Complexities in the Gleick Reading: 9-27-2013

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.

I enjoy figuring out how things work. I enjoy tinkering with machines to make them work better, or at least work again if they are already broken or problematic. I think part of being a tinkerer is to recognize what you are capable of, and what is "over your head". For example, I do not completely understand how capacitors on a circuit board work. To me, they are "instant-discharge batteries that have some magic chemicals inside them that hold and discharge electricity". I could not build you a new capacitor. However, I understand enough about them to know what they do, generally how they work, how to identify a bad one, and, most importantly, how to be safe around them. 

When Gleick starts explaining the mathematical formulas for the basic units of meaning, I admit that that information is over my head. I have no idea how that equation works. I proved way back in grammar school that my head was not designed to hold or process numbers and equations. I can't do math. However, that doesn't mean I disregard it. I may not fully understand how Hartley's equation works, nor do I understand how Hartley arrived at that equation. However, I do understand that Hartley's equation works, and I understand what it does, much like that capacitor on the circuit board. I couldn't build you a similar equation, but, if trained, I could learn to apply the current one. 

When it comes to tinkering, I've found that I learn best by doing. I came to understand how computers work by removing viruses and messing around in my Windows registry. I came to understand how basic programming is done by taking a Python coding class. Was I good at coding? No. Did that class help me understand the concept of coding? Yes. I learned about bandwidths, audio feedback, and over-modulation from working sound crew at church and other live events, and from converting old tapes to mp3 for friends. I learned about the difference between AC and DC electricity, short circuits, and voltage vs. amperage, along with numerous other handy skills, from my model railroading hobby. I don't know all the equations relating to voltage and amperage, but I do understand how to two work, and how they're related to each other. I guess you could say I have a practical understanding of the world around me, rather than an abstract one.

As the old saying goes. Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from having bad judgement. I've messed up a fair amount of projects, but each experience has led me to (in most cases) do better on the next project. Part of understanding is recognizing what you will never quite "get", and getting a "good enough grip" on that material so as to be able to apply your knowledge practically.

Railroad Time; Moving Information versus Things

Prompt: 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.

Railroads & Timezones:

I can't remember for sure which book I read this in. I seem to recall that it was an antique book of mine titled “Railroads”, but I do not have the book with me, and finding any reference to it online is near impossible with such a vague, general title. Anyhow, the description of the invention of time zones ran something like this;

You are traveling across the U.S. By train, starting a new life in the open West. While the trip lasts a mere ten days now, rather than a grueling 6 months, you are still exhausted from your travel. You lean back and take a nap on your wooden bench as you roll down the line.

Some time later, you awake, and ask what time it is. The German immigrant across from you looks at his watch. “9 o'clock” by my watch he says”. The New Yorker in the seat behind responds “2 PM”.

You look out the window, and notice that it appears to be high noon. Confused, yes?

The railroad allowed such ease and speed of movement across land that it became necessary for time zones to be put in place. Noon in Arizona happens after Noon in New York and before Noon in Oregon. This, of course, would wreak havoc with train schedules, which depended on strict adherence to a “timetable”, a set of company-issued times that certain trains were supposed to occupy certain tracks. Confusion of times would result in, at the very least, delays, and at the worst, a “cornfield meet” (a.ka. Head-on collision). In America, this led to the introduction of five different time zones.

While Gleick barely touched in the subject, other countries, such as England, opted for a standard system-wide time for the entire rail system, with that electric telegraph clock being used to standardize clocks across the system, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_time, making “railroad time telegraphic time” in England. In the U.S., however, telegraph operators in one time zone would have to recall the difference in time when sending messages to another time zone, thus making telegraphic time dependent on railroad time.

Moving: Information v. Things

One could argue that the point of moving information is to change and affect how things move. People post ads on Craigslist to get rid of possessions and get money. Election ads move people in or out of office. Take a look at any online shopping page such as Amazon.com. Photos, buyer reviews, item descriptions, cost savings, shipping addresses, and all the rest, all to encourage you to buy a product or two. From these observations, one could draw two conclusions. 1. Information is a whole lot cheaper and easier to move than plain objects. Look at how much code appears on one Amazon.com product page in order to sell one product. Information is cheap and necessary to move product. 

