Pengaruh Industri Media Nasional terhadap Media Warfare

Kesulitan mendapat informasi valid yang terdukung dengan banyaknya kasus fake news (berita bohong) berdampak pada meningkatnya potensi ancaman media warfare. Bentuk media warfare di Indonesia saat ini sudah nyata dirasakan oleh masyarakat maupun pemerintah. Penelitian bertujuan untuk menganalisis sudut pandang stakeholder tentang pengaruh industri media nasional dalam ancaman media warfare. Penelitian ini menggunakan kualitatif fenomenologi yang digunakan untuk melihat sudut pandang tentang media warfare atau pengalaman narasumber yang merupakan stakeholder industri media. Kemudian proses analisis pada penelitian ini menggunakan framework analysis yang disebut hierarchy of influences. Hasil penelitian ini didapatkan sudut pandang stakeholder bahwa social system terpengaruh akibat kehadiran industri new media dan industri media asing, sementara keterlambatan extramedia menyusun regulasi berdampak negatif pada lingkungan. Lingkungan ini menyebabkan organization internal media, kebutuhan media routines, dan kualitas individuals media ikut terpengaruh. Pada fenomena media warfare ini, Industri media nasional yang harus menyadari kepentingan stakeholder internal maupun eksternal sementara para stakholders internal dan eksternal juga harus mampu berkoordinasi untuk menyusun regulasi sehingga bisnis dapat stabil dan meningkatkan kecerdasan masyarakat

CTX (Combating Terrorism Exchange), v.3:3

AUGUST 2013 | From the Editor: Elizabeth Skinner | About the Contributors | Image Credits | When the Goldfish meets the Anaconda: A Modern Fable on Unconventional Leadership: Colonel Imre Porkoláb | Incentivizing Cooperation in Afghanistan: MAJ Greg Merkl, US Army | Estonia's Forest Brothers in 1941: Goals, Capabilities, and Outcomes: Captain Olavi Punga, Estonian Army | The Strategy and Activity of the Forest Brothers: 1947–1950: Colonel Martin Herem, Estonian Army | Cutting the Link Between Illegal Drugs and Terrorists: LTC Kashif J. Khan, Pakistan Air Force and Police Chief Inspector Olcay Er, Turkish National Police | Human Rights as a Weapon of Terrorists: LTC Jorge Galindo Cardenas, Colombian Army | CTAP Interview: LTC Ramey Wilson, U.S. Army: Interviewed by: LTC Kashif J. Khan, Pakistani Air Force | Ethics and Insights: George Lober | JSOU Publication

EVALUATING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR OPERATIONS IN THE INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) portend a future of accelerated information cycles and intensified technology diffusion. As AI applications become increasingly prevalent and complex, Special Operations Forces (SOF) face the challenge of discerning which tools most effectively address operational needs and generate an advantage in the information environment. Yet, SOF currently lack an end user–focused evaluation framework that could assist information practitioners in determining the operational value of an AI tool. This thesis proposes a practitioner’s evaluation framework (PEF) to address the question of how SOF should evaluate AI technologies to conduct operations in the information environment (OIE). The PEF evaluates AI technologies through the perspective of the information practitioner who is familiar with the mission, the operational requirements, and OIE processes but has limited to no technical knowledge of AI. The PEF consists of a four-phased approach—prepare, design, conduct, recommend—that assesses nine evaluation domains: mission/task alignment; data; system/model performance; user experience; sustainability; scalability; affordability; ethical, legal, and policy considerations; and vendor assessment. By evaluating AI through a more structured, methodical approach, the PEF enables SOF to identify, assess, and prioritize AI-enabled tools for OIE.Outstanding ThesisMajor, United States ArmyApproved for public release. Distribution is unlimited

Technology campuses and cities:

This thesis examines the development of technology campuses as built environments and their role  in stimulating innovation. Technology campuses entail a variety of built environments developed to accommodate technology-driven research activities of multiple organisations. The science park is the most common type of technology campus. Other types include the campuses of universities  of technology and corporate R&D parks.In industrialised countries, the demand for developing  technology  campuses  to  stimulate innovation has been growing in line with the attention given to knowledge in global, national and regional policies. There are over 700 technology campuses worldwide occupying hundred thousands  of hectares in- and around cities. This type of built environments have emerged and developed during critical periods of technological advancements throughout the 20th century, to support technology-based development in industrialised countries. With the adoption of the knowledge- based economy, governments in many countries have encouraged research as an essential activity in their science, technology and innovation policies. The infrastructure that supports research is also gaining momentum. The number of registered science parks is steadily increasing since the late 1990s. The number of programmes supporting research infrastructure is growing in the European policy agenda. Municipalities are formally engaged with other public and private parties in the development of urban areas targeted to stimulate innovation. Governments, universities and R&D companies are investing billions of euros in developing the infrastructure that will not only support their core processes, but will help them to remain competitive by attracting and retaining the best talent. Part of these investments are targeted to develop new buildings or entire areas that often result in campuses as we know them: a concentration of buildings accommodating organisations, people, and their activities in a (green) field.The assumption that the concentration of research activities in one location stimulates innovation is promoting the development of technology campuses in many places. However, the  capacity  of these built environments to support the different processes associated with innovation is not well understood – i.e. Technology campuses are urban areas in the inner city and peripheral locations that have the capacity to support the processes of knowledge creation and diffusion, as well as of attracting and retaining knowledge workers. The existent knowledge about the relationship between the built environment and innovation at the area level is limited. This knowledge gap may lead to inefficient use of the resources employed to develop technology campuses including capital, land, and time. Also, this lack of understanding can have the opposite effect, because technology campuses could easily become problematic areas dealing with vacancy, poor spatial quality, and connectivity issues frustrating the societal goal of attracting and retaining talent in the knowledge economy. A potential way to address these problems is outlining the ways in which the built environment stimulates innovation in technology campuses.In this context, this research addresses as main question ‘How does the built environment stimulate innovation in technology campuses?’ This research is grounded in the field of corporate real estate management and its theoretical assumption that the built environment is a resource managed to support the goals of organisations. Research in this field has focused on the practice of real estate management from the end user’s view. Campus development is a comprehensive form of this practice, because it deals with activities that vary from developing real estate strategies, developing building projects, up to maintaining and managing the portfolio of an organisation. The relationship between innovation and the built environment has been addressed before in theories of corporate real estate management in a broad sense. Empirically, this has been explored on the supply side at the level of the workplace rather than at the urban scale. Although the contemporary discussion of innovation in complementary research fields focus on the urban level. Onthe demand side, the involvement of public and private parties in the development of these areas moves forward the organisational scope in corporate real estate management beyond the end-users in large scale built environments.This research provides an understanding of the relationship between the built environment and innovation at the area level. This research developed knowledge clarifying such relationship in the form of a conceptual model and recommendations for practitioners involved in the practice of campus development. This knowledge developed mainly throughout an inductive approach in two core studies. The first study is an exploratory research that uncovers and positions the link between innovation and the built  environment  by  using  inputs  from  theory  (literature  review) and empirical evidence (qualitative survey of 39 technology campuses). In this stage, the link between innovation and the built environment is provided in a form of a conceptual framework containing the proposition that the built environment is a catalyst for innovation. The second study is an explanatory research that clarifies the relationship between innovation and the built environment based on empirical evidence in the practice of campus development (theory building from case studies). In this stage, the theoretical constructs of the conceptual framework are applied and revised through the in- depth study of two cases in particular contexts (i.e. High Tech Campus Eindhoven in the Netherlands and the Massachusetts Institute of technology campus in the United States). As a result, the preliminary knowledge from the exploratory research was developed into a conceptual model bearing  a hypothesis and five propositions closely linked to empirical evidence.The answer to the main research question is that the built environment is a catalyst for innovation in technology campuses demonstrated by location decisions and interventions facilitating five interdependent conditions required for innovation. The following propositions explain how the built environment facilitates each of the five conditions for innovation: Location decisions and area development facilitate the long-term concentration of innovative organisations in cities and regions. Interventions enabling the transformation of the built environment at area and building levels facilitate the climate for adaptation along changing technological trajectories over time. Large-scale real estate interventions facilitate the synergy among university, industry and governments. Location decisions and interventions supporting image and accessibility define the innovation area by emphasising its distinct identity, scale and connectivity features. Real estate interventions enabling access to amenities increase the diversity of people & chances for social interaction regardless the distinct geographical settings in which the concentration of innovative activities takes place. This research acknowledges that the location decisions of some technology-driven organisations have coincidentally determined the concentration of innovative research activities in  particular  places.  Over the years, the accommodation of  the  research  activities  of  these  organisations  has  co-  evolved  with  particular socio-economic processes in their hosting cities creating unique conditions for innovation. The concentration of innovative organisations can be considered as  a  primal  condition enabling the co-existence of the other four conditions for innovation. Similarly,  this  research acknowledges the following interventions facilitating conditions for innovation at the area level and depending on the   particular location characteristics in which each campus has developed: Transforming areas through urban renewal and redevelopment, Building, adapting and re-using flexible facilities, Implementing the shared use of facilities accommodating different functions and users, Developing physical infrastructure enabling access to amenities and connection between functions Developing representative facilities and area concepts that support image. The empirical evidence supporting the propositions in the model is structured and converted into information available to decision makers involved in the development of technology campuses in the form of tools. The so-called ‘campus decision maker toolbox’ provides instruments that can guide planners, designers and managers during different stages of campus development. The tool for planners comprises campus models to frame the campus vision during the initiation of the campus based on location characteristics. The tool for designers consists of alternatives to enhance the  campus brief during the preparation of the campus. And the tool for managers contains an information map to steer the campus strategy during the use of the campus.This knowledge contributes to the existing understanding of  the  relationship  between  innovation and the built environment in theory and practice. In theory, this research adds to existing theoretical concepts connecting the fields of corporate real estate management, urban studies in the knowledge- based economy and economic geography. The conceptual model proposed a new combination of existing theoretical concepts addressing a new way to look at the relationship between innovation and the built environment. In practice, this understanding is expected to encourage the efficient and effective use of the many resources required to develop technology campuses. Particularly, by providing information that can help decision makers to steer such resources towards strategic decisions and interventions that -under certain conditions- facilitate innovation. The knowledge developed in this research clarifies a relationship between innovation and the built environment at urban area level, in which the built environment facilitates conditions for innovation

