Vitomir Jovanovic asked:


Regarding previously said, a problem of information note and form of description ,extrovert and inner ,introvert world is based upon existence of information code ,as subject determination basic feature in the moment of “technological “ description ,which is related to certain object, or substantive analytical examination in relation with the same object. What appears to be essential is whether the information evolved from technological advancement or it has been defined by its own existence .For instance, Is the informational capacity ,measured in bytes and regarding technological advancement and subject of research taken randomly, more determinate to analyst rather than to its inventor? Informational determination capacity is proportional to analytical decoding , just as the content of dream is to conscious. Technical measurement ,which is to determinate the subject informational more precisely ,directly affects the informational code reproduction. Informational chain code appears to be essentially divergent in relation to any subject being analysed ; its selfdetermination is unconditional only if out of experimental or any form of perceptive range .The problem resembles subquantum paradox which results in experimental conception –experimenter causes the result of experiment ,while on the grounds of experimental action technical substratum treats its own field of analysis as artificial

Subquantum technology basics

Principles of quantum mechanics are based on the claim that the fundamental entity concerning all interactions in nature is quantum, defined as form of indivisible unit carrying an absolute minimum of energy .In a word,any process of interaction, emission or absorbing of all materials energetic conditions is exclusively possible in form of infinitesimal quantum continuance .According to theoretical implications method , metaphysics and physics matches.

As a subject of research , subquantum level of nature is being realistic ,not only metaphysicist, but also to physicist , regarding theoretical concepts. This aspect of nature excels any range of scientific or any other form of perception .Basic reason is most simple: considering the fact that perception sphere is being modified inside the quantum instance of nature , in order to implement any form of knowledge, it must be based upon quantum “behaviour” of natural interactions. Realization of subquantum instance theoretically implied, although its practical significance or experimental induction are impossible .

Solid form of technological advancement interpretation and the way it emanates from nature ,speaking in terms of idealists, it shapes into a classical model of synthetic explanations, which defines the technological circle as formal, secondary characteristic of individual interactions with nature. Structure of technological image is exclusively based upon domain of interactive, process related, although its peculiarity absolutely can’t possibly be derived from natural substratum. The aspect o technological determination is added to natural domain ,regarding synthetic interaction with nature ,relation between technology and nature is,a s for these concepts of explanation ,immanent,e ssentially impracticable.A possibility stems from shaping, factual ,state which subject reduces from nature influenced by technology.

Specification of technological advancement is concentrated to reducing the practical domain of technical implementation considering the sphere of reality and perceptiveness.

Realization ,practicable and technical is in direct connection to expectation of scientific theory principle which proves itself. Technology evolved in just a few decades .Considering the fact that technology raised, for instance, in nineteen forties the size limit was 10-5 milimetres, while nowdays contemporary science moved the limits towards 10-10 meters or 10 -7 milimetres.T his is the domain of very popular nanotechnology .Quantum physics concept in a pretty self-confident way pleads with absolute influence to the real world of subatomic entity of nature ,although the theoretical concept itself, regarding analytical method used for its definition, seems to be very self –destructive and fragile. Subquantum aspect of natural interactions, like absolute foundation of visible and invisible is theoretically and implicitly unpredictable in its adherence, which should be considered as variable; subquant world is not a subject to laws of existing world, so should any discerning reader notice that ,according to conceptual explanations of interactive manifestations, certain processes should be assigned to a cathegory of principles semantics. In a word, It is necessary to find some law in illegal. Such conclusion is a mind’s need, like a compromising relief in a visible defining process, but also a fundamental self-deceit of our own world of phenomena is in mind navigating to functionality exclusively referring to cathegories of relational .Pointing this problem in a theoretical manner of explaining the subatomic, it is inevitable to say that our model of perception points out to specific “behaviour” of invisible world of subatomic level of nature. Related to our concept, this world has its own rules, essentially Imperceptible. It is possible to presume its ” intensity “,inner essential determination ,although, according to its constitution, it is impracticable ,for it is not connected with factual world.

Poetical sentence says: a shape whose appearance exclusively stands for itself , has no appearance at all. This problem is going to be mentioned later on,regarding analysis of multidimensional concept relation and relation of selfhood and the instance of consciousness.

Let’s make an assumption that result of technology advance is ,as mentioned, based upon structural minimization, deeper penetrating the natural infinity, regarding as macro as mini entity, even though the practicality of technical advancement incorporates into substantial minimization, or division of manifesting world .As to this, what is the final result of technological advancement? Provided that subquantum world represents fundamental entity of factual world, is the subquantum world itself a metaresult of technological circle?