It would also seem obvious that moving objects is a concrete, set-in place system that people don't really care about as long as their order shows up within a week. People don't want to wait for information, however. We want that music now. We need to read that text message during class. We can't wait 30 seconds (anymore) for a webpage to open, and if I don't find it on Google in 2 minutes, it doesn't exist. We are always looking for new ways to get information. We used to wait for both information and physical objects because information was sold on physical objects. “I'll wait for it to come out on VHS”, “I only get the Sunday newspaper”, “I'll borrow that book from a friend next week”. We want more and more information and we want it faster and faster, but, usually, we are fine with choosing the cheap (read: slow) shipping option when we order something. Why is that? I do not know for sure.

Lack of Creativity, or Loss of Freedom?

Prompt: "What are the most important "harms" that you, personally, see facing the ways intellectual property operating today, and how are those different from or similar to the harms faced by previous generations?"

While Lessig continuously warns of and mourns over the loss of general creativity in our culture, I think that the general loss of creativity is only part of the problem. Honestly, I see this domineering over the people by the major corporations and the government as a forerunner of the type of world we see in Fahrenheit 451, the Hunger Games series, and even the reality of the Soviet Union. We are not so much suffering a lack of creativity (there is plenty of that out there, just underground), we are suffering a lack of control over our own lives, a lack of freedom. In the end, the only way that freedom is bought back is with the sacrifice of innocent blood. It will be America's second war for Independence.

In previous generations while the major corporations often had unfair control over a market, as evidenced in the Armstrong vs. RCA battle, the key feature that allowed the individual to succeed was the fact that the government and the corporations couldn't monitor the individual's actions 100% of the time. Now, with modern technology, “big brother” can, and likely does, always watch. Your everyday action on a networked device can be monitored, and the possible consequences of such a world have perhaps been foreshadowed by the “Bourne” movies.

 I do not think that our “lack of creativity” is the most important thing to be worried about. I think, rather, that this unfair, unjust over-regulation of our society is merely a symptom of the larger problem at hand. Perhaps the American people will rise up and fight for their rights. Judging by the example of the Occupy Wall Street “protests” (where the protesters sat around on their hands and did nothing), I rather doubt it. Even if everyone stopped using existing content owned by the major corporations, I am sure those corporations would stop at nothing to manipulate us to ensure their own survival. 

 Eng 356: Blog Post 2

The Politics of Copyright

 

I do not believe Lessig can be labeled as a copyright communist. Gates recognizes that people who create quality art and work often need an incentive, and often that incentive is money. Meanwhile, Lessig believes an environment where new ideas and innovations are chocked out by the government and other “powers that be” is a form of communism in and of itself. Lessig doesn’t say that having copyright law is bad. He says that the current way that copyright law is used is bad. Lessig could be defined as a Copyright Liberal. Copyright law should exist, but it and the way it is used needs to change. aSpeaking of definitions, here’s the way I’ve defined the various political views on copyright.  

A Copyright Communist believes that any and all creative work belongs to the public upon creation. If you have an idea, anyone and everyone is free to take that idea and copy it, improve upon it, build, sell, distribute, or give it away themselves. Ideas and creativity are not proprietary. I think a large number of young digital natives, such as the kinds you see on internet forums, galleries, and video websites act like copyright communists, though perhaps hypocritically. They seem to feel fine using copyrighted material in their own creations, but often become infuriated if someone else rips off of their ripped off material.

A Copyright Liberal believes that a person, within reason, has a right to profit off of their creativity. A copyright liberal would likely be fine with the eventual moving of intellectual property into the public domain, but would be willing to shift, rewrite, and update copyright law to better reflect the changes that modern technology has brought about. I think the leaders of the Creative Commons movement would be classified here. The individual can profit for a time, but if they do not wish to profit, they may share their work freely.

A Copyright Conservative believes that the current copyright law ought to be followed. Copyright law might need to be updated, but if change does come, it needs to come slowly and cautiously. Based on the interview in the prompt, I believe Bill Gates would be classified as a Copyright Conservative.

A Copyright Fundamentalist believes that current copyright law should be followed down to the last letter. After all, why have a law if it isn't used? Attorneys working for major corporations are paid to be copyright fundamentalists, since the smallest jot or tiddle of the law can decide whether a corporation wins or loses a fortune.

Copyright Libertarians may be the hardest to define. I suppose they are the anarchists of copyright. To a copyright libertarian, I suppose there should be no copyright laws. They go a step beyond the copyright communist. A copyright communist believes that copyright belongs to the public. The copyright libertarian believes there is no public for the copyright to belong to. If you come across intellectual property, you can do whatever you wish with it. Fortunately, it seems that this category is fairly uncommon. I honestly cannot think of someone who would hold this position.