Keys, cards, passports and PINs could soon be a thing of the past as biometric technology makes our bodies the only passwords we need.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Are we the Mongols of the Information Age?
Interesting article about paradigm shifts in military revolutions. How the ability to translate technological revolutions (gunpowder, industrial, information, etc.) into military strengths have been significant factors in the change of power on the global stage. I guess with our $71 billion budget for pure R&D of new weapons, we're definitely spending the dough, but the key will be what technologies we develop. Do we really need a new jet fighter? I don't know the numbers, but I just remember the investment seemed ridiculous. We need "we need to get much better at human intelligence, counterinsurgency, information operations and related disciplines. We need more speakers of Arabic and Pashto, more experts who understand tribal relations in Iraq's Anbar province and Pakistan's Northwest Frontier province, more diplomats who can win over audiences on Al Jazeera."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-boot29oct29,0,4082775.column
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-boot29oct29,0,4082775.column
Friday, October 27, 2006
ETFs: Sliced, Diced, and Razor-Thin
Here's a little more on ETFs, as they are relatively new and risky, but if you want to invest in a narrow area of technology, are a pretty cool investment option. They even have them for specific diseases!
BusinessWeek
MAY 5, 2006
Frontiers of Investing
By Marc Hogan
ETFs: Sliced, Diced, and Razor-Thin
These exchange-traded funds are super-specialized and promise new opportunities. But are they right for you?
There are new exchange-traded funds in town. The Barclays' iShares Silver Trust (SLV ) tracks a hot commodity, while the First Trust Advisors IPOX-100 Index Fund (FPX ) is a collection of the latest IPOs. The latest ETFs tap previously untouched niches and make exotic investment plays available to ordinary investors (see BW Online, 3/27/06, "Funds to Cover Every Angle"). While they can jazz up portfolios, most investors should think twice before buying.
ETFs, baskets of securities that trade throughout the day like stocks, are no longer a low-cost way to get exposure to broad indexes. Assets in these funds swelled to $321.3 billion at the end of March, up from $151 billion at the end of 2003, according to the Investment Company Institute (ICI), the mutual-fund industry group. While the broader mutual-fund industry has increasingly come to embrace simplicity and diversification, the trend in ETFs has been a move toward greater sophistication and smaller industries.
WIN BIG, LOSE BIG. Two sector-specific ETFs have been among the year's top performers. PowerShares WilderHill Clean Energy (PBW ), which invests in companies promoting clean energy, has beaten the Standard & Poor's 500 index by 36.81% this year through Apr. 30. PowerShares Water Resources (PHO ) has outpaced the index by 15.9%. But both carry expense ratios of 0.6% -- hefty for ETFs. "If you're right, you will make a lot of money," ETFGuide.com publisher Ron DeLegge says of niche ETFs. "But if you're wrong, you might lose a lot of money."
With memories of the ill-fated late-1990s explosion of Internet funds still fresh, some analysts don't recommend specialized ETFs. "In the long term, the record shows that more expensive, more volatile, more narrowly focused funds don't do a very good job of serving shareholders' interests," says Morningstar (MORN ) ETF analyst Dan Culloton. Unlike traditional no-load mutual funds, ETFs carry a brokerage commission charge each time investors make trades, so they don't make sense if you're putting money away gradually.
Meanwhile, fund managers are serving even thinner slices of pie. State Street Global Advisors, the second-largest ETF shop behind Barclays Global Advisors, recently released a trio of ETFs focusing on individual industries: SPDR Biotech (XBI ), SPDR Homebuilders (XHB ), and SPDR Semiconductor (XSD ). "A lot of investors are looking for industry-specific plays, moving down from the sector plays," says Paul Mazzilli, director of ETF research at Morgan Stanley.
Fund companies aren't stopping there. In February, a new joint venture called Ferghana-Wellspring filed with the SEC to launch 12 ETFs. Dubbed "DAISies," for 'D' arrayed investment securities, the ETFs would each track an index concentrated on a different subsector of the health care industry. There would be an ETF for cardiology, another for ophthalmology, two ETFs for cancer, and so on. Ferghana-Wellspring is a joint venture between biotech-focused investment bank Ferghana Partners and Wellspring Partners, a financial-services entrepreneurial group.
'FAT CENTER.' The Ferghana-Wellspring approach offers investors increased precision, says Bill Kridel, executive chairman and founder of Ferghana Partners. Rather than investing in giants like Amgen (AMGN ), Genzyme (GENZ ), Merck (MRK ), and Pfizer (PFE ), the DAISies would focus on "the fat center of innovation and growth," Kridel says. "This means you can slice and dice as an investor very finely," he says.
ETFs allowing ordinary investors to tap exciting, up-and-coming technologies aren't completely new. Launched late last year, the PowerShares Lux Nanotech Portfolio (PXN ) invests in nanotechnology shares like Biosante Pharmaceuticals (BPA ) and Veeco Instruments (VECO ) (see BW Online, 4/17/06, "How to Invest in Nanotech"). The $113 million fund has beaten the S&P 500 index by 11.5% this year through Apr. 30.