Being incorporated into the fundamental range of natural, technology would turn the full the circle as non-spreading shape .Its inner substance would excel the result of the very evolution. Speaking of metaphysical poetry, it would be amazed by technology, not by its complexity, but for it excels the semantic of pure determination as a concrete being of practical world .From the starting point, which is originally referring to practical approach to nature , it finds its own realization in substantive influence on absolute entity of – world, to subquantum entity. By this process technology would , closing the evolutionary circle, abandon the originality of physical world. Each form of its prediction or attempt on complementary defining would appear to be unsuccessful. Synthetic form of metaphysical incarnation of technology would strengthen; nevertheless, this analyse intention is not to establish the horizon of its (technological) final revolution as meta-aspect. Subquantum technology should ,by surpasing the applicable value, and regarding qualitative peculiarity towards efficiency within natural complex, make transcendence superior to categorizing. Forms of quantity and quality ,equalizing technological relation and natural ,become completely useless. Assumption of taking initiative action implicates a huge possibility of technological meta determination of natural flow; every interaction, causal relation,any natural manifestation are being modified by subquantum technology. Countless options of nanotechnology in virtual, parallel reality construction appears to be essential regression concerning subquantum technology. Quality proportion would be enormously bigger between these two evolution aspects, than between microprocessor and prehistoric stone axe. Provided that nanotechnological field “resource” is 10-10 meters, the aspect of subquantum might be extensively measurable by theoretical models. Essentially and structurally ,microdimensions of subquantum technology would not be determinate, according to upper definition, and intensity would not follow extension. This final” level “of technology would appear to sphere of perception identical to entering the singularity.To our categories of cognition it seems to be incomprehensible , whereas it could be predicative according to existing theoretical models. Example of singularity,I n this case ,ought to be seen as compromising analogy, although regarding the hypothetical case of final technological revolution ,it would be absolutely incomprehensible. Exceeding the quant limit would mean that technology in multidimensional frame absolutely alters space and time continuum ,even the genealogy concept og Universe would be absolutely changed, although this theoretical implication totally unacceptable in its essence .

Finalization of technological evolution understands ontological surpassing the world. Problem appears here, in state section ,on condition that finalization of evolution process understands own starting point transcendence ,sublimated in visible macroplan of nature ,which is fundamental to changing the essential form of existence. In a word, how can a form, defined by technological semantic ,practicable realization ,outdoes own form of existential determination placing itself into the aspect of absolute, subquantum. Metaphysical conflict is in the notion and also in the semantic of subquantum. If this entity himself reperesents the absolute entity of nature, turning the full circle becomes expected. On condition that theoretical models point out to interpreting suitability of subquantum as absolute, subquantum technology would be as far from the result of infinitely successive circle of its own evolution. This problem will be examined synthetically highlighting either the notion multidimensionality and reduction of selfhood later on in the text.

Visit Sciencomatica.com!



Create a video blog

Patrick Wellert asked:


Running Head: Breaking the Technology Barrier

Breaking the Technology Barrier: Using Technology in Education

Patrick Wellert

ETC 558

Northern Arizona University

Abstract

It has long been difficult for teachers to effectively communicate the objectives and goals in a fun and exciting way that reaches the students.  In the changing times teachers need to find ways to include students into the lesson using the technology made available to them. It has long been believed that teachers need to get over their fear and use technology openly with students in order to meet their educational needs. By including students into the lessons teachers will experience a more positive classroom experience.

 Breaking the Technology Barrier: Using Technology in Education

            Technology and education have always seemed to go together. In order to prepare students for the workplace or college they need to be able to be exposed to it. Teachers in the classroom use technology believing that the students are gaining valuable information and retaining the concepts taught but in reality the students need to be involved in the lesson and actively participating in activities that include technology. Student engagement is critical to student motivation during the learning process. The more students are motivated to learn, the more likely it is that they will be successful in their efforts. (Beeland, 2002).

Uses of Technology

            There are numerous uses of technologies that are available to teachers to include students into the classroom’s lesson. These include Interactive Whiteboards, Proximas, PowerPoint games, interactive DVDs, Ventrilo chat software, Myspace, Blackboard, and scavenger hunts. To put the uses of technology into an effective practice, teachers need to help students set achievable goals; encourage students to assess themselves and their peers; help them to work co-operatively in groups and ensure that they know how to exploit all the available resources for learning (Hall, 2006). The following are how some technology is used to help students learn.

Interactive Whiteboards

            There are two different types of whiteboards. The first is a virtual version of a dry erase board. It allows students to see what the instructor or other students write or draw using a special pen. The second functions similar to a normal whiteboard but also contains a projector screen, an electronic copy board or as a computer projector screen on which the computer image can be controlled by touching or writing on the surface of the panel instead of using a mouse or keyboard. They function by connecting a projector to the whiteboard panel with the use of a computer and software. It is important to know the different functions in order to determine which whiteboard is right for the educator. By knowing the difference you can also learn the terminology and understand the basic functions of each.

Proximas and PowerPoint

            PowerPoint is a software program that is being used in the classroom as a tool to incorporate learning activities into the curriculum. PowerPoint enables teachers and students to actively create presentations with graphics, charts, diagrams, and pictures in their slideshows to help make often complicated ideas and lessons more manageable and understandable. It is a way for students to engage in research, and present information to their peers. When students are actively learning, taking an active role in the learning process, they seem to understand the information better, and enjoy the lesson. The use of a game also allowed Jones and Mungai to directly address the learning style needs of the visual (58%) and tactile learner (22%), which represents eighty-percent of those involved in the content related courses. When constructed with different learning styles in mind, games can often accelerate the learning process (Jones & Mungai, 2003). By itself PowerPoint is not a cure-all remedy, but rather a tool that needs to be understood and used properly for it to be effective as an active learning tool. It also has shown that students that did use PowerPoint as a learning tool were more engaged in the discussions (Rowcliffe, 2003). This will encourage teachers to use PowerPoint as a way to involve students into a lesson by stimulating discussion. For PowerPoint to take place in a classroom an Interactive Whiteboard or a Proxima is needed. A Proxima displays a computer screen onto a screen much like a projector at a movie theater. The user is able to display items such as websites, PowerPoint, and interactive games. A way for students to interact using this technology is through games created by teachers and used in the PowerPoint lesson. Games such as Hollywood Squares, Jeopardy, and Who Wants to be a Millionaire are created using slides and links to answer the questions. Teachers may use a blank template and fill them with different answers for the students to use as a review. Teachers may even let the students create their own review using the blank templates. This activity can also be used in a small group or team setting.

