Howdy, Bubba! Hey, if you're new around these parts, I just want to say how much I appreciate you dropping by! Oh, and you may want to subscribe to my feed. Thanks, and a tip o' the hat to ya!

No, I’m not talking about the latest GM recall, ya big galoot! (Oops, sorry - been watching John Wayne movies lately.) I’m talking about memory, and some new inroads into that Holy Grail of computer scientists everywhere: the ability to recall literally everything we’ve ever experienced. Wouldn’t that be… um, something.

A great article in Fast Company, written by Clive Johnson (I’ll warn you now, it’s a bit long but well worth your time), looks at some of the recent developments in this area, and it is worth pondering. Generally speaking, it focuses on Gordon Bell, a Microsoft computer scientist who’s been experimenting with “life storage” for some time now. A great story, and Clive’s lead-in is a grabber:

Most of us have probably wished at one time or another for the ability to remember things more accurately (or at all!), and this sounds like just the ticket. For example, even though most married men have only two really important things to remember (our anniversary date and, uh… what was that other one…?), on behalf of all men everywhere, I freely acknowledge the fact that we still need the help!

Of course, the technology would have to be a bit more unobtrusive before widespread acceptance would occur (no, that’s not a pimple, that’s my life-cam!) Actually, when you can download directly off the optic and aural nerves is when you’ll really be able to capture everything. Why not? It’s only a question of interface design.

If, as Ray Kurzweil recently predicted, computing power will increase a billion-fold within the next 25 years, this could well become a reality. But with all that information (talk about your information overload!) the next thing that has to be developed is a really useful way of searching all that accumulated information (but I imagine by then there’ll be a Google tool for that too - something like “GoogleBrain”, maybe).

It’s a crazy experiment. But perhaps its craziest aspect is that soon you’ll be part of it too–whether you want to be or not. The way Bell sees it, computers and the Internet are now rapidly becoming capable of storing everything you do and see. Hard-drive space has exploded in size, and every day people are recording more and more of their lives: We blog about our thoughts, upload personal pictures to Flickr, save every email on our infinitely expanding Gmail accounts, shoot video on our cell phones, record phone calls straight to our hard drives when we use Skype.”
OK, assume for the moment that a perfect memory is actually possible by artificial means, just what would the ramifications be?

Imagine if you will the ability to recall exactly what was said in a conversation that occurred, say, six months ago (or six years, or 10 years). How would it change your behavior if everything was being recorded, all the time? Would it all end up as the biggest reality show ever? Well, maybe not. I mean, what’s the point? Why would you WANT to record every little bit of your life? (On the other hand, you won’t ever have an argument about what was really said or not said. Gee – could it change the face of politics as we know it? I don’t know about you, but it brings a certain former President to mind…)

I think along with the ability to do so would have to come the ability to consciously turn the storage function on or off at will. That way you can reduce the storage to what you might actually use. Perhaps even do like some security systems, storing images in a loop of several hours or days. When something important happens (assuming you actually have a life, and something does!), you can then store that memory in its permanent location, wherever that is.

That location will probably be internal – at the rate of increase in storage density, in thirty years or less, “infinite” storage should be possible in a size easily compatible with in vitro locations - and I have the perfect place in mind: why not use all that otherwise wasted space between the ears?

[Update: I fixed the link to Clive's story above. Sorry 'bout that!]

You know, it would just be absolutely finer than a frogs hair if you would subscribe to my RSS feed!

Hit the brakes! Stop the presses! Alert the media! You are about to enter a knowledge-enhancement zone. Do not pass Go; do not collect $200.Y’now, in my never-ending quest to find the one great contribution I can make to the world’s body of knowledge - that one thing that will make this world a better place; well, I may have finally found it. Yes, I know, I thought I had it once before, and even presented my thesis to you, my faithful readers. But alas, the Nobel committee never did call back. Can’t think why.However, I just may have it now. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, if (and only if) you are interested in elevating your consciousness to a higher level, please read on. But don’t say I didn’t warn you!

First some background.

BBC News UK reports that “scientists” have finally come up with a way to quantify the “beer-goggle effect” – that well-known phenomenon that enhances the attractiveness of someone (or something, for that matter) - at least until the morning after, that is. As it turns out, it’s not just the amount of alcohol, there are lots of other factors that may contribute to the effect.

