Blog 5: Where I voluntarily make myself nuts, bit by byte.

Stock prompt: what is the most complex or difficult about the reading's references to Boole, Russell, Gödel, Maxwell, and others? Why is it challenging? What words or concepts in particular are problematic? I pose these questions because I know that difficulty is often a way in or point of access: if you figure out what's difficult about a text, you've figured out its problem. That lets you investigate the problem. If you're a designer, an artist, a videographer, a musician, or somebody who works in media other than text, I'd love to see how you'd represent and upload to your blog the most complex or difficult problem posed by Gleick.

So since the very first chapter of Gleick, Claude Shannon and his work has rather confused me. I've been struggling mainly with a single question: what exactly is a bit? How can information, which once could only be conveyed through physical or more direct means (a record for music, a letter for writing, paint for colors, or even a physical conversation) be somehow now portrayed through a mathematical code of 1's and 0's? 

I understand that Charles Babbage created the beginning of mechanized information, Ada Lovelace foresaw the future of mechanized information, and Claude Shannon played a huge role in the reality that is our digital forms of information today -- but I just don't understand the connections between binary, information theory, and everything we can gain from our computers and phones -- sound, images, text, etc.

I wish I could say that I successfully did my research and can now explain it all awesomely to you. But...not really. Don't get me wrong, I did my research--it just turns out, information theory isn't exactly something that can be understood in a day, especially by a rather technologically and mathematically illiterate person such as myself. However, I'll try lay out what I did understand from the reading, and what I have come to understand from my investigations: 

The comparison that helped me initially begin to understand what a bit is, is the description on page 174 of Gleick, comparing binary coding to logic: "As in logic, he saw that circuitry could make 'if...then' choices." This is basically what a single bit is: only capable of a if/then, yes/no sort of question/answer. A 1 represents an open circuit, or basically "yes," while a 0 represents a closed circuit, or "no."It's a very basic, electronic logic pretty much.  In it's simplest form, binary is more or less a digital maze for an electronic pulse, each binary code giving it varied commands. As more bits are added, the paths become more complex, like so:

 (Behold, a crappy image drawn far too late at night)

 Perhaps not the best illustration, since 1's and 0's are generally described as opened and closed circuits, but I feel like it shows how different binary combinations can lead to different paths, thus very different command executions. From what I've seen, it seems the more bits you have, the more complexity the code can offer, thus the more complex commands a programmer can give. The difference in what you can achieve between a single bit (a yes/no question), a byte (equal to 8 bits, and can create numbers from 0 to 255), to multiple bytes (30-90 bytes might equal a line of text), and beyond to megabytes, gigabytes, etc.

So more memory, more bytes, allows for more complex functions, such as sound, text, and color. The exact how it all works I think is the part that is beyond my current understanding. I think part of it is where codes to extend binary further than numbers come in, such as ASCII, and the programming languages such as C++ and Java further help programmers to be able to instruct computers without having to write out each individual 1 and 0.  I'm sure Claude Shannon's Information Theory would shed some light on the matter if, again, I had even remotely the brains and background to comprehend it. 

All in all? I admit that I didn't gain even remotely the even slightly comprehensive knowledge of the nitty-gritty of electronic information that I was hoping for, but it didn't take me too long into my research to realize that this was a hopelessly giant and highly technical subject to try to comprehend in a day. However, I do feel like my research has helped me to understand, just a little tiny bit (pun not intended?), the background of digital information. My investigation was a pretty interesting experience too -- interesting enough where I didn't just do the smart thing by dropping the subject and writing instead about telegraphs or telephones. If nothing else, I do feel like I understand my computer slightly better.

Also, I now have an even greater respect for the scientists, engineers, programmers, and mathmeticians who can fully understand this subject, because daaaaaaang: this is some complicated stuff right here. 

I'll leave you with some links that I thought were helpful for a layman like me:

Youtube: Computer Tutorial How Binary Code Works
A Binary Overview
More info on bits and bytes, and a little on ASCII
Webopedia entry on ASCII

Also, a shout-out to my brother, who has done some programming, and was able to tolerate my breath-taking ignorance long enough to give me a somewhat more knowledgeable perspective on computing languages.

Finally, I shall end with a fun fact: apparently if you type “binary” into Google, it will tell you that there are “About 0b1000001110011011011010000000 results.” Google humor strikes again!