 Advantages to the Students

Learning sciences research tells us that students learn much better “by doing” rather than “by listening.” This means that passive learning – the traditional lecture – is being replaced in our classrooms by more active learning activities that emphasize student problem solving, discussion, presentation and other “authentic” learning-by-doing-activities. (Day, 2004). By including students into the lesson it opens up a realm of possibilities because students can retain roughly only 10% of what they write down.

Teacher Apprehension

            So why are teachers not using technology that engages and interacts more frequently with students? There are many reasons why teachers feel apprehensive or uncomfortable using an interactive whiteboard, proxima and PowerPoint. The first of which could be the length of time from their college prep program until now. Teachers often get exposed to and learn new technologies in their teacher prep courses. Some might not have been prepared enough upon entering the workforce. Although the availability of technology in American schools has increased (US Department of Education, 2000), information released by The National Education Association (2004) indicates that less than 35% of public school teachers feel they are "well prepared" or "very well prepared" to use this technology effectively.

            The second reason is blockage from the school’s control or security system. Teachers claim that the firewalls and filtering systems create blockage in their attempts to educate and communicate with others with technology (Murray, 2004). The teachers and other users can become frustrated when they do not understand why a certain item like a website used for a scavenger hunt or a hyperlink in a PowerPoint are not available.

            The inconsistency from school to school is another reason. At one site there may be access to all different types of technology while at another the absence is very evident. The general public perception is that our schools are using technology and managing our resources in that area well. In several surveys done some schools do show nearly 100 percent use of technology while in others the use of technology is nonexistent (Starr, 2003).

Summary

The research has shown that there are proven benefits to using technology in the classroom. The ability to integrate technology into the classroom can add valuable information and ideas to our students.

By facilitating Proximas, PowerPoint, and interactive whiteboards our teachers will be able to reach a broader audience of learners.    

References

Beeland, W.D. (2002). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: can interactive

whiteboards help? Retrieved May 31, 2008, from www.apexavsi.com

Day, J. (2004). Enhancing the classroom learning experience with web lectures. Retrieved May 31, 2008 from http://smartech.gatech.edu/dspace/handle/1853/65

Hall, B. (2008, March 4). Explorations in learning. Message posted to Student Centered Learning, archived at http://secondlanguagewriting.com/explorations/Archives/2006/Jul/Studentcent

eredLearning.html

Jones, D. C. & Mungai, D. (2003). Technology-enabled teaching for maximum learning.

International Journal of Learning, (10), 3491-3501.     

Murray, C. (2004). Teachers: Limited time, access cut school tech use [Electronic version] e School news, 1-5

National Education Association. (2004): Technology in Schools. Retrieved May 31, 2008 from

http://www.nea.org/cet/

Rowcliffe, S. (2003) Using PowerPoint effectively in science education: lessons

from research and guidance for the classroom. School Science Review 84 (309).

Starr, L. (2003). Encouraging teacher technology use [Electronic Version] Education World, pg 1

US Department of Education. (2000). Internet access in public schools. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistic.



Caffeinated Content – Members-Only Content for WordPress

Alec Alpert asked:


Modern hospitals depend heavily on medical technology to diagnose, treat and prevent diseases. A typical mid-sized hospital has hundreds of items of medical equipment, from simple stethoscopes and blood pressure monitors to highly sophisticated MRI machines and linear accelerators. Hospitals are complex enterprises with entire departments dedicated to technology planning, assessment, acquisition, maintenance, upgrade and replacement at the end of the product life cycle. They have elaborate systems, programs, policies, procedures and protocols in place for purchasing new medical equipment.

To sell successfully to healthcare providers, marketing and sales professionals have to be well versed in the buying processes that healthcare providers use. Medical device marketing is quite different from any other marketing. Typically, hospitals have a review process to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate their medical technology needs. The review’s scope depends on the cost of the technology, and may involve many departments. For expensive equipment, the review most likely will be elaborate. For less expensive and disposable items, the review may simply assess the department’s current needs, and the proposed purchase’s operational and financial impacts. In either case, a market survey and literature search take place to some extent, and this is supplemented with extensive data collection and analysis when needed. This is why white papers and case studies published by medical device manufacturers are very useful during the review process – the decision-makers look for every bit of information they can find. Hence, white papers and case studies can significantly influence the decision-making process. A typical review process includes the following phases:

1. Strategic planning 2. Assessment 3. Acquisition 4. Utilization 5. Repair and maintenance 6. Replacement and disposal

The process starts with strategic planning. In this top-level phase, the relevant stakeholders (e.g., Directors, Professors, Managers, Doctors, Engineers, Purchasing, etc.) review key issues, success factors and resource allocation, and assign responsibilities for sustained improvement in technological performance. They identify the services their facility provides, and the technologies that would complement their existing services. The typical questions to answer are: Where are we? Where do we want to be? How are we going to get there?

