Add comment June 15th, 2016 Sigi Reich
… the twelfth award in a successful series since 2005: the ITS project award took place on June 2, 2016 at Fachhochschule Salzburg. And the winners are
- Mitis Home Control (HTL Ybbs): https://www.mitis.at an open KNX based home control system, very advanced and professional
- Safety Seat (HTL Saalfelden): a prototype system that would raise an alarm in cases where children or pets are transported in vehicles that are parked (and e.g. the temperature raises to high levels)
- ISIDOR (HTL Braunau) – a drone that could be used for (automised and environmentally-friendly) pest control on corn fields
And there was a special prize awarded to forestGAMP (HTL Ybbs again) – a measuring and information system that acquires data in forests (e.g. on various height levels of trees) and stores them in a publicly available database (that can be used by other researchers as well).
June 6th, 2016 Sigi Reich
PUSH as a term has been coined in the U.K. in the 90ies (and note: has a tradition of several hundred years, going back to an initiative by London’s Royal Society in 1667 on writing scientific papers in a more understandable way – see a nice article by Wolfgang C. Goethe on the future of scientific publication): the acronym is short for public understanding of science and humanities and the idea was established actually by industry in order to enable profound discussions amongst society for new and emerging developments.
Today, PUSH is more PUST (public understanding of science and technology) but the idea is still very much the same:
- many people in the (general) public are interested in technology and how “things work”. For instance, how does your navigation system work? What does it mean to do stem-cell research? How can we develop an exit strategy away from fossil energy? What implications does “Industrie 4.0” have on the future of work?
- And also: what do researchers actually do? How do their labs look like? How do they organise an ordinary working day? What does it mean to publish a paper?
- From a researcher’s perspective, the interaction, questions and feedback from the general public can be extremely helpful to better estimate the impact and significance of their work.
- There are many facets that motivate a dialogue between research and society.
In Austria, on Friday, April 22nd 2016, there will be the “Lange Nacht der Forschung (LNF)” in Austria. Organised across the country, also in Salzburg, also at Salzburg Research. See http://www.langenachtderforschung.at/.
April 5th, 2016 Sigi Reich
The thesis entitled “GPS movement analysis: measurements, similarities and Patterns” by Peter Ranacher has recently been finalised (including a successful viva: congratulations!) and it is about the analysis of floating car data (FCD) in order to determine movement behaviour of cars and generate statements about the energy efficiency of trajectories. In short, can we – based on the analysis of movement alone – generate knowledge on the energy efficiency of that movement? We know for instance that sequences of speed-ups and brakings (what we call “stop and go traffic”) are not very energy efficient. Can we detect these sequences by looking at GPS points that we obtain from trajectories? Which other types can we find?
The research has been conducted at the doctoral college “GIScience” at the University of Salzburg and has been supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF).
Peter also recently won this year’s Science Slam in Salzburg: see this German Video on YouTube explaining in an easy to understand way what his research is about.
March 21st, 2016 Sigi Reich
According to Elke Brucker-Kley et al., every year some 3000 Swiss Facebook users die. The numbers for Austria will be similar (Note: this is a calculated number taking into account the distribution of Facebook users amongst the population and mortality rates).
So what happens to your data? Your identity? Your pay-pal balance? Your WoW high-score? Your 2nd-life avatar? The domains you own?
On Nov. 14, 2014, Salzburg Research organised a seminar on this subject (within the series “digital Leben by “Plattform Digitales Salzburg“). We invited Birgit Janetzky (Director of Semno, a company focusing on services for your digital heritage) and Dr. Gottfried Schachinger (notary in Salzburg) to discuss the aspects from a personal/practical point of view and from a legal perspective.
What I take from the discussion
- there is no clear majority concerning the question whether after your death all your digital traces should be eliminated or whether they should stay (so that you digitally live “forever”).
- most people do not prepare their passing: ideally you have defined – just like in any last will – what should happen to your accounts and belongs and practically you should allow and pass on the access to your accounts (e.g. by keeping a password list at your notary, …)
- this is helpful for your family members especially as the legal situation is not yet regulated properly
- meanwhile there are several services available, e.g. the Facebook memorial page, etc. or Services such as https://www.sichererabschied.eu/ or https://www.ifidie.org/ and many others
- Austria’s Internet service provider association (ISPA) has recently published a German brochure. See https://www.ispa.at/uploads/media/Digitaler_Nachlass.pdf
December 7th, 2014 Sigi Reich
At this year’s EARTO conference we (EARTO, Forschung Austria and Salzburg Research) organised a workshop on “new funding models for RTOs”. The idea behind the workshop was that governmental funding of (basic) research is on the decline. Philanthropists like Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Eric Schmidt, … appear on stage: but is Philanthropy in the age of the new economy an alternative for RTOs? Would they fund technological research? And, as tech giants like Apple or Intel grew with venture capital: what role does venture capital play in research funding?
Or, alternatively: what role can crowdfunding play in financing research (BTW, on March 27, 2014, the Commission released a communication entitled “Unleashing the potential of Crowdfunding in the European Union”).
In her initial presentation, Maria Khorsand, CEO of SP Technical Research Institute in Sweden talked about the “Funding model of the new ASTA ZERO” – this is a 50 Mio. EUR research & testing infrastructure that has been financed by government, research institutes and a loan. A complex untertaking!
Following on to that, Reinhard Willfort (via the voice of Georg Kalandra), Director ISN – Innovation Service Network in Austria spoke about “Crowdfunding & Crowdsourcing as alternative funding model”.