Time, Convenience and Consequence: From the Railroad to the 3D Printer

Read Gleick 125-143, about early networks, and write a blog entry. If you want to write a stock answer the following question: Gleick writes early in the chapter that in 1849, "already railroad time was telegraphic time" (125). Why was this so? How did the invention of railroads lead to time zones? What are the implications of differences in the velocity and magnitude of transporting information and transporting things? Are those differences today getting larger or smaller, and what do you see as the effects of that trend? Find at least one Web link that supports your opinion and quote it and link to it in your blog post.

In my own opinion, the reason that our consideration of time changed with the invention of railroads was due to the speed of travel and the ease you could now reach destinations that might have once taken a day to travel. With this invention, you could go from one town to another with ease, but then the problem arose of standardizing time – on one hand, the speed and regularity of trains made it easier to arrange to see people in other towns, but without a standardized form of time you still couldn’t really make an exact appointment. For example, a clock in person A’s town might say his train will arrive in person B’s town at 2:40, but when he got there, person B’s clock might say 3:13. Might as well just say “I’ll see you…at some point this afternoon, hopefully.” Standardizing time with the invention of the railroad solves this problem.

In terms of the velocity and magnitude of transporting information and things: at one point they were equal, both things and information could only travel as fast as the person delivering them. But information developed an advantage of speed after awhile, as early as the fire beacons during the Trojan war – a coded message is weightless, and can travel much faster and farther than a person carrying a physical object. 

Over time, the velocity and magnitude of both information and things has increased steadily, but I say that information still has the advantage over physical things, and the difference between the two continued to grow over time. Take the telegraph vs. the railroad for example – both were phenomenal breakthroughs in the fields of delivering information and things, but the telegraph had the advantage I think in both speed and magnitude. And if we look at today’s technology, this difference is even more apparent: For example, if I ordered an item from China on Amazon, I could have it in about two weeks or so. Pretty impressive, but not nearly as instantaneous as the email notification I received from the company to inform me that my order was placed. 

However, I hypothesize that the size of the difference between the velocity/magnitude of delivering information and things has reached its peak, and now the gap will begin to grow smaller, and that the delivery of physical objects will grow to become quicker while the delivery of information stays more-or-less the same. 

One supporting idea for this hypothesis can be seeing in the recent craze for developing 3D printing. Ordering items could one day be as simple as placing an order from your computer/smart phone/talking watch/whatever, and then instantly being able to print the item from your own printer. 

The velocity and magnitude of 3D printing, if it could ever become a commercial technology for the common consumer, would be fantastically convenient. However, already people are considering the potential dangerous consequences of 3D printing, such as the danger of being able to print weapons. The Department of Homeland Security feels that the ability to 3D print guns would be difficult to control access to, and impossible to regulate. (Source) 

Like with digital music and information, because this would be such a strange and new way of being able to access physical items, no one is quite sure how to regulate it yet. Unlike if someone illegally downloads a song though, there could potentially be quite dangerous consequences to the wrong person printing a gun. So it seems that this particular method of increasing the convenience of transporting physical items should be treated with more caution than increasing the convenience of delivering information.

Open Source Textbooks: A Crack in Knowledge Cartels? Or are they Too Big to Break?

As we watched "Ending Knowledge Cartels" in class today, I suddenly remembered a conversation I had with my aunt roughly a year ago, regarding a project that our state was doing that was creating open source courses. I wondered, what ever happened to that project? What was it anyway?

Some Googling later, I believe the program she was referring to was opencourselibrary.org. Opencourselibrary.org is a program funded by the state of Washington, as well as by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. What the program basically does is it provides Creative Commons (specifically share-alike) sources to the top 81 most enrolled community college classes in this state. These sources range from completely free to a $30 maximum.

At first glance, the program seems to be something like a dream. Students can save themselves a ton of money by using these sources; projections say that if this program were to be adopted statewide, Washington students as a whole could save a whopping $41.6 million annually. While the writer of the study admits that the chances of the program being adopted statewide is low, even a partial adoption of this program would relieve many a financial burden for students. The same study estimated that the annual savings for students of one department in one community college could add up to $223,791.46. (Source)

The authors of these free sources wouldn't be losing out either. The authors of the works used (selected through a competitive process), were compensated through grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

But one thing really bugged me as I was reading about this program: this project was launched in October 31, 2011; within 11 days of its launch, the site saw 10,000 visitors. In the beginning of 2013, the amount of courses offered, these courses being the top community college courses, raised by 39, taking it from 42 to 81. It all sounds very promising, and yet...why have I heard almost nothing of this? Except for a coversation with my aunt (who worked in the education field), I had heard nothing. Even as I was looking up resources for writing this blog, it was hard to find sources that dated past early 2012, despite 39 more courses being added to the program in early 2013.