Because medical technology greatly impacts the cost and structure of healthcare delivery, hospitals include technology assessment in their planning process, which typically includes cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses.

Cost-benefit analysis calculates the costs of applying the technology and compares them to the benefits resulting from its application. It provides criteria upon which to base decisions of whether to adopt or reject a proposed device. The device is adopted if its benefits exceed its costs. However, one limitation of this analysis is that it expresses all benefits, including therapeutic effects, in monetary terms. Hence, hospitals also conduct cost-effectiveness analyses to quantify therapeutic effects in terms of reduced patient hospital stays, and compare these to the costs of the technology’s implementation. Although at first glance the chosen technology may seem to have limited impact on other facility operations, stakeholders also examine the likely effect of the new equipment on existing services.

Other aspects of cost-effectiveness analysis include assessment of long-term replacement strategies and identification of emerging technologies. Since medical devices have finite longevity, hospitals have replacement plans to minimize the effects of unforeseen capital replacement. By identifying emerging technologies that fit into the projected plans of the hospital’s service area, the hospital tries to avoid investing in nearly obsolete technologies.

Purchase of a new technology is justified only when an increase in equipment’s cost-effectiveness is clearly demonstrated. The typical questions asked during the analysis are:

* Will the new medical device increase the volume of the service? * Will it raise the costs of the service? * Will the device generate additional revenues and, if so, how much? * What is the new device’s expected lifespan? * What is the device’s reliability and the costs associated with its repair and maintenance? * How reliable and reputable is the manufacturer? * What impact will the new device have on routine operating costs? * What will the disposal cost be? * How easy is the device to operate?

Once the technology has been assessed and the decision to purchase has been made, the next phase in the process is technology acquisition, which typically includes the following steps:

* Preparation of general and functional specifications * Clinical, technical and cost evaluations * Review of proposals and evaluations, and making a final decision on a device manufacturer * Contract negotiation for the device’s acquisition * Preparation and issuance of a purchase order * Contract award

A contract award is the green light for the medical device company to deliver and install the product.



Caffeinated Content

Nancy William asked:


As a mother, I can truly understand how parents across the world feel about their children. The parent-child relationship is a universal one. It crosses languages, barriers, and borders and speaks the same language of love and protection. All parents have the same goal – to protect their children from the problems of the world. Obviously, most parents would like their children to grow to be model citizens and they would never want their children to be associated with anything criminal. Fair enough… but (and of course there is a but to everything, isn’t there?) there are two sides to everything. The knife that we use to cut fruits and vegetables could also be used to kill! Does this mean that we should stop using it?

I believe it all depends on how people look at things. We can choose to be positive and to look at all the positive aspects of life, or we can choose to be pessimistic and to be threatened by every fly that passes by. (Flies can carry germs!)

Recently, I have been reading countless accounts of parents who are paranoid about fingerprinting their children, and so far I haven’t been able to understand what the real issue at hand is. We have made numerous technological advancements to make our lives easier. We believe that now, in the 21st century, we are more civilized than man has ever been. So why are we not able to accept certain changes which come due to new technology? Is it because we are inherently pessimistic and cynical? I’m sure that when Marie Curie discovered Nuclear Physics her intentions were clearly not to create nuclear bombs. Humanity has benefited greatly from the development of nuclear science. Still, every time we hear the word nuclear we think of bombs and wars. It is the pessimistic nature of modern man that guides our thought process in this way.

It is true that fingerprinting has been used in the past for identifying criminals. However, the technology has evolved just as most technologies tend to do. It is rare to see someone today with a car phone or with a computer the size of an entire room. These technologies have evolved, and certainly for the better. Today, fingerprinting is generally used as a device to accurately identify people. In fact, there are a number of other biometric technologies available. Such technologies include signature readers, retina scanners and DNA samples. These have all been used to identify criminals at some point or another. But DNA is also used for many scientific tests and the study of DNA has advanced so greatly that medical science could not possibly think of doing away with it. If you were being treated for a sickness and your DNA needed to be analyzed for a possible genetic disorder, would you choose to die instead because DNA sampling is used to identify criminals? Of course this is an extreme example, but I doubt that anyone answered “Yes, of course!”

We show our children TV shows like Star Trek, The Jetsons, etc. All children have seen doors slide open and computers accessed by using fingerprinting technology “in the future”. Why can’t we realize that “the future” could be now, if we would only allow it to happen?

Parents are concerned that their child’s fingerprint will be stored in some kind of database. To be honest, I was also concerned about this at first. However, I felt that I should gather extensive knowledge about the technology before I shot it down without a second thought. I have done online research and contacted reputable firms that offer biometric technology like M2SYS, Motorola, NEC (citations to these websites are given below) etc.

M2SYS they are an American reputable leading company in fingerprint biometric technology and most of their clients are private firms, school, gyms, banks, clinics, etc. Motorola and NEC are big multibillionaire companies that produce high-fi biometric technologies for big government agencies all around the world.

These companies confirmed what really happens when an individual is fingerprinted. It basically breaks down into an initial enrollment process and an identification process. During initial enrollment, an individual scans his fingerprint for the first time. The biometric software recognizes certain unique, key points of this individual’s fingerprint. These points are then converted into a series of numbers, or a binary string. Then, each time the individual scans their fingerprint for identification, an algorithm is used to determine if the binary numbers match up with the fingerprint. If they do, then voila! The software provides instant and secure identification.

