Big data refers to the rising flood of digital data from many sources, including the Web, biological and industrial sensors, video, e-mail and social network communications. The emerging opportunity arises from combining these diverse data sources with improving computing tools to pinpoint profit-making opportunities, make scientific discoveries and predict crime waves, for example.

“Data, in my view, is a transformative new currency for science, engineering, education, commerce and government,” said Farnam Jahanian, head of the National Science Foundation’s computer and information science and engineering directorate. “Foundational research in data management and data analytics promise breakthrough discoveries and innovations across all disciplines.”

On Thursday, the National Science Foundation will announce a joint program with the National Institutes of Health seeking new techniques and technologies for data management, data analysis and machine learning, which is a branch of artificial intelligence.

It brought much-needed foreign income to the impoverished nation.

But it lost its lustre in the 1980s after synthetic materials like polythene and plastics were introduced.

Now the natural fibre has made a spectacular comeback.

Exports of jute and jute products from Bangladesh this fiscal year crossed a record billion dollars as demand for the natural fibre is steadily increasing.

With growing environmental awareness, jute, which is bio-degradable, has become the preferred alternative to polluting synthetic bags

Congratulations, Sriganesh and team.
.

According the LIRNEasia’s 2011 Telecom Regulatory Environment (TRE) survey, stakeholders in India, Pakistan and Indonesia have identified the telecom regulatory environments in their countries as improved since 2008, the last time the survey was carried out.   In contrast, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Philippines have seen the regulatory environments decline in effectiveness, while Thailandremains more-or-less the same.

The TRE Survey asks senior level stakeholders to evaluate the effectiveness of the telecom regulatory environment in the fixed, mobile and broadband subsectors along a Lickert scale of 1 to 5 (1 being highly ineffective and 5 being highly effective, with the mid-point of 3 being considered average performance).  Seven different dimensions of regulation (market entry, tariff regulation, interconnection, universal service, anti-competitive-practices, quality of service) are evaluated by the stakeholders.    This year, 349 responded participated in the 7 countries.

Within a country, scores for each of the dimensions reflect specific issues: for example, in India, the lowest score (of 2.3 out of 5) was received by the Access to Scarce Resources dimension in the mobile-sub-sector.  This is perhaps not surprising given the 2G scandals in India.  However, India did finally get around to allocating 3G spectrum in 2010, and did so by having its first ever spectrum auctions. Perhaps because of this, or because stakeholders believe that that the 2G scandal has finally paved way for transparency in allocation, the score of 2.3 this year is still an improvement, though marginal,  over the 2008 score of 2.2.   India’s USD 4 billion+ undisbursed Universal Service Fund and related policies are responsible for its biggest TRE score decline: the TRE for USO drops from 3.1 in 2008 to 2.4 this year.  In contrast, tariff regulation in the mobile sub-sector continues to be the top performer with a score of 3.9 out of 5.0, indicating stakeholder satisfaction at TRAI’s policy of forbearance which has enabled Indian consumers to enjoy extremely low prices thanks to competitive forces.

Pakistan saw an increased in almost all dimensions, with the exception of 3 (fixed market entry, mobile access to scarce resources and mobile interconnection) which showed minor declines.   In contrast, Bangladesh saw scores in all seven fixed-subsector dimensions decline, in some cases by as much as 1 point.  The scores are perhaps reflective of the issues related to the cancellation of several fixed licenses.  Overall only seven dimensions showed improvements in Bangladesh, and even these were marginal.   Thailand, whose overall performance is unchanged, has however seen significant declines in its Market Entry scores due the uncertainties caused by the concession contracts granted to the mobile operators and what their status would be when they expire starting next year.

Detailed analysis of the scores is available in the draft country reports for Pakistan, India, Thailand, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and Bangladesh.

A comparative country analysis is also available online.

All reports and analysis is in draft form at present. We hope you will comment on the country reports and cross country comparisons so that we may improve our analysis.

So computing does indeed have a role in fighting climate change, but that role mainly involves using computers in new ways, rather than making the machines themselves more efficient. It is time for the industry to start thinking outside the box, as it were.

Performing two Google searches from a desktop computer can generate about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle for a cup of tea, according to new research.

While millions of people tap into Google without considering the environment, a typical search generates about 7g of CO2 Boiling a kettle generates about 15g. “Google operates huge data centres around the world that consume a great deal of power,” said Alex Wissner-Gross, a Harvard University physicist whose research on the environmental impact of computing is due out soon. “A Google search has a definite environmental impact.”

I don’t want to waste too much time on this, but this kind of research makes two classic errors:  first, it does not assess the websearch in relation to whatever it replaces.  So a person doing product comparison on the web has to be compared with a person physically comparing prices in multiple shops, using walking, public transport, a Prius, a Ferrari, etc.   Obviously, the research will have a bigger carbon imprint than the search.

