[topicmaps-comment] RE: [humanmarkup-comment] on general eventdetection from OSI

[paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

Mr. Moore, please forward to Senator Frist as background on the issue we
talked about.

***


Claude,

You said yesterday in the topicmaps-comments forum:

<paul> you "Go to the Homeland Defense folks and prove you can
make it work for Neighorhood Watch.  You'll find
all of the problems there and most of the moral
issues as well."

***

Thank you for your suggestion.  Perhaps the public e-forums will allow a
discussion on this issue of the assumed openness of the US Goverment's
organization called "Home Land Defense" to alternative viewpoints and fair
competition for the right to be a part of the defense of our homeland.  I
will open this discussion and ask that we not carry this on for very long,
as their are other issues in human markup and topic maps comments forums.

Ontology technology is a key defense technology, but almost no one, in Home
Land Defense, is knowledgable about what to do and how to deploy this type
of defense.

http://www.bcngroup.org/journal/issues.htm


There is no way to communicate to the American Home Land Defense, about
breakthough innovations that are not part of very expensive business plans.
I have tried for five months.

What does it mean to "prove" a technology.  Does prove means "prove that one
has a economic foundation for extracting wealth for the government
coffers?".

In the case of visual abstraction, our operational (full functionality)
proofs are at:

http://www.ontologystream.com/SLIP/index3.htm

where we openly give software away that shows (1) visual characterization of
an instrumented Linux operating system, (2) semantic indexing (linguistic
analysis of functional load of words) for a collection of 312 fables  --- to
start with.  The advanced tutorials characterize events in the Internet as
measured by a company that provides raw switching data to me, and prototypes
TraceBehavior (insider trading analysis).

The definitions and the first group of pure theorems on SLIP primes is at:

http://www.ontologystream.com/SLIP/files/SLIP-DSA.htm

Is this what you mean by proof?

This is pure category theory, and yes it is NOT SIMPLE to understand unless
one has a PhD in the foundations of pure mathematics... however, it is
correct and proper formalism that will stand the test of time.  If one has
an open mind, the concepts are foundational and thus easy to understand, but
if one is trying to hold on the the AI Dream myth (that computers can think)
then one will not "get it".  It is not my fault that it is complex.

http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/book.htm


All I can do is provide the scholarship that references the various relevant
literatures.

***

There are no working informational inputs to this closed Home Land Defense
culture.  No phones lines that are public.  No e-mail that replies.  No
request for proposals that are not controled, pre-wired to go to the highest
bidder.  There are NO funding channels that truely open to competitive bids
and have short turn arounds.  Any following of the rules to get deployment
funds would take years.  The several valid SBIRs that I have in will not be
funded because only 5% of such proposals get funded, and I have no lobbists
working for me.

see the redacted message to the BCNGroup at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eventChemistry/message/292

to show what Home Land Defense funding bidding is like today.  There are
many more examples of this type of behavior. (call me...703-981-2676)

I am an American scientist and I can not be heard over this confusion and
war drum beating.  It saddens me, because I know that other technology
innovations are also not being brought to bear on the problem of
informational transparency into financial transactions and internet
transactions.  It has nothing to do about Dr. Paul S. Prueitt, the
individual.  It has to do with whether the nation's business, rather than
private business, is taken into account by companies like TASC, and Logicon
and SAIC and etc.

We, this great nation, is about to be hit by cyber war AND something else (I
fear) and we are **reducing** the selection of technology and science
innovation to business propositions.

How can the Nation develop immunity to terrorism, when the best minds in the
science and technology communities CANNOT contribute because of the absence
of understanding by the marketing and business mind?

http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/manhattan/sindex.htm


You ask for "proof", and I ask you why you think that this is a reasonable
question given that fact that the several categories of proofs, that
something new has been discovered, is revealed in spades and is given
freely.

What is the purpose of your question on Proof?

My feeling is that this group, The National Home Land Defense, is so
occupied with self interest and illusions of self importance that they may
have no chance of seeing something new. Vested interests control the cause
of decisions, at least up to now. Perhaps these interests care primarily
about short term profit?  Can we even make this question?

I realize that at one point these folks will see the message and recognize
that a new technology does in fact exist, and that this new technology is
transformational of the moral issues, as well as transformational of the
nature of the problem.  I am grateful for the recent recognition, within the
Topic Maps community, that what I have been talking about, for two years,
(formative ontology) is reasonable and has been actually demostrated.

I communicated, in person, to two senators and Richard Clarke last week at a
congressional briefing that the $800 that Congress has approved in new R&D
funding is not going to the scientists and technologies but to business
minds and marketing processes.  The Senators, as Senators do some times,
stared and nodded their heads in agreement, while Clarke acted as if this
$800 was really "R&D".  The industry wiz kid, sitting on the panel next to
the Senators, then started into this verbiage that there is "lots" of good
research being done in Industry.

There is some good research, but most is non-peer reviewed nonsense, costing
hundreds of millions of dollars when any principled review of the "value
proposition" would show that this is marketing buzz words that can not be
useful except to generate wealth at the expense of the public.

Sadly, industry is not where the core innovators are, these individuals are
in the science and technologist communities, and these communities are
mostly un-employed and without budgets, now.  They are isolated by their
uniqueness and by the innovation itself.  Yes?





-----Original Message-----
From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 11:11 AM
To: 'paul'; eventChemistry; EinsteinInstitute; Topicmaps-Comments;
Humanmarkup-Comment
Cc: Inmentia; Paul Zavidniak; Dennis Wisnosky; John Scott; Pat Prueitt;
Ivan Prueitt; Peter Kugler; Sandy Klausner; David Bromberg; Philip
Anderson
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] on general event detection from OSI


Go to the Homeland Defense folks and prove you can
make it work for Neighorhood Watch.  You'll find
all of the problems there and most of the moral
issues as well.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: paul [mailto:beadmaster@ontologystream.com]

Clarity come form methodology and methodology is subject to government
restrictions.  The clarity cannot be left to the business mind.  First
because the science (the new "knowledge sciences") requires this degree of
clarity to be able to work the real, as opposed to illusionary, issues and
ROI.  Second because of the moral issues that the business mind so often
does not attend to.

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>