If you are still scratching your head at this point, you are not alone – I was too. Most of us will never understand the entire science involved in biometric identification. But what is easy to understand is this: every software company uses a different algorithm. There is not some magic, all-encompassing fingerprint algorithm that every company uses within their software to identify people. This means that if you had two children attending schools in different districts that were both using fingerprint identification by different biometric companies, and you accidentally sent them to the wrong schools (Mondays…) there is no way that either child could be identified. Their prints are not stored in some common database. All that is ever stored is a binary number associated with points of their prints that can only be accessed by the company that has provided the biometric software. These companies are not even associated with the government. They are mostly private technology companies just looking to sell their software solutions.

Biometric technology can be beneficial to our children by improving the security at schools and increasing the overall safety of our children, all with binary numbers which are useless to anyone but the private biometric company. I would advise every parent to do some research into the realities of biometric identification and to unveil the myth behind the infamous fingerprinting technology.

Of course if we want to think negatively, nothing is one hundred percent foolproof. Computers make our lives easier but they can be hacked too. However, if the biometric software is hacked, the thief would be disappointed that all he would receive were the useless strings of numbers. As one company put it, it would be easier to steal fingerprint data from something a child had touched than to design an intricate reverse algorithm; all to retrieve a useless series of points of a fingerprint.

Life is full of possibilities if we think positively and are open to new technology. I, for one, am more interested in my child safely growing up in a world full of amazing technological advances that my generation could never have even dreamed. I believe that this world is possible if we don’t hinder its progress by bashing advancements that we know nothing about. In the end, we may all have different opinions, but I am asking that we all gather knowledge about each new technology before we ruin a great possibility for our children.

Resources:

http://www.m2sys.com

http://www.nec.com

http://www.motorola.com



technology

Vitomir Jovanovic asked:


Regarding previously said, a problem of information note and form of description ,extrovert and inner ,introvert world is based upon existence of information code ,as subject determination basic feature in the moment of “technological “ description ,which is related to certain object, or substantive analytical examination in relation with the same object. What appears to be essential is whether the information evolved from technological advancement or it has been defined by its own existence .For instance, Is the informational capacity ,measured in bytes and regarding technological advancement and subject of research taken randomly, more determinate to analyst rather than to its inventor? Informational determination capacity is proportional to analytical decoding , just as the content of dream is to conscious. Technical measurement ,which is to determinate the subject informational more precisely ,directly affects the informational code reproduction. Informational chain code appears to be essentially divergent in relation to any subject being analysed ; its selfdetermination is unconditional only if out of experimental or any form of perceptive range .The problem resembles subquantum paradox which results in experimental conception –experimenter causes the result of experiment ,while on the grounds of experimental action technical substratum treats its own field of analysis as artificial

Subquantum technology basics

Principles of quantum mechanics are based on the claim that the fundamental entity concerning all interactions in nature is quantum, defined as form of indivisible unit carrying an absolute minimum of energy .In a word,any process of interaction, emission or absorbing of all materials energetic conditions is exclusively possible in form of infinitesimal quantum continuance .According to theoretical implications method , metaphysics and physics matches.

As a subject of research , subquantum level of nature is being realistic ,not only metaphysicist, but also to physicist , regarding theoretical concepts. This aspect of nature excels any range of scientific or any other form of perception .Basic reason is most simple: considering the fact that perception sphere is being modified inside the quantum instance of nature , in order to implement any form of knowledge, it must be based upon quantum “behaviour” of natural interactions. Realization of subquantum instance theoretically implied, although its practical significance or experimental induction are impossible .

Solid form of technological advancement interpretation and the way it emanates from nature ,speaking in terms of idealists, it shapes into a classical model of synthetic explanations, which defines the technological circle as formal, secondary characteristic of individual interactions with nature. Structure of technological image is exclusively based upon domain of interactive, process related, although its peculiarity absolutely can’t possibly be derived from natural substratum. The aspect o technological determination is added to natural domain ,regarding synthetic interaction with nature ,relation between technology and nature is,a s for these concepts of explanation ,immanent,e ssentially impracticable.A possibility stems from shaping, factual ,state which subject reduces from nature influenced by technology.

Specification of technological advancement is concentrated to reducing the practical domain of technical implementation considering the sphere of reality and perceptiveness.Realization ,practicable and technical is in direct connection to expectation of scientific theory principle which proves itself. Technology evolved in just a few decades .Considering the fact that technology raised, for instance, in nineteen forties the size limit was 10-5 milimetres, while nowdays contemporary science moved the limits towards 10-10 meters or 10 -7 milimetres.T his is the domain of very popular nanotechnology .Quantum physics concept in a pretty self-confident way pleads with absolute influence to the real world of subatomic entity of nature ,although the theoretical concept itself, regarding analytical method used for its definition, seems to be very self –destructive and fragile. Subquantum aspect of natural interactions, like absolute foundation of visible and invisible is theoretically and implicitly unpredictable in its adherence, which should be considered as variable; subquant world is not a subject to laws of existing world, so should any discerning reader notice that ,according to conceptual explanations of interactive manifestations, certain processes should be assigned to a cathegory of principles semantics. In a word, It is necessary to find some law in illegal. Such conclusion is a mind’s need, like a compromising relief in a visible defining process, but also a fundamental self-deceit of our own world of phenomena is in mind navigating to functionality exclusively referring to cathegories of relational .Pointing this problem in a theoretical manner of explaining the subatomic, it is inevitable to say that our model of perception points out to specific “behaviour” of invisible world of subatomic level of nature. Related to our concept, this world has its own rules, essentially Imperceptible. It is possible to presume its ” intensity “,inner essential determination ,although, according to its constitution, it is impracticable ,for it is not connected with factual world.