Technology campuses and cities

This thesis examines the development of technology campuses as built environments and their role  in stimulating innovation. Technology campuses entail a variety of built environments developed to accommodate technology-driven research activities of multiple organisations. The science park is the most common type of technology campus. Other types include the campuses of universities  of technology and corporate R&D parks.In industrialised countries, the demand for developing  technology  campuses  to  stimulate innovation has been growing in line with the attention given to knowledge in global, national and regional policies. There are over 700 technology campuses worldwide occupying hundred thousands  of hectares in- and around cities. This type of built environments have emerged and developed during critical periods of technological advancements throughout the 20th century, to support technology-based development in industrialised countries. With the adoption of the knowledge- based economy, governments in many countries have encouraged research as an essential activity in their science, technology and innovation policies. The infrastructure that supports research is also gaining momentum. The number of registered science parks is steadily increasing since the late 1990s. The number of programmes supporting research infrastructure is growing in the European policy agenda. Municipalities are formally engaged with other public and private parties in the development of urban areas targeted to stimulate innovation. Governments, universities and R&D companies are investing billions of euros in developing the infrastructure that will not only support their core processes, but will help them to remain competitive by attracting and retaining the best talent. Part of these investments are targeted to develop new buildings or entire areas that often result in campuses as we know them: a concentration of buildings accommodating organisations, people, and their activities in a (green) field.The assumption that the concentration of research activities in one location stimulates innovation is promoting the development of technology campuses in many places. However, the  capacity  of these built environments to support the different processes associated with innovation is not well understood – i.e. Technology campuses are urban areas in the inner city and peripheral locations that have the capacity to support the processes of knowledge creation and diffusion, as well as of attracting and retaining knowledge workers. The existent knowledge about the relationship between the built environment and innovation at the area level is limited. This knowledge gap may lead to inefficient use of the resources employed to develop technology campuses including capital, land, and time. Also, this lack of understanding can have the opposite effect, because technology campuses could easily become problematic areas dealing with vacancy, poor spatial quality, and connectivity issues frustrating the societal goal of attracting and retaining talent in the knowledge economy. A potential way to address these problems is outlining the ways in which the built environment stimulates innovation in technology campuses.In this context, this research addresses as main question ‘How does the built environment stimulate innovation in technology campuses?’ This research is grounded in the field of corporate real estate management and its theoretical assumption that the built environment is a resource managed to support the goals of organisations. Research in this field has focused on the practice of real estate management from the end user’s view. Campus development is a comprehensive form of this practice, because it deals with activities that vary from developing real estate strategies, developing building projects, up to maintaining and managing the portfolio of an organisation. The relationship between innovation and the built environment has been addressed before in theories of corporate real estate management in a broad sense. Empirically, this has been explored on the supply side at the level of the workplace rather than at the urban scale. Although the contemporary discussion of innovation in complementary research fields focus on the urban level. Onthe demand side, the involvement of public and private parties in the development of these areas moves forward the organisational scope in corporate real estate management beyond the end-users in large scale built environments.This research provides an understanding of the relationship between the built environment and innovation at the area level. This research developed knowledge clarifying such relationship in the form of a conceptual model and recommendations for practitioners involved in the practice of campus development. This knowledge developed mainly throughout an inductive approach in two core studies. The first study is an exploratory research that uncovers and positions the link between innovation and the built  environment by using inputs from theory (literature  review) and empirical evidence (qualitative survey of 39 technology campuses). In this stage, the link between innovation and the built environment is provided in a form of a conceptual framework containing the proposition that the built environment is a catalyst for innovation. The second study is an explanatory research that clarifies the relationship between innovation and the built environment based on empirical evidence in the practice of campus development (theory building from case studies). In this stage, the theoretical constructs of the conceptual framework are applied and revised through the in- depth study of two cases in particular contexts (i.e. High Tech Campus Eindhoven in the Netherlands and the Massachusetts Institute of technology campus in the United States). As a result, the preliminary knowledge from the exploratory research was developed into a conceptual model bearing  a hypothesis and five propositions closely linked to empirical evidence. The answer to the main research question is that the built environment is a catalyst for innovation in technology campuses demonstrated by location decisions and interventions facilitating five interdependent conditions required for innovation. The following propositions explain how the built environment facilitates each of the five conditions for innovation: Location decisions and area development facilitate the long-term concentration of innovative organisations in cities and regions. Interventions enabling the transformation of the built environment at area and building levels facilitate the climate for adaptation along changing technological trajectories over time. Large-scale real estate interventions facilitate the synergy among university, industry and governments. Location decisions and interventions supporting image and accessibility define the innovation area by emphasising its distinct identity, scale and connectivity features. Real estate interventions enabling access to amenities increase the diversity of people & chances for social interaction regardless the distinct geographical settings in which the concentration of innovative activities takes place. This research acknowledges that the location decisions of some technology-driven organisations have coincidentally determined the concentration of innovative research activities in  particular places. Over the years, the accommodation of  the  research  activities  of these organisations has co-evolved  with  particular socio-economic processes in their hosting cities creating unique conditions for innovation. The concentration of innovative organisations can be considered as a primal condition enabling the co-existence of the other four conditions for innovation. Similarly, this research acknowledges the following interventions facilitating conditions for innovation at the area level and depending on the particular location characteristics in which each campus has developed: Transforming areas through urban renewal and redevelopment, Building, adapting and re-using flexible facilities, Implementing the shared use of facilities accommodating different functions and users, Developing physical infrastructure enabling access to amenities and connection between functions Developing representative facilities and area concepts that support image. The empirical evidence supporting the propositions in the model is structured and converted into information available to decision makers involved in the development of technology campuses in the form of tools. The so-called ‘campus decision maker toolbox’ provides instruments that can guide planners, designers and managers during different stages of campus development. The tool for planners comprises campus models to frame the campus vision during the initiation of the campus based on location characteristics. The tool for designers consists of alternatives to enhance the campus brief during the preparation of the campus. And the tool for managers contains an information map to steer the campus strategy during the use of the campus. This knowledge contributes to the existing understanding of  the  relationship  between  innovation and the built environment in theory and practice. In theory, this research adds to existing theoretical concepts connecting the fields of corporate real estate management, urban studies in the knowledge- based economy and economic geography. The conceptual model proposed a new combination of existing theoretical concepts addressing a new way to look at the relationship between innovation and the built environment. In practice, this understanding is expected to encourage the efficient and effective use of the many resources required to develop technology campuses. Particularly, by providing information that can help decision makers to steer such resources towards strategic decisions and interventions that -under certain conditions- facilitate innovation. The knowledge developed in this research clarifies a relationship between innovation and the built environment at urban area level, in which the built environment facilitates conditions for innovation