At the same time, other funds are finding a niche investing in the newest public companies. Kicked off on Apr. 13, the First Trust Advisors IPOX-100 Index Fund (FPX ) aims to reflect the market for U.S. initial public offerings, in the wake of closely-watched IPOs by companies like Chipotle Mexican Grill (CMG ) and doughnut seller Tim Hortons (THI ).
YOUR STYLE. The fund invests in the 100 largest IPOs by market cap, buying the new stock on the seventh day after the IPO and selling it on its 1,000th trading day. The fund follows less than a year after Van Kampen's more narrowly focused IPOX-30 Index Portfolio, which is a unit investment trust, not an ETF.
Then there are ETFs that concentrate on styles. Rockville (Md.)-based Rydex Investments on Mar. 7 unveiled six Pure Style ETFs, which home in on either growth or value among small-, mid-, and large-cap stocks. The funds track indexes that screen out stocks with both value and growth statistics, which may increase volatility.
ETFs have also picked up on the commodities craze. On Apr. 28, Barclays Global Investments launched the first ETF focusing exclusively on silver. Barclays' iShares Silver Trust finished its first day of trading up 7% at $138.12, with a volume of 2.342 million shares. Its 0.5% price tag is higher than the 0.4% expense ratio for both its existing gold ETF, iShares Comex Gold Trust (IAU ), and rival State Street's streetTracks Gold (GLD ). Still, some analysts, among them PIMCO Chief Investment Officer Bill Gross, warn against buying metals now that prices have already soared.
NOW WITH LEVERAGE. For investors seeking a more general commodities fund, Deutsche Bank's (DB ) DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund (DBC ) opened in February. It's the first ETF to invest in a basket of futures on crude oil, heating oil, gold, aluminum, corn, and wheat. But it costs a steep 1.3%. Another ETF investing in crude futures, Victoria Bay Asset Management's U.S. Oil Fund (USO ), opened Apr. 10. It has an expense ratio of 0.5%.
The biggest new wrinkle for ETFs could be the use of leverage, or more sophisticated derivatives, options, and debt securities commonly used by hedge funds. ETFs using leverage are expected to gain SEC approval this year, according to a report released in April by Tiburon (Calif.) financial services consultancy Tiburon Strategic Advisors.
For several years, Bethesda, Md.-based ProFunds has been awaiting the regulatory go-ahead for both long- and short-leveraged ETFs. The ETFs would likely carry lower expense ratios than ProFunds' corresponding traditional mutual funds. ProFunds fueled speculation about the funds late last year when the company hired former State Street ETF innovator Gus Fleites as chief investment officer. A ProFunds spokesperson says the company cannot comment on the funds during their registration period.
CHOOSE CAREFULLY. Finally, industry watchers say ETFs may soon cross into the final frontier: active management. All ETFs currently track indexes, but the SEC could approve actively managed ETFs as early as this year, according to the Tiburon report. "It's not will they be coming, it's when," says Tom Lydon, president of financial advisory firm Global Trends Investments. Still, questions remain about how such ETFs would address transparency, among other concerns.
Investors have plenty of ETFs to choose from. The number of ETFs on the market soared to 212 as of March, up from 119 at the end of 2003, according to the ICI. While more are in the pipeline, some experts think many investors should avoid ones that are highly specialized and cost more than the average index fund. Says Morningstar's Culloton: "Most people can live a long and happy life and be successful investors without a lot of these very nichey funds."
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/may2006/pi20060505_638080.htm?chan=search
BusinessWeek
MAY 5, 2006
Frontiers of Investing
By Marc Hogan
ETFs: Sliced, Diced, and Razor-Thin
These exchange-traded funds are super-specialized and promise new opportunities. But are they right for you?
There are new exchange-traded funds in town. The Barclays' iShares Silver Trust (SLV ) tracks a hot commodity, while the First Trust Advisors IPOX-100 Index Fund (FPX ) is a collection of the latest IPOs. The latest ETFs tap previously untouched niches and make exotic investment plays available to ordinary investors (see BW Online, 3/27/06, "Funds to Cover Every Angle"). While they can jazz up portfolios, most investors should think twice before buying.
ETFs, baskets of securities that trade throughout the day like stocks, are no longer a low-cost way to get exposure to broad indexes. Assets in these funds swelled to $321.3 billion at the end of March, up from $151 billion at the end of 2003, according to the Investment Company Institute (ICI), the mutual-fund industry group. While the broader mutual-fund industry has increasingly come to embrace simplicity and diversification, the trend in ETFs has been a move toward greater sophistication and smaller industries.
WIN BIG, LOSE BIG. Two sector-specific ETFs have been among the year's top performers. PowerShares WilderHill Clean Energy (PBW ), which invests in companies promoting clean energy, has beaten the Standard & Poor's 500 index by 36.81% this year through Apr. 30. PowerShares Water Resources (PHO ) has outpaced the index by 15.9%. But both carry expense ratios of 0.6% -- hefty for ETFs. "If you're right, you will make a lot of money," ETFGuide.com publisher Ron DeLegge says of niche ETFs. "But if you're wrong, you might lose a lot of money."