Poetical sentence says: a shape whose appearance exclusively stands for itself , has no appearance at all. This problem is going to be mentioned later on,regarding analysis of multidimensional concept relation and relation of selfhood and the instance of consciousness.

Let’s make an assumption that result of technology advance is ,as mentioned, based upon structural minimization, deeper penetrating the natural infinity, regarding as macro as mini entity, even though the practicality of technical advancement incorporates into substantial minimization, or division of manifesting world .As to this, what is the final result of technological advancement? Provided that subquantum world represents fundamental entity of factual world, is the subquantum world itself a metaresult of technological circle?Being incorporated into the fundamental range of natural, technology would turn the full the circle as non-spreading shape .Its inner substance would excel the result of the very evolution. Speaking of metaphysical poetry, it would be amazed by technology, not by its complexity, but for it excels the semantic of pure determination as a concrete being of practical world .From the starting point, which is originally referring to practical approach to nature , it finds its own realization in substantive influence on absolute entity of – world, to subquantum entity. By this process technology would , closing the evolutionary circle, abandon the originality of physical world. Each form of its prediction or attempt on complementary defining would appear to be unsuccessful. Synthetic form of metaphysical incarnation of technology would strengthen; nevertheless, this analyse intention is not to establish the horizon of its (technological) final revolution as meta-aspect. Subquantum technology should ,by surpasing the applicable value, and regarding qualitative peculiarity towards efficiency within natural complex, make transcendence superior to categorizing. Forms of quantity and quality ,equalizing technological relation and natural ,become completely useless. Assumption of taking initiative action implicates a huge possibility of technological meta determination of natural flow; every interaction, causal relation,any natural manifestation are being modified by subquantum technology. Countless options of nanotechnology in virtual, parallel reality construction appears to be essential regression concerning subquantum technology. Quality proportion would be enormously bigger between these two evolution aspects, than between microprocessor and prehistoric stone axe. Provided that nanotechnological field “resource” is 10-10 meters, the aspect of subquantum might be extensively measurable by theoretical models. Essentially and structurally ,microdimensions of subquantum technology would not be determinate, according to upper definition, and intensity would not follow extension. This final” level “of technology would appear to sphere of perception identical to entering the singularity.To our categories of cognition it seems to be incomprehensible , whereas it could be predicative according to existing theoretical models. Example of singularity,I n this case ,ought to be seen as compromising analogy, although regarding the hypothetical case of final technological revolution ,it would be absolutely incomprehensible. Exceeding the quant limit would mean that technology in multidimensional frame absolutely alters space and time continuum ,even the genealogy concept og Universe would be absolutely changed, although this theoretical implication totally unacceptable in its essence .Finalization of technological evolution understands ontological surpassing the world. Problem appears here, in state section ,on condition that finalization of evolution process understands own starting point transcendence ,sublimated in visible macroplan of nature ,which is fundamental to changing the essential form of existence. In a word, how can a form, defined by technological semantic ,practicable realization ,outdoes own form of existential determination placing itself into the aspect of absolute, subquantum. Metaphysical conflict is in the notion and also in the semantic of subquantum. If this entity himself reperesents the absolute entity of nature, turning the full circle becomes expected. On condition that theoretical models point out to interpreting suitability of subquantum as absolute, subquantum technology would be as far from the result of infinitely successive circle of its own evolution. This problem will be examined synthetically highlighting either the notion multidimensionality and reduction of selfhood later on in the text.

Visit Sciencomatica.com!



Caffeinated Content

Art Espey asked:


There is no doubt that these are tough economic times. Unemployment is high and credit is tight. Key indicates show that is the worse economy in a generation. Many technology transfer offices have seen potential business partners reduce their innovation portfolios and expenditures. This coupled with a reduction in funding sources, from grants and investors to university sources are blowing the technology transfer research commercialization efforts into the perfect storm.

There are difficulties and challenges, but these times also create opportunities. Here are seven tips to help your technology transfer office succeed in these tough economic times.

1. Maintain a list of problems that are relevant to the research and technologies in the pipeline.

Technology transfer offices typically get involved in research commercialization efforts late in the research and testing process. Get involved earlier in the process and start developing a list of problems of which the research can be applied.

This is really an early brainstorming exercise. Don’t just talk to the researchers. Get business input from those who are not involved with the research or the research teams. Independent ideas can be worth their weight in gold.

2. Develop long-term business relationships.

“Dig the well before you are thirsty.”

-Chinese Proverb

Start developing business relationships with business leaders from a wide range of industries. Do this even before you have any applicable research or solutions for them. These relationships will pay off in two ways.

• You will have a better understanding of the types of challenges that these businesses face.

• When you do have promising research technologies and solutions you already have a relationship with the business or their contacts.