VR Technologies in Cultural Heritage

This open access book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the First International Conference on VR Technologies in Cultural Heritage, VRTCH 2018, held in Brasov, Romania in May 2018. The 13 revised full papers along with the 5 short papers presented were carefully reviewed and selected from 21 submissions. The papers of this volume are organized in topical sections on data acquisition and modelling, visualization methods / audio, sensors and actuators, data management, restoration and digitization, cultural tourism

Improving Collection Understanding for Web Archives with Storytelling: Shining Light Into Dark and Stormy Archives

Collections are the tools that people use to make sense of an ever-increasing number of archived web pages. As collections themselves grow, we need tools to make sense of them. Tools that work on the general web, like search engines, are not a good fit for these collections because search engines do not currently represent multiple document versions well. Web archive collections are vast, some containing hundreds of thousands of documents. Thousands of collections exist, many of which cover the same topic. Few collections include standardized metadata. Too many documents from too many collections with insufficient metadata makes collection understanding an expensive proposition. This dissertation establishes a five-process model to assist with web archive collection understanding. This model aims to produce a social media story – a visualization with which most web users are familiar. Each social media story contains surrogates which are summaries of individual documents. These surrogates, when presented together, summarize the topic of the story. After applying our storytelling model, they summarize the topic of a web archive collection. We develop and test a framework to select the best exemplars that represent a collection. We establish that algorithms produced from these primitives select exemplars that are otherwise undiscoverable using conventional search engine methods. We generate story metadata to improve the information scent of a story so users can understand it better. After an analysis showing that existing platforms perform poorly for web archives and a user study establishing the best surrogate type, we generate document metadata for the exemplars with machine learning. We then visualize the story and document metadata together and distribute it to satisfy the information needs of multiple personas who benefit from our model. Our tools serve as a reference implementation of our Dark and Stormy Archives storytelling model. Hypercane selects exemplars and generates story metadata. MementoEmbed generates document metadata. Raintale visualizes and distributes the story based on the story metadata and the document metadata of these exemplars. By providing understanding immediately, our stories save users the time and effort of reading thousands of documents and, most importantly, help them understand web archive collections

VR Technologies in Cultural Heritage

This open access book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the First International Conference on VR Technologies in Cultural Heritage, VRTCH 2018, held in Brasov, Romania in May 2018. The 13 revised full papers along with the 5 short papers presented were carefully reviewed and selected from 21 submissions. The papers of this volume are organized in topical sections on data acquisition and modelling, visualization methods / audio, sensors and actuators, data management, restoration and digitization, cultural tourism

Cyber-Human Systems, Space Technologies, and Threats

CYBER-HUMAN SYSTEMS, SPACE TECHNOLOGIES, AND THREATS is our eighth textbook in a series covering the world of UASs / CUAS/ UUVs / SPACE. Other textbooks in our series are Space Systems Emerging Technologies and Operations; Drone Delivery of CBNRECy – DEW Weapons: Emerging Threats of Mini-Weapons of Mass Destruction and Disruption (WMDD); Disruptive Technologies with applications in Airline, Marine, Defense Industries; Unmanned Vehicle Systems & Operations On Air, Sea, Land; Counter Unmanned Aircraft Systems Technologies and Operations; Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the Cyber Domain: Protecting USA’s Advanced Air Assets, 2nd edition; and Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the Cyber Domain Protecting USA’s Advanced Air Assets, 1st edition. Our previous seven titles have received considerable global recognition in the field. (Nichols & Carter, 2022) (Nichols, et al., 2021) (Nichols R. K., et al., 2020) (Nichols R. , et al., 2020) (Nichols R. , et al., 2019) (Nichols R. K., 2018) (Nichols R. K., et al., 2022)https://newprairiepress.org/ebooks/1052/thumbnail.jp