With memories of the ill-fated late-1990s explosion of Internet funds still fresh, some analysts don't recommend specialized ETFs. "In the long term, the record shows that more expensive, more volatile, more narrowly focused funds don't do a very good job of serving shareholders' interests," says Morningstar (MORN ) ETF analyst Dan Culloton. Unlike traditional no-load mutual funds, ETFs carry a brokerage commission charge each time investors make trades, so they don't make sense if you're putting money away gradually.
Meanwhile, fund managers are serving even thinner slices of pie. State Street Global Advisors, the second-largest ETF shop behind Barclays Global Advisors, recently released a trio of ETFs focusing on individual industries: SPDR Biotech (XBI ), SPDR Homebuilders (XHB ), and SPDR Semiconductor (XSD ). "A lot of investors are looking for industry-specific plays, moving down from the sector plays," says Paul Mazzilli, director of ETF research at Morgan Stanley.
Fund companies aren't stopping there. In February, a new joint venture called Ferghana-Wellspring filed with the SEC to launch 12 ETFs. Dubbed "DAISies," for 'D' arrayed investment securities, the ETFs would each track an index concentrated on a different subsector of the health care industry. There would be an ETF for cardiology, another for ophthalmology, two ETFs for cancer, and so on. Ferghana-Wellspring is a joint venture between biotech-focused investment bank Ferghana Partners and Wellspring Partners, a financial-services entrepreneurial group.
'FAT CENTER.' The Ferghana-Wellspring approach offers investors increased precision, says Bill Kridel, executive chairman and founder of Ferghana Partners. Rather than investing in giants like Amgen (AMGN ), Genzyme (GENZ ), Merck (MRK ), and Pfizer (PFE ), the DAISies would focus on "the fat center of innovation and growth," Kridel says. "This means you can slice and dice as an investor very finely," he says.
ETFs allowing ordinary investors to tap exciting, up-and-coming technologies aren't completely new. Launched late last year, the PowerShares Lux Nanotech Portfolio (PXN ) invests in nanotechnology shares like Biosante Pharmaceuticals (BPA ) and Veeco Instruments (VECO ) (see BW Online, 4/17/06, "How to Invest in Nanotech"). The $113 million fund has beaten the S&P 500 index by 11.5% this year through Apr. 30.
At the same time, other funds are finding a niche investing in the newest public companies. Kicked off on Apr. 13, the First Trust Advisors IPOX-100 Index Fund (FPX ) aims to reflect the market for U.S. initial public offerings, in the wake of closely-watched IPOs by companies like Chipotle Mexican Grill (CMG ) and doughnut seller Tim Hortons (THI ).
YOUR STYLE. The fund invests in the 100 largest IPOs by market cap, buying the new stock on the seventh day after the IPO and selling it on its 1,000th trading day. The fund follows less than a year after Van Kampen's more narrowly focused IPOX-30 Index Portfolio, which is a unit investment trust, not an ETF.
Then there are ETFs that concentrate on styles. Rockville (Md.)-based Rydex Investments on Mar. 7 unveiled six Pure Style ETFs, which home in on either growth or value among small-, mid-, and large-cap stocks. The funds track indexes that screen out stocks with both value and growth statistics, which may increase volatility.
ETFs have also picked up on the commodities craze. On Apr. 28, Barclays Global Investments launched the first ETF focusing exclusively on silver. Barclays' iShares Silver Trust finished its first day of trading up 7% at $138.12, with a volume of 2.342 million shares. Its 0.5% price tag is higher than the 0.4% expense ratio for both its existing gold ETF, iShares Comex Gold Trust (IAU ), and rival State Street's streetTracks Gold (GLD ). Still, some analysts, among them PIMCO Chief Investment Officer Bill Gross, warn against buying metals now that prices have already soared.
NOW WITH LEVERAGE. For investors seeking a more general commodities fund, Deutsche Bank's (DB ) DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund (DBC ) opened in February. It's the first ETF to invest in a basket of futures on crude oil, heating oil, gold, aluminum, corn, and wheat. But it costs a steep 1.3%. Another ETF investing in crude futures, Victoria Bay Asset Management's U.S. Oil Fund (USO ), opened Apr. 10. It has an expense ratio of 0.5%.
The biggest new wrinkle for ETFs could be the use of leverage, or more sophisticated derivatives, options, and debt securities commonly used by hedge funds. ETFs using leverage are expected to gain SEC approval this year, according to a report released in April by Tiburon (Calif.) financial services consultancy Tiburon Strategic Advisors.
For several years, Bethesda, Md.-based ProFunds has been awaiting the regulatory go-ahead for both long- and short-leveraged ETFs. The ETFs would likely carry lower expense ratios than ProFunds' corresponding traditional mutual funds. ProFunds fueled speculation about the funds late last year when the company hired former State Street ETF innovator Gus Fleites as chief investment officer. A ProFunds spokesperson says the company cannot comment on the funds during their registration period.
CHOOSE CAREFULLY. Finally, industry watchers say ETFs may soon cross into the final frontier: active management. All ETFs currently track indexes, but the SEC could approve actively managed ETFs as early as this year, according to the Tiburon report. "It's not will they be coming, it's when," says Tom Lydon, president of financial advisory firm Global Trends Investments. Still, questions remain about how such ETFs would address transparency, among other concerns.