3. Pair researchers with business mentors.

Researchers think like researchers. Business people think like business people. Getting the two to communicate with each other versus talking to each other is a common technology transfer office challenge.

Providing a business mentor to promising research leaders will help alleviate this common problem. This continuous conduit will go a lot further than a long forgotten entrepreneurial seminar.

4. Develop alternative commercialization strategies early.

Good business people know that there is always a chance that their efforts may fail. Technology transfer officers know this too. Unfortunately, many researchers and inventors do not think about this, much less plan for it.

Most inventors think that their invention is world changing and worth millions. They have visions of establishing a company based on their research or technology, selling it for millions, and retiring in the lap of luxury.

The truth of the matter is that nine out of ten spin offs and startups will fail. You, can as the technology transfer officer can improve these odds.

I sit on the advisory board for some start up focused investment funds. One of the strategies that we have developed recently is to go for the big distribution partnering deal with large companies. When that doesn’t work – we find out why and have alternative proposals available.

This alternative could be limited distribution agreements on licensing deals. It really doesn’t matter what the alternative is. What does matter is that you get to stay in the game and get a return on the sunk costs.

5. Reduce risks for all involved.

It wasn’t that long ago that many universities shunned the entire technology transfer process. They wanted their faculty teaching and doing research, not commercializing their intellectual property. My, how times have changed.

Now universities love the revenue that comes from royalties and equity distributions and sales that are associated with intellectual property commercialization. Businesses are always looking for a competitive advantage and right now innovation is the soup de jour, except for one thing …RISK!

In order to get more businesses interested in potential technology look for new ways to reduce their potential risks. Right now cash is king. Instead of negotiating a lower royalty percentage, offer your potential licensor a deferred royalty agreement at a higher percentage. This is the business innovator’s version of “no interest payments for 3 years”.

This approach allows the business to conserve cash today and the university to reap more money in the long run. It’s better than the technology sitting on the shelf waiting to become obsolete.

6. Teach bootstrapping to your startups.

All technology startups need money. That is a known fact. The truth is that many could get by with less money than they think that they need. There in lies the art of bootstrapping. Bootstrapping basically means to start and operate a business without lots of investment funds. It requires the entrepreneur to focus on sales and to hold fixed costs to an absolute minimum.

Bootstrapping requires a unique mindset that few lead researchers turned entrepreneurs can relate to. It takes a special entrepreneur to be able to successfully bootstrap a business.

Help your lead researchers and startup teams. Get some experienced bootstrappers on your advisory and consulting teams and pass the knowledge on to your startups.

7. Partner with other technology transfer offices.

Technology transfer offices provide a valuable service to both the university and their research communities. They play a vital role in the economic development of their respective communities and states. Unlike many organizations involved in the invention commercialization process they do not compete.

Some technology transfer offices such as Stanford and MIT are the envy of their peers, however most technology transfer offices do not reside in a geographic area that harbors entrepreneurship in its DNA.

Partnering with other technology transfer offices offers many unique benefits that cannot be found though other means. It opens up dialogue and support for represented research and technologies to new areas and new commercialization ideas. It develops relationships with other potential business partners and fosters potential research synergies.

Targeted TTO partnerships can lead to specific research pairing with higher degrees of commercialization potential. This focused effort will, in the long run, yield a high degree of return on investment.

These 7 technology transfer officer tips can help you reduce your operating costs and increase your revenue generation success rate. It’s a win for society, the researcher, the business community, the university, and YOU!



technology

Timothy Nuckles asked:


Commercial buyers of information technology products and services are locked into a self-defeating pattern of behavior when it comes to negotiating contract terms and conditions with technology vendors, and it is time to move on to a better approach. Better technology vendor negotiations produce better contracts for a technology project, and better contracts produce better project outcomes. So, break the mold and move on to a better way of negotiating contract terms and conditions for your next technology project.

Vendor Contracts – Timing Is Everything

Let us assume that by now you have done a lot of planning and information gathering for your proposed technology project, you have completed a vendor selection process, and now it is time to document your deal with your chosen vendor.

At this stage in the technology procurement process, the most common practice—indeed the almost-universal practice—is to distribute the vendor’s proposed contracts to your project team for review and comment. Then, as if by instinct, everyone starts looking for vendor bias in the contracts. No one has been given this specific directive. You simply assume and expect that everyone knows the drill. Folks on your project team begin striking certain biased provisions and scribbling notes about amending others. For sure, removing or limiting vendor bias in the contracts is a worthwhile exercise, but now is not the time to perform this exercise.

Light bulb on

I had to get several technology deals under my belt before I realized this, but at this early stage of the contracting process, you really need to focus first on terms and conditions that are important to you, not the terms and conditions that are important to your vendor. We know your vendor has included in its specimen contracts (as modified prior to presentation to you) all the terms and conditions of your deal that are important to your vendor. In fact, they are very easy to identify. They are all the contract terms with vendor bias. These provisions are so important to your vendor that it has purposely added bias to them, often with obvious exaggeration and redundancy. Even if your vendor has to bargain down somewhat from these provisions, your vendor is still in a safe position because the starting point was so extreme.

What you should do instead

At this initial stage of contracting, you should ignore your vendor’s proposed contracts. Simply set them aside for the time being, and do this for two reasons.