• β = beer goggle effect (a score from 1 to 100)
• An = number of units of alcohol consumed (loosely translated: “beers”)
• S = smokiness of the room (and, presumably, sensitivity of eyes to smoke)
• L = luminance of ‘person of interest’ (in other words, how dark it is in the room)
• Vo = Snellen visual acuity measurement (how good is the viewers’ eyesight?)
• δ = distance from ‘person of interest’

OK, so far so good, right? But here’s where I make my contribution (strictly in the name of science, don’tcha know). After examining the equation, I believe it to be somewhat lacking in another very critical factor; something we’ll call the horniness factor (let’s designate it as “H”).

I would make a small change in the equation, thus:

H1 and H2 are the horniness factors for the viewer and viewee, respectively. You have to remember that no matter how large a number H1 is, the product of H1 and H2 becomes progressively less significant as H2 gets smaller. And the smaller the product of H1 and H2, the smaller the overall score, β. (It’s also worth noting that initially, even though H2 is a complete unknown, it must be estimated accurately within a very narrow range, or the entire calculation implodes and the viewer goes home alone).So there you have it folks, my contribution to the body of knowledge. I guess I can just roll over and go back to sleep now, my work here is done.

Wake me when the Nobel committee calls; I have a spot on the mantle all picked out.

You know, it would just be absolutely finer than a frogs hair if you would subscribe to my RSS feed!

A very interesting Project Management read comes from NASA’s Ask Magazine (issue 25) in an article written by Kim Ess titled Managing a Critical, Fast-Turnaround Project. It describes some of the challenges Kim faced as Project Manager when developing and deploying the Orbital Boom Sensor System (OBSS) on the space shuttle in the wake of the Columbia disaster in September of 2003.

There are a lot of challenges to managing this type of project, and most notable was its high visibility. After all, this was to be the solution to the problem, and literally everyone – the media, the public, congress, and practically the rest of the civilized world – knew something had to be done, and this was it. When you manage a project in such a “fish bowl” environment it’s easy to succumb to fear of failure or of making mistakes. (Nothing like a little pressure to add that certain zest, that zing, that je ne se qoi, eh?)

I definitely admire her style, though. Practically her first task was telling the Control Board their estimated cost and deadline of $40 million and six months were unrealistic. Her team’s assessment set the cost at $100 million, with completion expected to take 20 months (they were within 5 % of this estimate at completion). This is not an easy thing to do. But precisely because of that, it’s absolutely necessary for project success.

“I’ve sometimes said, jokingly, “We were working so hard we didn’t have time to do anything but tell the truth.” But the truth in that joke is that telling the Board anything less would have made the project much harder — depleting time, energy, and good will — when we inevitably would have had to go back to management to ask for more time and resources.”

The collaboration aspect, though, is what I find most exciting. The key to success, Kim found, was not only communication – they had plenty of that – but actual face-to-face time with contractors, clients, and team members. This is something I don’t think is emphasized enough when it comes to big-ticket, high-visibility, or mission-critical projects. When the chips are down, there is no good substitute for actual face time. It helps align team members and develop that trust in each other that is invaluable in achieving the goal. Managing from a distance is simply not as effective.

This was useful in breaking through the NASA culture of “having a solution before reporting a problem”. When the entire team was appraised of potential problems they were able to successfully bring more resources to address the challenge before it caused the inevitable domino effect on other activities down the line. That trust, developed during face time, was invaluable.

Another thing that really worked was having a central repository of information and links that could be shared rather than having to distribute actual documents. Call this one a best practice for sure – it saves time, money, and IT overhead by cutting bandwidth dramatically.

One final lesson learned came from the fact that due to unrelated issues, their deadline kept moving; in effect, giving them more time. But extra time is not always a good thing (we engineers love to tinker and make things better), and a good PM knows when to draw the line. I’ll never forget a sign I saw once in an auto assembly plant production manager’s office: “Sooner or later you have to shoot the engineers and start production.”

Overall a great article. Discovery launched in July of 2005, and the new OBSS worked as expected. What more can a PM ask? Kudos to Kim and her team for a job well done!

You know, it would just be absolutely finer than a frogs hair if you would subscribe to my RSS feed!

Serendipity.

I’d be willing to bet that no more than half of you out there can define the word adequately. If you are among the knowledgable, please raise your left hand. Now lift up your right foot and stick out your tongue. OK, now repeat after me: “I wook widicuwous.”

Perhaps the best summation I could find is this one: “finding something fortuitous when looking for something else”. When something is serendipitous we think of it as a “happy accident”.

The Guardian Unlimited, a UK technology reporting website, has a story by Michael Pollitt of how a serendipitous moment may have led to a genuine long-term solution to the problem of counterfeiting, well, just about anything (physical, that is). The solution has to do with laser surface imaging; in other words, making nano-scale images of the surface of practically anything, and using that as an authentication technique. As a security test, it turns out it’s virtually impossible to beat.