Investors have plenty of ETFs to choose from. The number of ETFs on the market soared to 212 as of March, up from 119 at the end of 2003, according to the ICI. While more are in the pipeline, some experts think many investors should avoid ones that are highly specialized and cost more than the average index fund. Says Morningstar's Culloton: "Most people can live a long and happy life and be successful investors without a lot of these very nichey funds."
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/may2006/pi20060505_638080.htm?chan=search
How to Invest in Nanotech
If you have any belief in the future of GNR (Genetics, Nanotechnology & Robotics - Robtics is really just Artificial Intelligence), then here is one way you can profit from your beliefs.
Some quotes from the article below:
"...nanotechnology will increase to $2.6 trillion in 2014, equal to about 15% of global manufacturing output, from $13 billion in 2004."
BusinessWeek
APRIL 17, 2006
Market Views
By Palash R. Ghosh
How to Invest in Nanotech
IBM, Intel, and GE are taking this emerging technology seriously. An exchange traded fund means wary investors can get serious, too
Nanotechnology, which involves the development, manufacture, and application of products at the molecular level, should have a profound impact on virtually every business if implemented successfully. Although there are skeptics, the stock prices of companies using the technology, including blue chips IBM (IBM ), Intel (INTC ), and General Electric (GE ), could benefit. In fact, an exchange-traded fund (ETF) devoted to nanotech is taking off.
To understand the dimensions, consider that one nanometer is equal to about one one-billionth of a meter, or 1/75,000th of the diameter of a single human hair. At this level, materials exhibit properties that reflect quantum physics. "Nano-scaled" products range from tiny robots or micromachines to nano-particles that could help clean the environment (see BW Online, 4/10/06, "Tapping Nature's Tool Kit").
QUEST FOR PROFITS. Indeed, the growing importance of nanotechnology was underscored by President George W. Bush in the State of the Union address in January. He proposed to double the Federal commitment to the most "critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next ten years," including nanotechnology.
Lux Research, a nanotechnology research and advisory firm, estimates that revenues from products using nanotechnology will increase to $2.6 trillion in 2014, equal to about 15% of global manufacturing output, from $13 billion in 2004. By then, the firm believes nanotechnology will be a routine part of everyday living.
Jack Uldrich, president of the consultancy NanoVeritas Group, estimates that corporations around the world will spend more than $10 billion on nanotechnology R&D in 2006. He indicates that he closely follows about 100 U.S.-based nanotech firms, of which 60% are privately held. Of those, roughly 60 have commercial products currently on the market and about 22 are profitable.
TWO VARIETIES. "These firms are supplying nano-scale equipment to the nanotech industry, as well as to big companies like IBM and Intel," Uldrich notes. He believes the number of nanotech companies, profitable or otherwise, will continue to increase.
Late last year, Lux Research, in tandem with PowerShares Capital Management, launched an exchange-traded fund, the PowerShares Lux Nanotech Portfolio (PXN ), for investors seeking to invest in nanotechnology. The tiny $89-million fund invests in 26 stocks in the Lux Nanotech index. Year to date through Mar. 28, the ETF gained 11.8%, vs. 3.9% for the S&P 500-stock index. (The portfolio is too new to be ranked by Standard & Poor's.)
The Lux index consists of companies that make tools used to develop nanotechnology, and well-established firms integrating nanotechnology into their existing products. Components are broken down into two basic types of stocks: "nanotech specialists" and "end-use incumbents." The specialists, including FEI Co. (FEIC ) and Flamel Technologies (FLML ), are small- and mid-size companies that focus specifically on developing or funding nanotechnology applications. The end-use incumbents are large-cap companies applying nanotech to existing product lines. The two groups are then equally weighted with 75% applied to the nanotech specialist components and 25% for the end-use incumbents.
PROMISING TRIO. While some see the ETF as a good vehicle for those who want to invest in nanotechnology, others point to its drawbacks, such as holdings that are not yet profitable and the extreme volatility associated with industry-specific funds that seem gimmicky.
Srikant Dash, index strategist at Standard & Poor's, notes that narrow sector ETFs have two legitimate uses. "First, money managers who have a view on a narrow industry, but do not have a view on individual stocks within that narrow sector, can use these ETFs to implement their views," he says. "The second user group consists of trading desks and active traders who trade frequently on news about a narrow industry, or want to manage their risk exposure to it."
Another way investors can play nanotech initially is by investing in large-cap companies applying the technology to their existing product lines, thereby avoiding unstable and unprofitable startups. Nanotech is expected to have a powerful impact on three major industries initially: semiconductors, life sciences, and energy.
FACTS VS. FAD. Many well-known firms are already integrating nanotech, says Peter Hebert, chief executive officer of Lux Research. "For example, 3M Co. (MMM ) stated it has $800 million worth of nano-enabled products it is selling right now," he says. "American Pharmaceutical Partners (APPX ) has a new cancer drug, Abraxane, that is enabled by nanotech. It is on the marketplace as we speak."
Big pharma companies are using new nano-particles to reformulate existing drugs to make them more effective and potent, and therefore extend the patent and lead to bigger revenues, experts say.