First, in order to express in writing the terms and conditions that are most important to you, you must actually think of what those terms and conditions might be. Likeable as your vendor may be, your vendor will not have already added to its proposed contracts the terms and conditions most important to you for your particular project. You will have to come up with this stuff on your own.

Second, until you know what terms and conditions are most important to you

for your particular project, you are in no position to challenge your vendor’s biased provisions except in attempt to remove or limit the bias. “I don’t know exactly what impact this provision has on our project, but I know it’s not a provision that helps our cause.” Challenging these provisions in a vacuum does not really help you.

The big picture

Now is the time to start with a fresh, big-picture perspective, and then fill in lots of detail. Circle back to earlier stages of your procurement process and revisit your decisions, your assumptions, and the various things you have learned. As a result of your many meetings and discussions, there may be things that you are now taking for granted: special vendor qualifications, how a particular piece of your project will be orchestrated, acutely risky aspects of your project, and so on. Bring to mind other similar projects within your organization and apply what you learned from those experiences.

Re-acquainting yourself with prior thought processes, discoveries, assumptions, and experiences will help you remember aspects of your project that you previously deemed important—whether because they are critical to project success, they pose a substantial risk within your project, or perhaps both—and it will force you to consider the importance of other elements for the first time. This process will help you build out the terms and conditions for your deal that benefit and protect you, terms and conditions that maximize the probability of project success and minimize project risk.

As part of this process, make a detailed list of list of terms and conditions that are important for your particular project, and:

1) Categorize them by subject matter.

For example, requirements development and prioritization, data mapping, business process issues, software development, application integration, database integration, system integration, testing, implementation, buyer protections, vendor management tools, warranties, etc. When you get around to negotiating the items on your list with your vendor, your project team will have important reference points. “Does this contract item touch implementation? If so, let’s look at our implementation items.”

2) Add qualifiers for each item.

Among other things, qualifiers can include a ranking of particular item’s relative importance within your project (critical to project success, represents substantial risk, wish list, etc.). When you get around to negotiating the items on your list with your vendor, your project team will be less inclined to treat all items on your list as equally important. Almost certainly, not all will be equally important. Your team will have a sense of how hard to push on a particular item, and in terms of the give and take that occurs in any negotiation process, they will have sense of what items to compromise (and by how much) or concede outright if met by strong resistance from your vendor.

3) Add relevant notes and comments for each item.

Among other things, relevant notes to attach to your list items include comments about accountability. Who within your project will be accountable for accomplishing the particular item: your vendor, your internal staff, or some combination? And what should happen if the party with accountability drops the ball?

With this kind of list in hand, you are in a much better position to review your vendor’s proposed contracts. Perhaps most important, you are no longer reviewing the contracts in a vacuum. You are equipped to conduct a truly meaningful review of your vendor’s proposed contracts.

Is there a gap in the vendor’s proposed contracts; that is, an item from your list has not been addressed at all? Is there an inaccuracy in the vendor’s proposed contracts; that is, an item is addressed, but its present treatment does not match your understanding, preference or requirement? Are topics within the contracts miscategorized? Are interrelated items not treated as such? Are accountabilities not clearly established?

An even better approach

Although breaking the mold and adopting the above approach to technology vendor contracting will certainly help you produce better contracts for your next technology project, which contracts should facilitate a better project outcome, there is a way to help yourself even further.

Instead of starting with and working from your vendors’ proposed contracts for your next project, think about developing your own standard agreements to include within your technology procurement process (usually at the RFP stage).

First, develop a neutral or somewhat buyer-favorable Software License Agreement. Find a standard Software License Agreement and neutralize or remove the elements of vendor bias. Then add the buyer-side content that you would normally find yourself negotiating with a typical vendor (were you working from the vendor’s standard Software License Agreement). Next, find a standard Consulting Services Agreement and do the same thing.

You can add your newly-developed standard agreements to your next technology RFP and request that responding vendors either approve your standard agreements as-is, or cite alternative language for provisions they do not find acceptable.

By incorporating your standard agreements into your technology procurement process, you will achieve two important things. First, you will be able—probably for the first time—to evaluate vendor candidates based on one of the most important factors for project success, terms and conditions. You can guage a prospective vendors appetite for terms and conditions that are important to your for your particular project BEFORE you have selected a vendor. It is much harder to win favorable terms and conditions AFTER you have selected the vendor for your project. And second, you will greatly reduce negotiation cycle times.

More and more commercial information technology buyers—of all sizes—are using this approach. It may surprise you to learn that many reputable technology vendors will not only entertain the possibility of working from your standard agreements instead of theirs, they may even welcome the prospect because it saves them time and expense as well.

A word of caution

When you develop your own standard agreements, exercise some discipline. Do not convert a terribly vendor-biased agreement into a terribly buyer-biased agreement. This will not help your cause. Instead, shoot for balance. Software developers, for example, have to protect their rights in their intellectual property, and there a certain limits beyond which they will not venture; for example, an excessively broad license grant. Understand vendor limitations and be fair. Add buyer bias judiciously and only if it is truly important to your organization.

Meet Nuckles at http://www.NucklesLaw.com or visit the firm’s sister site at http://www.TechnologyBuyersAdvocate.com.

© 2008 All rights reserved. Olive Consulting Group LLC / Nuckles Law Firm



Create a video blog…instantly.