The latest source I found was an online article from May of 2013, and the author's wording made it sound like he was not in favor of the program, or hesitant at best. Why? Well, the author does raise a very good point: without the power and backing of the big publishing companies, these Creative Commons authors don't have the same resources, and therefore credibility, as the big textbook manufacturers. Opencourselibrary.org's sources are usually semi-formal documents published through Google docs -- I'm sure the content was sound, but in my mind, I just didn't find them as reassuring as most of my own current, if woefully overpriced, textbooks. The author of this dissenting article, "A Web raid on traditional higher ed" fears that cheaper alternatives like opencourselibrary.org will drive out the "expensive but irreplaceable educational experiences" that are our traditional textbooks.

The author doesn't completely disapprove of open source resources, but only advises that we be cautious. He feels that our goal should be "to ring in the best of the new – without ringing out the unique value of the old." Ideally, this would mean that these forward-thinking publishers should team up with the publishers of old to create resources for students that are both cheap and credible. The problem is though, I imagine with the intellectual monopoly that big textbook publishers currently have, resources like opencourselibrary.org will likely not have an easy time seeking a partnership with them.

So what will become of providers of educational CC sources, such as opencourselibrary.org? I don't know if I see them causing the big revolution in educational resources that my aunt was hoping for. At this time, in my opinion, the outlook looks bleak for them -- big publishers just have too much of a knowledge monopoly for them to crumble over smaller, if forward-thinking, companies like this.

The only way I could see this possibly changing is if this program can get a little less unknown (outside of the educational field), and for the common man to stage a rebellion, not unlike Dave Parry's recommended 10 steps to rock the knowledge cartels. Perhaps then, and only then, would textbook publishers feel enough pressure to work to create products that would benefit the students and the universities they attend, instead of primarily themselves. Maybe.

Read more here: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/opinion/2013/05/06/a-web-raid-on-traditional-higher-ed/#more-16041#storylink=cpy

Sampling and Science -- Could it Benefit Us?

I've technically already posted a blog for this week, but I really wanted to cover this area. However, if we've doing blog readings in class again, I recommend going to the post below this one, as that is the shorter one. However, I feel that this post will be more awesome. :p 

Also, in case it's not obvious, my posts are freestyle rather than following the prompt.

Apparently my version of becoming more concise is dividing up my ramblings into two separate blog posts. But anyway:

Since I’d like to keep my blog posts somewhat multi-modal, I’d also like to talk about a different kind of sampling—not of music, but of speeches and documentaries. This was briefly touched on in the video, but I’d like to go a bit more in-depth into it. 

Going back to my list of favorite YouTube artists, I'd like to focus on the user melodysheep, aka John Boswell (who apparently is from our lovely state--had no idea until writing this!) and particularly his Symphony of Science videos. "Symphony of Science" is basically original music, paired with samplings of scientists and speakers of various science documentaries, presentations, and interviews, that are autotuned to match the music.

Melodysheep has occasionally run into some issues with copyright, most notoriously for the use of one of the most well-known people to popularize science, Carl Sagan. Despite that Sagan's son loves the project, some of the current copyright holders had objections to the use of Sagan in these videos. Thankfully the copyright holders of Sagan's work are a little less uptight than some of the previous examples we've seen -- no one is getting sued, threatened, or downtrodden, and melodysheep is allowed to keep previous videos using Sagan's image and words on his channel, he is just currently forbidden from using Sagan in his newer works. Though rumor has it that negotiations are ongoing, and perhaps permission will one day be granted. (I've read all of this from comments from the user himself, but unfortunately it was long enough ago that I can't find the sources. Ah, sorry!)  I do hope Carl Sagan returns to "Symphony of Science," because there are many, myself included, who particularly love Sagan's incredibly poetic way of explaining science.

But what if melodysheep had been shut down completely, and forced to remove all of his videos containing copyrighted content? I feel like this would have been a great loss in many ways. 