While some observers remain skeptical about nanotech's near-term future as a viable investment, Uldrich is confident it is not an overblown "fad," like many dot.coms were. "There will initially be some excessive hype surrounding nanotech and some fraudulent companies trying to exploit investor excitement," he says. "But what distinguishes nanotech from things like the dot.com craze is that legitimate nanotech companies have to have a strong scientific and technical background and foundation. This will limit the number of companies that enter the field."
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/apr2006/pi20060417_587999.htm
Some quotes from the article below:
"...nanotechnology will increase to $2.6 trillion in 2014, equal to about 15% of global manufacturing output, from $13 billion in 2004."
BusinessWeek
APRIL 17, 2006
Market Views
By Palash R. Ghosh
How to Invest in Nanotech
IBM, Intel, and GE are taking this emerging technology seriously. An exchange traded fund means wary investors can get serious, too
Nanotechnology, which involves the development, manufacture, and application of products at the molecular level, should have a profound impact on virtually every business if implemented successfully. Although there are skeptics, the stock prices of companies using the technology, including blue chips IBM (IBM ), Intel (INTC ), and General Electric (GE ), could benefit. In fact, an exchange-traded fund (ETF) devoted to nanotech is taking off.
To understand the dimensions, consider that one nanometer is equal to about one one-billionth of a meter, or 1/75,000th of the diameter of a single human hair. At this level, materials exhibit properties that reflect quantum physics. "Nano-scaled" products range from tiny robots or micromachines to nano-particles that could help clean the environment (see BW Online, 4/10/06, "Tapping Nature's Tool Kit").
QUEST FOR PROFITS. Indeed, the growing importance of nanotechnology was underscored by President George W. Bush in the State of the Union address in January. He proposed to double the Federal commitment to the most "critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next ten years," including nanotechnology.
Lux Research, a nanotechnology research and advisory firm, estimates that revenues from products using nanotechnology will increase to $2.6 trillion in 2014, equal to about 15% of global manufacturing output, from $13 billion in 2004. By then, the firm believes nanotechnology will be a routine part of everyday living.
Jack Uldrich, president of the consultancy NanoVeritas Group, estimates that corporations around the world will spend more than $10 billion on nanotechnology R&D in 2006. He indicates that he closely follows about 100 U.S.-based nanotech firms, of which 60% are privately held. Of those, roughly 60 have commercial products currently on the market and about 22 are profitable.
TWO VARIETIES. "These firms are supplying nano-scale equipment to the nanotech industry, as well as to big companies like IBM and Intel," Uldrich notes. He believes the number of nanotech companies, profitable or otherwise, will continue to increase.
Late last year, Lux Research, in tandem with PowerShares Capital Management, launched an exchange-traded fund, the PowerShares Lux Nanotech Portfolio (PXN ), for investors seeking to invest in nanotechnology. The tiny $89-million fund invests in 26 stocks in the Lux Nanotech index. Year to date through Mar. 28, the ETF gained 11.8%, vs. 3.9% for the S&P 500-stock index. (The portfolio is too new to be ranked by Standard & Poor's.)
The Lux index consists of companies that make tools used to develop nanotechnology, and well-established firms integrating nanotechnology into their existing products. Components are broken down into two basic types of stocks: "nanotech specialists" and "end-use incumbents." The specialists, including FEI Co. (FEIC ) and Flamel Technologies (FLML ), are small- and mid-size companies that focus specifically on developing or funding nanotechnology applications. The end-use incumbents are large-cap companies applying nanotech to existing product lines. The two groups are then equally weighted with 75% applied to the nanotech specialist components and 25% for the end-use incumbents.
PROMISING TRIO. While some see the ETF as a good vehicle for those who want to invest in nanotechnology, others point to its drawbacks, such as holdings that are not yet profitable and the extreme volatility associated with industry-specific funds that seem gimmicky.
Srikant Dash, index strategist at Standard & Poor's, notes that narrow sector ETFs have two legitimate uses. "First, money managers who have a view on a narrow industry, but do not have a view on individual stocks within that narrow sector, can use these ETFs to implement their views," he says. "The second user group consists of trading desks and active traders who trade frequently on news about a narrow industry, or want to manage their risk exposure to it."
Another way investors can play nanotech initially is by investing in large-cap companies applying the technology to their existing product lines, thereby avoiding unstable and unprofitable startups. Nanotech is expected to have a powerful impact on three major industries initially: semiconductors, life sciences, and energy.
FACTS VS. FAD. Many well-known firms are already integrating nanotech, says Peter Hebert, chief executive officer of Lux Research. "For example, 3M Co. (MMM ) stated it has $800 million worth of nano-enabled products it is selling right now," he says. "American Pharmaceutical Partners (APPX ) has a new cancer drug, Abraxane, that is enabled by nanotech. It is on the marketplace as we speak."
Big pharma companies are using new nano-particles to reformulate existing drugs to make them more effective and potent, and therefore extend the patent and lead to bigger revenues, experts say.
