“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
IMO, where this approach could be valuable is as a starting point for further research. The computer could spit out something that essentially says, "hey this looks like a departure from the trend, maybe you should take a look at it."
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
Dug up by another website a 2009 Charlie Rose interview of the CEO of Palantir Technologies:http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10549
What was memorable was our systems sit on top of your's (data) and work.
I know from an exchange sometime ago Palantir were regarded as a useful bit of kit, if expensive.
davidbfpo
I've twice listened in person to Jeff Jonas, now with IBM, who has to say the least an interesting career path, starting in Las Vegas countering insider and external threats. He has also contributed in the national security field, he is referred to in the context of John Poindexter's Total Information Awareness (TIA) and his 9/11 PPT is amazing - which is attached.
His blog is:www.jeffjonas.typepad.com
Slightly off topic is his emphasis on privacy and liberty can be enhanced in this post-9/11 operating environment.
davidbfpo
Entropy:
I think we are back to an old conversation.
Tracking raw numbers like population changes, migration pressures, poverty indexes, political/administrative boundary disputes, and political instability provides great ballpark markers for "hot spots."
Hot spots should trigger further analysis and monitoring both for tipping points and triggers (often non quantitative like the vegetable vendor setting himself afire in Algeria), and tracking (How are the new regimes in Libya, Egypt aligning with the "will of the people" driving changes.
But all of this presumes we have a robust and systematic analytical core for essentially Worldwide Monitoring (which we do not), and that that core has effective participation, resources and profile in the feedback loops.
Potentials for instability do not always trigger actual threats, so who decides how to target limited resources?
Personally, I monitor the limited news scrawls of economic, trade and business news in Iraq for indications of whether actual stability is returning to the population as a whole versus the political theatre which, in part, has many old actors playing out old themes.
IMHO, public political instability is often not a threat so much as an exercise in threat diffusion (surfacing of grievances).
Stability, in many ways and areas, can be monitored through the nature and content of vehicle flows as a proxy for broad trade patterns, underlying cross-regional and cross-national linkages, and population success (prosperity, willingness to overcome obstacles).
Stability, in many ways and places, is driven by the integrity of land tenure for a permanent population (and thus economic rights and commitments to an area), for which population tracking is key.
To my knowledge, this stuff is just to esoteric, and not being done.
Link to a Real News Network Interview. The subject of the interview is not directly related to this thread but if you listen to the interview you will hear how something like the Jonas system The (that David posted a link to) was used to determine this information.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEg4X...&feature=feedu
Hat tip to the Australian Lowry Institute think-tank for this. A mix of experts commenting on the issue, on-line summary or a podcast:http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/09/...of-prediction/
davidbfpo
Slap:
I have one of those T-shirts that says:
Not everyone wandering around is lost.
Bookmarks