http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Sources-of-Innovation-tp4566136p4570575.html
I had missed the connection with KC Claffy. I followed her work to
> Thanks Stephen. I took no offense -- just wanted to announce my
> presence on-list, and then to indulge in a little crotchetiness of
> my own ;-)
>
> That said, but you should be careful what you wish for.
> I've already visited Santa Fe 3-4x now, the first few times to
> attend Swarm-related conferences at SFI while I was in grad school
> (c. 1995-1998).
> Given the chance, I tend to find excuses to come!
>
> Full disclosure: I no longer have any contractual relationship with
> CAIDA. I was a fellow/advisor on economic and policy matter that
> affect Internet protocol development, deployment, and usage from
> 2005~2007, and I continue to work with CAIDA Director/PI KC Claffy
> less formally but fairly regularly ever since. In fact KC and I were
> together on my last visit to Santa Fe in October 2007. We were
> invited up to chat with some of the SFI research staff and fellows
> who were interested in the possible uses of Internet topology and
> flow time series measurements to explore/exemplify some broader
> insights about self-organizing systems that they were working on. I
> currently work as a consultant, mostly to the technical coordination
> institutions that administer Internet protocol number resources
> (i.e., the Regional Internet Registries, or RIRs).
>
> I don't think that there was much follow-up between SFI and CAIDA
> after that meeting, but then at that time my own research of
> possible relevance was not yet particularly well developed.
> That has changed in the interim, perhaps to the point that it would
> merit a talk. I'll follow up with a few details off-list.
>
> Regards all,
>
> TV
>
http://www.caida.org/home/staff/tvest/>
http://www.ripe.net/info/ncc/staff/science_grp.html>
>
> On Feb 13, 2010, at 11:58 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote:
>
>> Hello Tom,
>>
>> Welcome to Friam! Don't mind the occasional squawk from the
>> ParrotFarm - the birds get crotchety if we forget to clean the
>> cages. :-)
>>
>> Yes, you'll find fans of Brian Arthur-speak here. In particular, I
>> think his ideas of "Deep Craft" wrt innovation <
http://tinyurl.com/yfud2p3
>> > emerging in some places and not others is interesting. I would
>> argue Northern New Mexico has a level of deep craft in simulation
>> and related topics like optimization and visualization that allows
>> practitioners to exchange ideas quickly with common vocabularies
>> (though one could argue about how deep it goes).
>>
>> BTW, I enjoy the tools and visualizations coming out of Caida! If
>> you're out in Santa Fe, please consider giving a brownbag talk.
>>
>> -Stephen
>>
>>
>> --- -. . ..-. .. ... .... - .-- --- ..-. .. ... ....
>>
[hidden email]
>> (m) 505.577.5828 (o) 505.995.0206
>> redfish.com _ sfcomplex.org _ simtable.com _ ambientpixel.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 13, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Tom Vest wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 13, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sheesh, what a bunch of academic phraseology!
>>>> • functional modularization
>>>> • combinatorial evolution
>>>> • both "top-down" as well as "bottom-up" initiative [...]
>>>> indispensable
>>>> IM(Not So)HO, America at large has been sufficiently dumbed down
>>>> by the brutal combination of a mediocre educational system, an
>>>> academic peer review system that rigidly refuses to think outside
>>>> the box, pay-for-play politics, fundamentalist christian &
>>>> christian wannabe religions, McDonalds lardburgers, and short-
>>>> sighted Wall Street quants that innovation is now solidly a thing
>>>> of the past, and will probably remain so for a very long time.
>>>>
>>>> --Doug
>>>
>>> Actually, we said approximately the same thing, or rather your
>>> list included a small subset of the things I was trying to cover
>>> with my academic phraseology.
>>> No question that your phraseology is much more colorful! Not so
>>> easy to model however.
>>>
>>> I only chimed in (and subscribed) because I'm trying to model some
>>> related problems in my own field.
>>> I saw the terms "modeling" and "applied complexity" on the group
>>> page -- but perhaps I misinterpreted the sense in which one or
>>> more of those terms is being used...
>>>
>>> In any case, please excuse the intrusion.
>>>
>>> TV
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Tom Vest <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 13, 2010, at 8:21 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In a recent washingtonpost.com article named
>>>>> "Erasing our innovation deficit" (
http://bit.ly/cG6vGW )
>>>>> Eric Schmidt said
>>>>>
>>>>> "We have been world leaders in [technological] innovation for
>>>>> generations. It has driven our economy, employment growth and
>>>>> our rising prosperity.