While some observers remain skeptical about nanotech's near-term future as a viable investment, Uldrich is confident it is not an overblown "fad," like many dot.coms were. "There will initially be some excessive hype surrounding nanotech and some fraudulent companies trying to exploit investor excitement," he says. "But what distinguishes nanotech from things like the dot.com craze is that legitimate nanotech companies have to have a strong scientific and technical background and foundation. This will limit the number of companies that enter the field."
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/apr2006/pi20060417_587999.htm
Thursday, October 26, 2006
The Power Of Ambivalent Thinking
Interesting snippet - and its quoting our local University of Washington - go Dawgs!!. A good friend of mine and I have often discussed how being the quintessential positive thinker may not always be best path to happiness and success. Here's a little scientific evidence supporting our thoughts (at least for creative thoughts, so I suppose you'd need to make a connection between creative thoughts and happiness or success - but close enough for it "supporting" our theory!)...
The Power Of Ambivalent Thinking
Positive thinking may not always be a plus. According to a study by University of Washington B-school assistant professor Christina Ting Fong, ambivalent feelings -- the simultaneous anxiety and excitement of starting a new job, say -- may result in enhanced creativity. Fong divided about 100 students into four groups to write about life events that made them feel either happy, sad, neutral, or ambivalent. (Another test later assessed whether participants in each group felt the desired emotion.) The students then took the Remote Associates Test, a commonly used measure of creativity. Those who felt ambivalent came out on top. Complex emotions, theorizes Fong, may lead to complex thinking.
What's the link? MIT neuroscience professor John Gabrieli explains it this way: Problem solving requires access to all our mental resources, and an ambivalent state broadens thinking, perhaps allowing us "to cast a wider net" over the information in our brains.
By Lindsey Gerdes
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_44/c4007010.htm#ZZZUX6DTGTE
The Power Of Ambivalent Thinking
Positive thinking may not always be a plus. According to a study by University of Washington B-school assistant professor Christina Ting Fong, ambivalent feelings -- the simultaneous anxiety and excitement of starting a new job, say -- may result in enhanced creativity. Fong divided about 100 students into four groups to write about life events that made them feel either happy, sad, neutral, or ambivalent. (Another test later assessed whether participants in each group felt the desired emotion.) The students then took the Remote Associates Test, a commonly used measure of creativity. Those who felt ambivalent came out on top. Complex emotions, theorizes Fong, may lead to complex thinking.
What's the link? MIT neuroscience professor John Gabrieli explains it this way: Problem solving requires access to all our mental resources, and an ambivalent state broadens thinking, perhaps allowing us "to cast a wider net" over the information in our brains.
By Lindsey Gerdes
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_44/c4007010.htm#ZZZUX6DTGTE
'Tower of Babel' translator made
I've often said the technology is all there for language translations - voice to text, text language conversion, then text to voice, but this allows mouthing words to text, text to language conversation, etc. Of course the language conversion piece of these systems is the part that needs the most work, but it is continually getting better!
'Tower of Babel' translator made
A "Tower of Babel" device that gives the illusion of being bilingual is being developed by US scientists. Users simply have to silently mouth a word in their own language for it to be translated and read out in another. The researchers said the effect was like watching a television programme that had been dubbed. The system, detailed in New Scientist, is not yet fully accurate, but experts said it showed the technology was "within reach".
"The idea is that you can mouth words in English and they will come out in Chinese or another language"
Tanja Schultz
The translation systems that are currently in use work by using voice recognition software.
But this requires people to speak out loud and then wait for the translation to be read out, making conversations difficult. But the new device, being created by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, is different. Electrodes are attached to the neck and face to detect the movements that occur as the person silently mouths words and phrases. Using this data, a computer can work out the sounds being formed and then build these sounds up into words.
The system is then able to translate the words into another language which is read out by a synthetic voice.
Within reach
The team currently has two prototypes: one that can translate Chinese into English and another that can translate English into Spanish or German. If the prototypes used a small vocabulary of about 100-200 words they worked with about 80% accuracy, researcher Tanja Schultz said.
But, she added, a full vocabulary had a much lower level of accuracy. Professor Schultz said: "The idea is that you can mouth words in English and they will come out in Chinese or another language." The ultimate goal, the researchers said, was to be in a position where you can just have a conversation.
Chuck Jorgensen, a researcher at Nasa's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, told New Scientist: "This is showing the technology is really within reach." Phil Woodland, professor of information engineering at the University of Cambridge, said: "This work sounds interesting. Most groups are working on translating audio data into different languages, but this is different to work I have come across before because they are not working from a real acoustic signal."
Monday, October 23, 2006
Silicon Retina Implants
Albeit rudimentary, if these crude images can be seen by blind people, I think it is nothing short of amazing. Since this retinal implant is silicon based, it is subject to the exponential gains of all technology. One can easily imagine the retinal implants of Lt. Jordi from Star Trek. Only in the show, it was thought of a handicap, with special benefits of seeing in different spectrums, but still an augmentation that would not be chosen. I think in the future, these implants will be able to see in the human spectrum of light and replicate our vision, only these implants would also have all sort of other benefits, such as true virtual reality (at least for the sight sense), seeing in other light spectrums (night vision, thermal, zoom, etc.). The VR will be the biggest benefit for people with normal sight. Hopefully they can make them look like normal eyes by that point...