But the discovery came about quite by accident, since Professor Russell Cowburn was actually trying to laser image computer chips. It was only when the chip fell off the paper they discovered that the paper holder, and subsequently other surfaces, all had images that were unique at the nano-scale level. What that means is that every passport, every credit card, every document has a unique surface shape – you only had to be able to look close enough to see it!

The ramifications in security technology are immense, to say the least. What’s really awesome about this is that it’s actually unbeatable. So until we perfect Star Trek transporter technology, manufacturing two items exactly alike at that scale will remain virtually impossible.

I did a fast check on other widely-known and used, yet serendipitous discoveries, and here are a few others:

Silly Putty was created while the inventor (actually, it was independently discovered by TWO people – no one knows who was first) was searching for a new artificial rubber compound for use in the war effort (WWII, that is). No one had a use for the stuff, but everyone loved playing with it. (As marketers would say, “It sells itself!”) 4500 tons of the playful glop has been produced since 1949. Now that’s a whole lotta silly.

Teflon (PTFE), the slipperiest solid substance known, was discovered by Roy Plunkett at DuPont in 1938, while he was looking for a new type of gas to be used as a refrigerant (strange to find a solid when looking for a gas, but there it is). Now you find PTFE in practically everyplace you look, from inks to industrial applications. Maybe we should start coating automobiles in it to make the evening commute quicker - instead of getting stuck in traffic jams, cars would pop out of close quarters like watermelon seeds squeezed between your fingers.

Rayon, the first synthetic silk, was invented by Hilaire de Chardonnet, an assistant of Louis Pasteur. When he accidentally spilled a bottle of collodion that was later discovered to have properties that allowed the production of stable fibers, he immediately quit his day job (“I quit. I shall become ze millionaire!”). Or something like that.

Penicillin, Viagra, quinine, Aspirin, vaccination, pap smears, high-temperature superconductivity, radioactivity, Pluto’s moon Charon, metallic hydrogen, to name just a few, along with a host of other items, were all discovered, uncovered, or recovered as a result of a happy accident.

So what’s the moral of this story? Well, unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last few years, surely you’ve heard (yeah, yeah, I know – don’t call you Shirley) the latest mantra in business innovation is the idea that in many failures there will be some successes.

Remember, though, we’re not talking about just failures, but purposeful failures. It wasn’t just luck. These folks weren’t just sitting around waiting for the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate to strike. It was their ability to recognize the potential in what they saw that was the key to making them into success stories.

So the next time you experience that sudden wild hair up the fundamental aperture, maybe it’s time to break out the drawing board and see what develops.

But in the meantime - prepare, my friend, prepare.

You know, it would just be absolutely finer than a frogs hair if you would subscribe to my RSS feed!

A fascinating article from Information Week titled “Kurzweil: Computers will enable people to live forever” sums up some of Ray Kurzweil’s more interesting predictions for the very near future. Being a dedicated fan of “hard” sci-fi (that is, the kind that develops plausible science that integrates seamlessly with the story itself) I’m always interested to see how some of our best futurists’ visions match up with various sci-fi authors’ visions. For instance, some of the sci-fi I read when I was a kid presented the future that we’re living in now. Just how close are we to those early visions of the near future? Well actually, not very. The problem was most of the predictions were made with inferior knowledge of the future, because they were made in the context of their time. Just take a look at an episode of the original Star Trek– you’ll understand what I mean. At the time it was cutting edge, but now we realize the big giant flaws (remember the analog countdown timer wheel on Sulu’s console?)

Thus you get stuff like the photo shown here (click to see larger image): The “home computer of the future”. I wonder - just what could that wheel possibly be for?

When I was younger, my initial reaction to articles predicting the future was usually something on the order of “Wow, what exciting times those will be! I can’t wait!” Ah, the innocence, the naiveté of youth. (How times have changed. The main difference, now that I’m no longer – cough, cough – young, is my thoughts are more like, “What can I invest in to take advantage of this?” But then again, if I could ever answer that question with any confidence, I would have “more money than Calvin Coolidge – put together!” **)Anyhoo –

Here’s just a few of the amazing things Ray Kurzweil is predicting for the near future (within 50 years):

• If you can make it another 15 to 30 years, you’ll probably be able to live forever
• Computational power will have multiplied by about a billion times within 25 years
• Computer intelligence will be about a billion times more powerful than human intelligence by 2045
• You can backup your memories by the late 2030s
• The common cold will be solved in the next 10 years.