Besides the songs themselves being enjoyable (in my opinion), I feel like they contribute something to the scientific community and to the public as a whole. Now am I going to learn any complex scientific theories from these songs? Nah. This is a tablespoon helping at best when it comes to concrete knowledge. However, what these videos do very well is present science in a very different light than many of us have seen it. 

To use my experience, in high school my thoughts towards science was probably average: kind of dull, occasionally some fun experiments, but otherwise nothing really interesting. Just another school subject that I had to learn enough about to pass my classes.

Music has always been a strong part of my existence though, so when I heard science put to song about two years after I graduated high school, I had a complete paradigm shift. At my first listen, I was giggling at how nerdy it was to put science documentaries to music, but then I gave it another listen, and I realized how incredibly poetic science could be. It's not all lab coats, dullness, and students being bored out of their minds. In these videos I saw sides of science I'd never seen before -- creativity, enthusiasm, and just the simple beauty and awe of the world around us. Not just through the music, but through the words and genuine enthusiasm of the orators themselves, and how these words had been combined into this one project.

I ended up looking up some of the documentaries that were sampled, and asking questions about myself, the universe, and existence as a whole that I'd never asked before -- that was definitely an interesting time for me! I definitely found myself wishing I'd paid more attention to my science classes in high school, and when I took astronomy last Fall, I definitely threw myself into it with an enthusiasm I've never had before.

These videos, or videos like this, could be an incredibly powerful tool if presented to schools and students. If students younger than I could experience the paradigm shift I had when I was 20, then we maybe could see a rise of budding scientists -- definitely something we desperately need. 

The point is, once again, we could be potentially be losing something quite powerful if we allow copyrights to get too restrictive. Not only as musicians and listeners, but there are gems out there, despite being based from copyrighted material, could contribute for our culture and society as a whole. Encouraging collaboration, even regarding copyrighted works, gives us the freedom to expand on creations in new and unexpected ways that can create something quite wonderful that can touch and inspire some of us in a way that the original product may not have been able to.

Sampling -- there needs to be some wiggle-room

I was really interested in the movie we watched on Friday, regarding sampling music and its struggles with copyright holders. 

Personally I was especially interested in the idea of seeing sampled music as a tool from a toolbox. After all, you wouldn't sue a man who builds a shed for using a hammer to help him build it. Can the same mentality be applied to music?

It’s a different viewpoint of how I would have previously considered sampling music, but I think there’s a point to it – sampling a song is, in fact, very different than from posting a song as your own, or even doing a cover of it. You are not taking the composition as a whole, but using it to create an entirely different composition, and using other music as a sort of instrument or tool. 

Now I do agree that sample artists and/or songs should always be credited. But going back to my previous post about needing to leave musicians room for creativity; I’m not even sure how sampling is really even a bad thing? It’s not like the listener is getting the whole song, so you aren’t losing revenue. But if your work is credited, and the listener says “hey that one sample was really cool,” you might actually gain a few new listeners. I especially liked the idea of new musicians bringing back older music that might have lost its popularity, or exposing music to a different audience that it might not have considered before. 

Which is such a shame that people are trying to make the copyright laws stricter -- instead of crediting artists, some of the sampling artists we watched admitted that they were purposely trying to warp their samples so much that even the copyright holders wouldn't be able to recognize it. Instead of encouraging collaboration, we are only encouraging sneakiness. 

There’s another point to be considered when we think about sampling—accidents are bound to happen. By which I mean a musician is inevitably going to come up with a series of beats, a music phrase, or something of the kind that sounds EXACTLY LIKE that one bit in that other song. I remember my vocal coaching teacher telling me how she felt there was an Elvis song that had a few measures that sounded exactly like another song that was nothing like the Elvis song, I think it was something like an Italian aria that dated back hundreds of years ago. She said she was pretty much positive he didn’t intentionally copy it, the point she was trying to make is pretty much “nothing is original.” What happens when somebody sues another musician because they came up with a few beats that sound like your song, a song that the "stealing" musician may have never heard before, or never heard that often? That brings up the question of how much can you copyright? Can you copyright a rhythm? A musical phrase?  A specific two notes?

There could easily be a point where our concerns over sampling and taking credit for what is ours could throw copyright into a point of ridiculousness -- where we tried to hold on to things that anyone could easily, unintentionally, recreate. Since in some ways, copyright is getting stricter, rather than more open as the digital age blooms, we have to keep in mind that there are limitations to originality, and we have to allow some leeway.