Annihilation Omens
Very interesting article. The book this article quotes looks like its short and worth a quick read. I've often said that a great civilization has a good balance between science and philosophy (as my belief is that they are mutally exclusive). As our religious beliefs have waned (and religion is just an organized philosophy, while politics are the indoctrination of one's philosophical beliefs), it has not been the teachings of Aristotle or Kant that has filled the void, but science. This book seems to highlight the issues this presents. It also looks like it touches on some of the issues of the inevitable development of computers with human intelligence and beyond. Of course, if you're truly interested in my last sentence, you'll need to start with Ray Kurzweil's latest, "The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology". This book will change your vision of the future, radically (for most, but perhaps not all of you).
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20061009-094036-6851r.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20061009-094036-6851r.htm
Second Life Update: A Virtual World but Real Money
Here’s another interesting article about Second Life in the New York Times today that I read over lunch. I was talking to Chris, Keith and Mel about this on Saturday at lunch (among other things!). It just keeps growing and getting more and more recognition. Now more than 30 well known brands (e.g. Reebok, Nike, Nissan, Amazon and American Apparel) have real estate in this virtual world and are doing campaigns and promotions. Keep an eye on this. This is but an early glimpse of the 3D world the internet is going to become. Use your imagination as to what exponential growth in computing and software capabilities will do to this over the next decade…or two!
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/technology/19virtual.html?ref=technology
Colin
A few noteworthy exerpts from the article:
“On Tuesday, a Congressional committee said it was investigating whether virtual assets and incomes should be taxed.”
"...these sites meld elements of the most popular forms of new media: chat rooms, video games, online stores, user-generated content sites like YouTube.com and social networking sites like MySpace.com."
“...the flurry of corporate interest stemmed from the 10 to 20 percent growth in the number of people who had gone into virtual worlds each month for the last three years. Though exact numbers are difficult to come by, the figure should top a few million by next year, he said.”
“Linden also makes money on exchanging United States dollars for what it calls Linden dollars for around 400 Linden dollars for $1 (people can load up on them with a credit card). A typical article of clothing — say a shirt — would cost around 200 Linden dollars, or 50 cents. As evidence of the growth of its “economy,” Second Life’s Web site tracks how much money changes hands each day. It recently reached as much as $500,000 a day and is growing as much as 15 percent a month.” This trend would mean about $2.7 billion US dollars a day in just one year from now in/on this site alone!! No wonder major corporations are starting to take notice!
“Some corporate events have been met with protests by placard-waving avatars. And there is even a group called the Second Life Liberation Army that has staged faux “attacks” on Reebok and American Apparel stores. (The S.L.L.A. says it is fighting for voting rights for avatars — as well as stock in Linden Labs.)” I'm sure their talking about voting rights within Second Life, but still - politics are begining to take place withing a virtual world! :) That coupled with the Congressional committee - there will be political bridges to be formed...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/technology/19virtual.html?ref=technology
Colin
A few noteworthy exerpts from the article:
“On Tuesday, a Congressional committee said it was investigating whether virtual assets and incomes should be taxed.”
"...these sites meld elements of the most popular forms of new media: chat rooms, video games, online stores, user-generated content sites like YouTube.com and social networking sites like MySpace.com."
“...the flurry of corporate interest stemmed from the 10 to 20 percent growth in the number of people who had gone into virtual worlds each month for the last three years. Though exact numbers are difficult to come by, the figure should top a few million by next year, he said.”
“Linden also makes money on exchanging United States dollars for what it calls Linden dollars for around 400 Linden dollars for $1 (people can load up on them with a credit card). A typical article of clothing — say a shirt — would cost around 200 Linden dollars, or 50 cents. As evidence of the growth of its “economy,” Second Life’s Web site tracks how much money changes hands each day. It recently reached as much as $500,000 a day and is growing as much as 15 percent a month.” This trend would mean about $2.7 billion US dollars a day in just one year from now in/on this site alone!! No wonder major corporations are starting to take notice!
“Some corporate events have been met with protests by placard-waving avatars. And there is even a group called the Second Life Liberation Army that has staged faux “attacks” on Reebok and American Apparel stores. (The S.L.L.A. says it is fighting for voting rights for avatars — as well as stock in Linden Labs.)” I'm sure their talking about voting rights within Second Life, but still - politics are begining to take place withing a virtual world! :) That coupled with the Congressional committee - there will be political bridges to be formed...
Thursday, October 05, 2006
A Dystopian, Luddite Perspective by Ray Kurzweil
A Dystopian, Luddite Perspective
The dystopian, Luddite perspective of the Wachowski brothers can be seen in its view of the birth of artificial intelligence as the source of all evil. In one of Morpheus' "sermons," he tells Neo (Keanu Reeves) that "in the early 21st century, all of mankind united and marveled at our magnificence as we gave birth to AI [artificial intelligence], a singular construction that spawned an entire race of machines." Morpheus goes on to explain how this singular construction became a runaway phenomenon as it reproduced itself and ultimately enslaved humankind.