Second, this whole approach is Luddite, in that it does not account for the fact that we as humans need to do new and better things, rather than just do the same old, same old.   So even if the above opportunity cost problem is addressed, the fact that the Google searches may be improving the quality of the user’s life is not addressed.

By doing the research, the researcher is burdening Mother Gaia, by publicizing it the Times is burdening Mother Gaia, and by blogging about it I am really hammering her.  People who are into this line of thinking should consider low-carbon imprint ways of euthanising themselves.  Because, that, we can be sure, will have the lowest carbon imprint.

In this light, the SSRC organized pre-conference seemed an ideal academic event to attend after many years. I had attended many discussions on researc h in practice while in academia. There was a difference this time.

In 1993, for example, there was a memorable impromptu debate between Eli Noam and Tom Streeter about the efficacy of directly addressing policy makers/ regulators. Eli was of the opinion that it was effective provided it was done right. Tom and several others disagreed, claiming that the channels were rigged against all but powerful corporate interests. I recall this debate very clearly, because Eli, who in addition to his academic role at Columbia was at this time a Commissioner of the New York Public Service Commission, made me a prop in his argument, referring to an intervention that I had made before his Commission. He stated that coming out of the blue (Ohio to be precise), I had upset the well laid plans of some of the largest companies in the country with regard to telecom privacy rules . I was over the moon to get this certificate of efficacy from a Regulator.

However, I knew very well that my intervention had been effective mostly because Eli and his colleagues were primed to give weight to privacy concerns and that my intervention had given them a good opportunity. Two hands were needed for that particular act of clapping; both were not mine.

The debate then was between direct intervention (like mine) and indirect intervention through the media. Media coverage influenced policy makers while direct intervention did not, Streeter et al. argued. In our practice, we play both sides: direct intervention is the preferred mode, but we do believe there is a strong role of media, which constitutes the symbolic environment which our audiences lived in.

There was little discussion on these lines at the 2008 meeting. The focus was on activism: How could scholars communicate effectively to activists? How could they engage in research with activists? Should they become activists? And of course, there was the ritual grumbling about the failure of the university and its reward structure to provide incentives for activism or research of value to activists. There was also hope expressed that the discussion would be conducted in a park, instead of in the comfort of a conference hotel.

It made me wonder whether the Canadian and US societies had abandoned the center in the past 15 years, or whether it was simply a manifestation of the kind of people who attended these kinds of discussions. After all, in 1993, the organizers had rustled up real live regulators and policy makers like Eli Noam (there were a few others too). This time all they had for anyone connected to the policy process was me; and I had come on my own initiative, not because anyone had invited me. The problem, it seemed, had been defined by the organizers in the following fashion: research to activist groups to media to policy process.

Was this because there was too much research and too much information in the system? Direct communication would simply get drowned out, the implication seemed to be. It was only with the ability of activist groups to ratchet up the intensity of the communication, especially on the non-rational side (recall the anti WTO street protests), that change would occur. But are street protesters interested in research results or reasoned arguments in the first place? They are certain of the answers; why bother with evidence? Perhaps this is the larger and more productive challenge: getting activists to appreciate the value of evidence.

I talked about successes: not only about the changes we had made to Indian and Indonesian policies through proactive evidence-based interventions; but also about the successes achieved through the evidence-based but reactive and a bit more shrill intervention in the case of the regressive mobile tax in Sri Lanka last year. No one else did. It was all about inputs and processes and wishes and complaints. Perhaps it is considered immodest in these circles to talk about outcomes? Perhaps there were no outcomes that could be reported from the activist model?

May be actual changes in policy were not that important any more? The Chair of the group that I spoke in, Joe Karaganis of the SSRC, asked me whether we had any success in communicating research effectively to non-government actors (I paraphrase). I recounted the unintended consequence of shifting Sarvodaya from a sole focus on relief and recovery in relation to disasters to a broader focus on preparedness and risk reduction, in addition to relief and recovery. This is our long-haul project. We have changed minds, but we have still to get to a real result: given the difficulties of getting the sustainability phase of HazInfo up and running, we are still short on outcome.

Did I learn anything from the exercise? I have greater confidence in our approach. I am skeptical still about working through activists in a specialized area such as ours (where are these activists in Asia anyway?). Besides, I was not presented any evidence of the efficacy of this approach. I do hope that SSRC will keep this group of committed individuals focused on the prize of actually changing things in the real world. The tendency I have seen among NGOs in Asia to basically see communication among themselves and for themselves as an end in itself should be avoided at all costs. I wish this group success in their endeavors.