>>>>> [..] We can no longer rely on the top-down approach of the 20th
>>>>> century, when big investments in the military and NASA spun off
>>>>> to the wider economy."
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you agree? What kind of approach does the
>>>>> USA need to return to old strength?
>>>>>
>>>>> -J.
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised that none of the current/former SFIers on the list
>>>> have mentioned Brian Arthur's recent pitch for "combinatorial
>>>> evolution" as the engine of innovation.
>>>> As I read it, Brian's argument is that innovation is an
>>>> epiphenomenon arising from:
>>>>
>>>> -- the functional modularization of many different kinds of
>>>> technologies*, plus
>>>> -- the standardization of "open" interfaces enabling those
>>>> functional components or modules to be combined in different
>>>> ways, plus
>>>> -- an environment that enables and incentivizes widespread
>>>> experimental combination of different technologies, e.g., by
>>>> occasionally rewarding those who come up with novel, useful
>>>> combinations.
>>>>
>>>> *These could be of the "hard" or "soft" variety, e.g., chip
>>>> design or double-entry bookkeeping.
>>>>
>>>> So, on this account it would seem that both "top-down" as well as
>>>> "bottom-up" initiative is indispensable.
>>>> Bottom-up activities are the proximate cause and primary engine
>>>> driving innovation.
>>>> However, the size of that engine (e.g., the share of the total
>>>> population capable of participating constrictively in the
>>>> combinatorial search) depends substantially on the existence,
>>>> scope, and openness/interoperability of those modules and the
>>>> standardized interfaces between them. Unfortunately, by their
>>>> very definition "standards" are a top-down phenomenon -- both
>>>> because they are never adopted with unanimous consent (but must
>>>> be appx. universally binding with a domain in order to work in
>>>> that domain), and because they must remain relatively stable over
>>>> time, which means that for everyone that comes along after the
>>>> moment of standardization, they may feel like an "unjust,"
>>>> arbitrary imposition.
>>>>
>>>> In 2002, a quartet of prominent Internet standards developers
>>>> published a paper called "Tussle in Cyberspace" (link below),
>>>> which made a broadly similar argument about how the Internet has
>>>> evolved. However, while mechanisms that the Tussle authors
>>>> describe are broadly similar, the tone seems quite different, to
>>>> me at least. The earlier paper seemed to be (obliquely) engaging
>>>> a topical issues that was just emerging around that time -- i.e.,
>>>> the aspirations of some dominant Internet service providers to
>>>> subtly alter and/or partially vacate some of the standards that
>>>> make the Internet "open" and thus had fostered the Internet's
>>>> rapid growth up to that time (note: today the issue is most
>>>> commonly called "net neutrality"). In that context, the Tussle
>>>> paper seems to lean ever so slightly past the domain of
>>>> observation and Darwinian theory construction, in the general
>>>> direction of advocating the tussle process and the embrace of
>>>> whatever outcomes it yields, ala "social darwinism."
>>>>
>>>> In any case, I think that any present US deficit in innovation
>>>> can probably be chalked up, at least in part, to the ongoing
>>>> progressive deviation from our most recent moment of optimal
>>>> balance between those "top down" and "bottom up" forces. Some of
>>>> the biggest recent winners in the innovation game -- i.e., those
>>>> who benefited most from the latest round of technical
>>>> standardization -- have started exert their own top-down
>>>> authority in ways that advance their own private interests, but
>>>> which collaterally degrade the environment for future/distributed
>>>> innovation...
>>>>
>>>> (The question resonates for me because of the looming inflection
>>>> point in Internet protocol standards associated with the
>>>> depletion of the IPv4 address pool, which happens to be the stuff
>>>> of my day job)
>>>>
>>>> My own 0.02, +/-
>>>>
>>>> Tom Vest
>>>>
>>>> "Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow’s Internet"
>>>>
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Publications/PubPDFs/Tussle2002.pdf>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ============================================================
>>>> 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>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Doug Roberts
>>>>
[hidden email]
>>>>
[hidden email]
>>>> 505-455-7333 - Office
>>>> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>>>> ============================================================
>>>> 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>
>
> ============================================================
> 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.orgMeets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College