The movie celebrates those humans who choose to be completely unaltered by technology, even spurning the bioport. Incidentally, in my book The Age of Spiritual Machines2, I refer to such people as MOSHs (Mostly Original Substrate Humans). The movie's position reflects a growing sentiment in today's world to maintain a distinct separation of the natural- and human-created worlds. The reality, however, is that these worlds are rapidly merging. We already have a variety of neural implants that are repairing human brains afflicted by disease or disability, for example, an FDA-approved neural implant that replaces the region of neurons destroyed by Parkinson's Disease, cochlear implants for the deaf, and emerging retinal implants for the blind.
My view is that the prospect of "strong AI" (AI at or beyond human intelligence) will serve to amplify human civilization much the same way that our technology does today. As a society, we routinely accomplish intellectual achievements that would be impossible without the level of computer intelligence we already have. Ultimately, we will merge our own biological intelligence with our own creations as a way of continuing the exponential expansion of human knowledge and creative potential.
However, I do not completely reject the specter of AI turning on its creators, as portrayed in the Matrix. It is a possible downside scenario, what Nick Bostrom calls an "existential risk3." There has been a great deal of discussion recently about future dangers that Bill Joy4,5,6 has labeled "GNR" (genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics). The "G" peril, which is the destructive potential of bioengineered pathogens, is the danger we are now struggling with. Our first defense from "G" will need to be more "G," for example bioengineered antiviral medications.
Ultimately, we will provide a true defense from "G" by using "N," nanoengineered entities that are smaller, faster, and smarter than mere biological entities. However, the advent of fully realized nanotechnology will introduce a new set of profound dangers. Our defense from "N" will also initially be created from defensive nanotechnology, but the ultimate defense from "N" will be "R," small robots that are intelligent at human levels and beyond, in other words, strong AI. But then the question arises: what will defend us from malevolent AI? The only possible answer is "friendly AI7."
Unfortunately there is nothing we can do today to assure that AI will be friendly. Based on this, some observers such as Bill Joy call for us to relinquish the pursuit of these technologies. The reality, however, is that such relinquishment is not possible without instituting a totalitarian government that bans all of technology (which is the essential theme of Brave New World). It's the same story with human intelligence. The only defense we have had throughout human history from malevolent human intelligence is for more enlightened human intelligence to confront its more deviant forms. Our imperfect record in accomplishing this is at least one key reason that there is so much concern with GNR.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0580.html?m%3D6
The dystopian, Luddite perspective of the Wachowski brothers can be seen in its view of the birth of artificial intelligence as the source of all evil. In one of Morpheus' "sermons," he tells Neo (Keanu Reeves) that "in the early 21st century, all of mankind united and marveled at our magnificence as we gave birth to AI [artificial intelligence], a singular construction that spawned an entire race of machines." Morpheus goes on to explain how this singular construction became a runaway phenomenon as it reproduced itself and ultimately enslaved humankind.
The movie celebrates those humans who choose to be completely unaltered by technology, even spurning the bioport. Incidentally, in my book The Age of Spiritual Machines2, I refer to such people as MOSHs (Mostly Original Substrate Humans). The movie's position reflects a growing sentiment in today's world to maintain a distinct separation of the natural- and human-created worlds. The reality, however, is that these worlds are rapidly merging. We already have a variety of neural implants that are repairing human brains afflicted by disease or disability, for example, an FDA-approved neural implant that replaces the region of neurons destroyed by Parkinson's Disease, cochlear implants for the deaf, and emerging retinal implants for the blind.
My view is that the prospect of "strong AI" (AI at or beyond human intelligence) will serve to amplify human civilization much the same way that our technology does today. As a society, we routinely accomplish intellectual achievements that would be impossible without the level of computer intelligence we already have. Ultimately, we will merge our own biological intelligence with our own creations as a way of continuing the exponential expansion of human knowledge and creative potential.
However, I do not completely reject the specter of AI turning on its creators, as portrayed in the Matrix. It is a possible downside scenario, what Nick Bostrom calls an "existential risk3." There has been a great deal of discussion recently about future dangers that Bill Joy4,5,6 has labeled "GNR" (genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics). The "G" peril, which is the destructive potential of bioengineered pathogens, is the danger we are now struggling with. Our first defense from "G" will need to be more "G," for example bioengineered antiviral medications.
Ultimately, we will provide a true defense from "G" by using "N," nanoengineered entities that are smaller, faster, and smarter than mere biological entities. However, the advent of fully realized nanotechnology will introduce a new set of profound dangers. Our defense from "N" will also initially be created from defensive nanotechnology, but the ultimate defense from "N" will be "R," small robots that are intelligent at human levels and beyond, in other words, strong AI. But then the question arises: what will defend us from malevolent AI? The only possible answer is "friendly AI7."
Unfortunately there is nothing we can do today to assure that AI will be friendly. Based on this, some observers such as Bill Joy call for us to relinquish the pursuit of these technologies. The reality, however, is that such relinquishment is not possible without instituting a totalitarian government that bans all of technology (which is the essential theme of Brave New World). It's the same story with human intelligence. The only defense we have had throughout human history from malevolent human intelligence is for more enlightened human intelligence to confront its more deviant forms. Our imperfect record in accomplishing this is at least one key reason that there is so much concern with GNR.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0580.html?m%3D6
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)