Questions we discussed
- especially with respect to open infrastructures: how can we make sure that there is no – or not too much – dependency and therefore influence between funding bodies and users?
- how do RTOs formally do with loans?
- is it possible to re-finance such huge infrastructures with projects? How can we charge costs to them?
- are RTOs ready for crowdfunding? Are they willing to share their ideas (and business models) openly?
- using crowdfunding, how can we still protect IPRs?
- would large RTOs be accepted by the crowd? I.e., wouldn’t the supporters expect someone with a garage rather than a Fraunhofer institute?
- will we be able to finance large infrastructures (like the 50 Mio. EUR ASTA Zero) through crowdfunding? (Note: right now, there are rather low funding limits for Austria and Germany)
- and many more!
Iñaki San Sebastian from Tecnalia did an excellent job as rapporteur.
May 11th, 2014 Sigi Reich
At Salzburg Research, together with ITG Salzburg, Neurovation and HTL Salzburg, we organized and realized a project on crowd funding students’ innovation projects. See the (German) web-site at http://www.salzburgresearch.at/presseaussendung/crowdfunding-fuer-maturaprojekte-der-htl-salzburg/.
What is the basic idea?
Students in their school leaving examinations (“Matura”) often do smart projects that benefit from an early sharpening of their ideas and more importantly from donations and funding. Therefore, we thought that funding through the crowd, i.e., friends, family but also companies and the public, could help in realizing these often highly innovative projects; that sometime also lead to start-ups!
Now, here is an overview of the projects that emerged from HTL Salzburg: https://htl.neurovation.net/de/SNIP?backlink=de/competitions_all. Two of these projects realized the full funding they needed:
- Mona – a motorcycle navigation system using open street map. See https://1000×1000.at/htlsalzburg-mona
- CAS – a customizable audio system. See https://1000×1000.at/htlsalzburg-cas
February 20th, 2014 Sigi Reich
The new issue of HMD is out: it is on Human Computer Interaction, see http://www.dpunkt.de/hmdissues/294/. This special issue covers aspects such as 3D avatars, smart home, technostress, etc. and also strategic experience management, which IMHO is key due to its methodological approach to cover HCI.
And: it may be worth telling that after some 15 years, from 2014 onwards HMD moves from dpunkt-Verlag to Springer-Verlag. This has been an intensely discussed decision by the management board of dpunkt as well as the editorial board of HMD – I wish HMD all the success it needs in addressing the market of applied research in computer science publications!!!
December 8th, 2013 Sigi Reich
|Forschung Austria – Austria’s association for research and technology organisations (RTOs) – organised a workshop (“Arbeitskreis”) on digital identity at the Alpbach Technology Forum (Technologiegespräche), Friday, Aug.23, 2013.The workshop was moderated by Gerald Gross. We had several excellent people on the panel.|
Dr. Ganzger, a lawyer, started by outlining the legal aspects of one’s digital identity on the Internet. Pretty complex! The Internet has its (legal) regulations. However, there are many and diverse rights; they are interpreted sometimes differently; and of course they are diverging.
Lieutenant colonel Franz Lang argued about the (technical) complexity of digital traces, cybercrime, … He mentioned the simple mindedness of many on the Internet (Facebook Parties as one example, also the naming of a bridge after Chuck Norris in Lower Austria). In conclusion his message was/is: we need to strengthen education in Internet technologies/tools so that people are more proficient in handling Web 2.0 rather than defining rules.
Prof. Thomas Corsten then argued for historical perspectives on identity (starting on ancient Greece). In summary: there is no clear definition/picture on identities from a historical perspective. In particular, religion has a limited contribution to identity; language a bit more, but still it does not define identity.
Stefan Bumerl, CEO of Cryptas, then brought in the technical and business aspects of identity. There is a need for a well defined eco-system; and: concepts are one thing – for services to be accepted, users need a clear benefit.
Chancelor Faulhammer, Danube University Krems, introduced several examples where digital identity is brought to real-world services. E.g. e-voting, e-democrazy, etc.
Prof. Sebastian Eschenbach from FH-Burgenland, argued for different types of identity from a group’s perspective. His main argumentation: changes in identity are more driven by societal beliefs rather than (technical) tools.
Last but not least, Prof. Ivona Brandic from TU-Vienna, started introducing technical foundations that are necessary for managing (digital) identities and moved on the typical applications.
My personal conclusions:
- Just like you have several identities (or roles) in real life, you have that on the Internet as well.
- In addition to that, you have various levels of trust: online bank services need to be treated differently to Facebook likes.
- Thus, there is tradeoff and/or a weighing of competing interests and values (“Güterabwägung”) with respect to the tools and methods chosen.
- Technologies and concepts in the digital world are changing so fast that you may not rely on rules. Rather education plays an increasingly important role.
August 25th, 2013 Sigi Reich
… from a talk by Richard Gutjahr (see http://gutjahr.biz) held quite a while ago at the 9th Medientag, Salzburg. He argued that many broadcast organisations think they have understood that – in contrast to earlier days – there now is a backchannel from their customers (via interactive TV-boxes, for instance). In the animated figure below, this would be the difference between (1) and (2).
However, in reality the users interact much more between themselves (via social media such as twitter, facebook, etc.) and they do not need the link to the broadcasters (any more). See step (3) in the figure below. Hence, the broadcasters are somewhat out of the game.
February 22nd, 2013 Sigi Reich