If you’re really interested in see what the future may hold, you probably ought to check out this series of articles in New Scientist (scroll down past the top screen). About 80 people take a shot at predicting the future, and I guarantee you won’t be disappointed. Besides Ray Kurzweil, there are others, like:

• Sydney Brenner – Nobel prize-winner for medicine
• John D. Barrow – Cosmologist
• Benoit Mandelbrot – Creator of the Mandelbrot Set
• Robert Ballard – Oceanographer
• Christof Koch – Cognitive and behavioral biologist
• Irene Pepperberg – Harvard University psychologist
• Simon Baron-Cohen – Cognitive neuroscientist
• Peter Noorvig – Google’s Director of Research
• …and many more (they asked me to contribute - I’m sure they did; but alas, I just moved, and my letter must have gotten lost in the mail.)

The article with Kurzweil ends with a sobering thought, though. One of the things we’ll have to make sure we do (“we” meaning “we as a society” that is) is to make sure we can “stay ahead of the game”. I mean, it may be all well and good to live forever, but what about the ramifications? Where would you put all the people? What would it do to our culture? How would it change religion? And etc., etc., etc.It’s kinda like some poor goober winning $10 million in a lottery, but without having the knowledge or skills needed to handle that kind of money (and believe me, it takes some!), he ends up wasting it all. It’s sadly true that sudden vast riches can literally cause more harm than good for those unprepared for it. (Still, most of us, like Tevya from Fiddler on the Roof, can’t help but wonder: “Would it spoil some vast eternal plan/if I were a wealthy man?”)

Anyway, check out the articles if you want. But don’t be surprised if reality turns out to be more – or less – than predicted.

** Lena Lamont’s hilarious line from the 1954 classic movie, “Singin’ in the Rain”, starring Gene Kelly, Doris Day and Donald O’Connor. For those of you who’ve never seen it, I highly recommend you stop what you’re doing, go rent a copy, make some popcorn, and see it with your friends. It’s well worth it.

You know, it would just be absolutely finer than a frogs hair if you would subscribe to my RSS feed!

To round out this week’s focus on innovation, here’s a few last thoughts…

Never forget that if you choose to get into innovation, you may not have much help. Rather than flock to your banner, most people will likely as not consider you to be a little “out there” at best, and completely insane at worst. As illustrated by this curve, innovators are sadly in the minority. It’s up to you to realize this and gather your own resources and resolve.

As Sir Lawrence Olivier once said, “No matter how well you perform, there’s always sombody of intelligent opinion who thinks it’s lousy.”

And finally…

You know, it would just be absolutely finer than a frogs hair if you would subscribe to my RSS feed!

To add to our discussion this week about innovation and creativity, here’s a brief list of websites (in no particular order) you might be interested in checking out. There are literally zillions of websites like this on the Internet, so this representative group was more-or-less chosen at random. Knock yourself out!

Creative Think – a new blog by Roger von Oech, author of “A Whack on the Side of the Head”, and more recently, the “Ball of Whacks”

The House of Innovation – a weblog of innovation and marketing with plenty of “short, sharp” entrys on innovation

Global:Ideas:Bank – a sort of worldwide suggestion box: “These ideas we term social inventions: non-technological, non-product, non-gadget ideas for social change. These are a
mix of existing projects, fledgling initiatives and new bright ideas.”

StartupJournal – The idea file from the Wall Street Journal’s online Center for Entrepreneurs

iinnovate – a blog/podcast on innovation and entrepreurship by two Stanford students

Innovation Tools – an outstanding collection of tools, tips, guidelines, etc. focused on making innovation easy

Principled Innovation – Jeff de Cagna’s blog on innovation and its impact in society

Broken Bulbs – an Asian-based blog on innovation in the Far East

Innovate on Purpose – Jeffry Phillip’s thoughtful blog on sustainable, repeatable innovation

Innovation.net – blog dedicated to fostering open innovation among senior business leaders

Stories from the Intersection – an interesting blog from Hans Johansson with stories that illustrate the theme from his book, “The Medici Effect”

Creativity Central Blog – a place where people create, share and comment on intriguingly innovative ideas from the community

Idea Champions – a set of 10 simple techniques from Idea Champions for loosening up those creative thought processes

GoCreate.com – the “Creative Center of the Universe”, with a veritable plethora of idea-generating helps

Whatizit Creative Idea Generator – a fun, free online version of the idea generator used by Dave DuFour in his seminars

You know, it would just be absolutely finer than a frogs hair if you would subscribe to my RSS feed!