO. --Mikhail P.S. I have a very little to say about self-organization.
----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Henshaw To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:04 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] SASO conference & things Oh, thanks much. I didn't know quite what to say since it did seem dated (in thinking) somehow, and I wanted to complain that the article had no date on it. Then I noticed that the file name had a 2007 date. So I guess it had a falsified date... I study process, and it makes a huge difference to whether you can put things together to have successive changes in at least the correct order. btw, did my other suggestion ring true, that one of the things self-organizing and self-adaptive programming is looking for is a 'Cambrian' explosion of new body forms, that might be spawned by looking at the body parts of natural systems? Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com -----Original Message----- From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Mikhail Gorelkin Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 12:10 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] SASO conference & things Phil, There is one error: > It's of a ***2007*** perspective but seems slightly dated in some things Actually, the article was written in ***2001***! --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: phil henshaw To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:52 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] SASO conference & things thanks for the links - it's very helpful to have a nice overview from the software perspective, I thought to pass them on as a note on my PICS.htm page for the SASO audience. 07/16/07 - Messages from the Softside... SASO was more about the theory of control systems, and a friend sent me some links on how the software people are now looking at the same transition to flowing organization from static structure. The first link is to an overview article by Norvig & Cohen's about Adaptive Software, and using the term a little differently. It's of a 2007 perspective but seems slightly dated in some things, like leaving out the distinction between the software's own 'self-' adaptive and the 'user-' adaptive and the 'designer-' adaptive modes of that. They also seem poised to realize that turning software a gents around to use them for watching the behavior of the complex natural systems in which we operate, is a way to see the complexity of the larger systems and 'see' what's coming which is neat. re: http://norvig.com/adapaper-pcai.html - a nice overview understanding of complex software design environs, though note interesting error, in giving the date as 'today' as if 'today' would still be that when it's read tomorrow...:-) - some advertisement angle, but great overview perspective and links re: http://paris.utdallas.edu/iwsc07/ - a July,24 07 conference in China discussing many of the same things Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com -----Original Message----- From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Mikhail Gorelkin Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 7:34 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] SASO conference & things It's interesting how they will attack the same problems on this workshop http://paris.utdallas.edu/iwsc07/ --Mikhail ----- Original Message ----- From: phil henshaw To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 9:30 AM Subject: [FRIAM] SASO conference & things The SASO conference last week http://projects.csail.mit.edu/saso2007/program.html was on engineering communication system self-organization and self-adaptation behaviors, and quite remarkable for both the things people are doing and the broad new perspectives that seem to be coming out. The two I found most telling were that Self-Org, & Self-Adap. behaviors are being looked at now as two distinct things, the one roughly the invention of new organization and the other the integration of those new organizations in a larger context, and the other, that we may have unexpected big problem. There's lots of creative work being done on the design side, and some cautious poking around at the nature of the unexpected problem. My contribution to the conference was a lot of good questions about how engineered systems need to fit into and engage with natural systems, and I found the group remarkably receptive, even absent the general lack of any recognized physical science model for natural systems for us to use for the connection (me just speaking from my own w/o discussing it). I also posted a short paper that hopefully they'll read and be able to understand ( http://www.synapse9.com/PICS.htm ) These guys, like the NetSci-06 group in May were all definitely looking 'outside' the normal engineering box, moving away from 'system' as 'thing in a box' to 'complex system' as 'learning thing in a box'. The appearance of a surprise big problem comes partly from a new understanding of how weak the core science is for how to build these things and then understand what's been built. There is no theory, just experiments, and for proofs only test sampling, nothing but statistical measures for things, no behavioral ones, so that it seems clear that it'll be very hard to know what behavior is being designed. This is important because one of the main motives for commercializing these methods is to find new control strategies for the ballooning complexity of the global net that is exceeding the capacities of the engineers to design for in other ways. One simple example of the problem came up in discussing Peer-to-Peer hosting of the routing tables of the net. You need some model of trust, and in nature one of the most prevalent forms of failure is the auto-immune reaction where the trust mechanism turns on itself. That problem, was one of the kinds of things not foreseen in the papers presented, demonstrating both how ready the engineers are to work with the real problems, and how big the real problem really is. The 2nd half of that, that to continue the growth of complexity in the system people are thinking we need to move the world's information control structures to this new paradigm of organization, indicates a growing recognition that any way we're going seeming unlikely to work. I think they're talking about about the same thing I have for a while. For a few years I've been describing it as an approaching 'wall of complexity' from a natural systems perspective, a natural product of growth beyond the organizational limits of the growth system, having to do with systemically developing mismatching lag times. You could also consider it at a 'ceiling of complexity' or just just the proverbial 'hitting the fan' in which something you care about gets chopped to bits and can't be reassembled. A better physical model is turbulence, perhaps, where the smooth flows of a system explosively disintegrate. Watching the transition to turbulence in any physical system of flows helps you understand the basic problem. It's one of these things that is good to see coming....! ;-) btw, my patent, still languishing for indecision in reviews at the PTO after 12 years (!!!!), is for a way to extend the domain of smooth flow using a general principle that may be extendable to other things.... Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070719/113c9ece/attachment.html |
what about the group dynamics of what people feel afinity for...?
|
|
In reply to this post by Phil Henshaw-2
Are even things we sometimes take to define ourselves another
self-organizing collective systems we mostly don't notice the workings of? Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070720/49e0bca8/attachment.html |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |