Showing posts with label Project Bamboo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Project Bamboo. Show all posts

Thursday, June 7, 2012

Transit

I rode my bike home from a post-work swim on Tuesday, taking my usual route. There was something unusual about the evening, however. With about an hour left until sunset, Venus was transiting the sun. I was wishing I'd planned ahead, but I hadn't: no pinhole projector, no "eclipse glasses," I was out of luck.

But wait! There on the corner of Fulton and Stuart I came upon an unexpected and welcome treasure: a fully equipped neighbor!

In their front yard, a couple I'd never met before had set up a pinhole projector using a camera tripod and a pair of binoculars to focus an image on a sheet of white foamcore. The foamcore was mounted on a small easel. "Can you see it?" I asked as I braked to a stop. They generously stepped aside so I could look for myself ... and there it was, clear as sunlight, a tiny black dot crawling across Sol's disc. Even better? They had a pair of "eclipse glasses," and permitted me a direct look. Three and a half hours after the photo in this post, taken in Minneapolis at 6:01 Central, Venus had moved diagonally down and to the right; but you get the idea, just about exactly.

Eerie. As in, chills up and down the spine eerie.

Not that the visual was anything intrinsically spectacular ... big orange circle, little black circle ... but knowing what I was looking at, knowing that it was a sight that will not recur in my lifetime (or yours if you're reading this the week it's posted!), knowing that the little black dot is a planet -- a planet! big! almost as big as Earth! -- really did give me chills, the sort that come when workaday preoccupation falls away and the scale of life, the universe, and everything becomes clear.

As I looked at Venus silhouetted against the sun through my neighbors' dark glasses, Scott Walker was holding onto his governorship in Wisconsin and Orly Taitz was going down to well-earned defeat in California. My apocalypse-facing blog post of the day before -- Human are like rats and cockroaches: the coming feudalism -- was clocking through its thirteen-hundred-somethingth page view where I'd cross-posted it on Daily Kos. A colleague's wife, who has worked at UC Berkeley's Space Sciences Lab for many years, was recovering from brain-surgery -- three weeks ago she had a seizure out of the blue and was diagnosed with stage 3 brain cancer. My mind was cluttered with ephemera about a grant proposal due in the middle of the month, a proposal that, if funded, will define my work life through 2014 (and keep me up more than a few nights if past performance is any indicator of future results). Earlier in the day I'd prepared a short story manuscript for e-publication (more on that in a week or two). The drain was running slow in our bathroom sink.

All that while the planet Venus made its stately way across our common sun, getting right smack between where we live and where our local star burns.

Bear with me as I digress further still.....

The Venus Tablet of Ammisaduqa is a bit of clay about 6-3/4 x 3-5/8 inches now housed in the British Museum. About twenty-seven hundred years ago, a scribe in Nineveh copied some astronomical records onto this bit of clay. At the time those records were already a thousand years old -- about the span of time between now and the Norman invasion of England back in 1066. The clay tablet records observations by Babylonian astronomers about where and when the planet Venus traveled through Babylonian skies over the course of twenty-one years. Nineveh, you may recall, was a city in what is now northern Iraq. It is best known to westerners as the "exceedingly great city" featured in the Old Testament book of Jonah, a city chock full of wickedness, spared divine destruction when its citizens repented. It happens I have a tenuous connection to scholarship of cuneiform tablets, grounded in a technologist colleague's involvement in a project to help Near Eastern Studies scholars at Berkeley and elsewhere to use social networking algorithms to map people and their social, familial, and professional relationships described in cuneiform corpora -- a mode of study called prosopography ... I gave a talk to a small workshop of cuneiform scholars in March 2010 about what the technology project I work on might do for them, eventually.

Is everything connected, or what?

So I've got all this time and space, transits and orbits, statewide elections and home plumbing problems, ancient history and present illness -- all these telescoping perspectives whirling around in my head as I'm straddling my bicycle, staring wonderstruck at the small black circle superimposed on the big orange circle.

A sound track is called for. And what does the internal DJ queue up?

Nope, not Smashmouth. Good guess, though.

Would it mark me as of a certain age, and a certain sort of sentimentalist, if I admitted it was Joni Mitchell's The Circle Game? 'Cuz, um, it was.


And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and down
We're captive on the carousel of time
We can't return we can only look
Behind from where we came
And go round and round and round
In the circle game

If nothing else, Tuesday evening proved I'm capable of thinking about something other than the end of the world, even if I do think about the end of the world more often than some.

Life's like that.


Thanks to Tom Ruen for the photo of this week's solar transit of Venus he posted to Wikimedia Commons; and to Fæ for the image of the Venus Tablet of Ammisaduqa. And to Joni Mitchell, which goes without saying.


Related posts on One Finger Typing:
Everything relates to everything else
Mental floss
Pacific coast watersheds

Monday, April 2, 2012

Google Translate, AI, and Searle's Chinese Room

You've probably heard one or another peppy manager-type or cleric or motivational speaker cite a particular nugget of ancient Far Eastern wisdom: a mysterious truth revealed by the etymological observation that Chinese words for "danger" and "opportunity" are the composite elements of the Chinese word for "crisis." That is, from a perspective allegedly implicit in the Chinese language, a crisis is both danger and opportunity.

The project on which I work for a living found itself at one of those is-the-crisis-danger-or-is-it-opportunity junctures last week. In an e-mail weighing in on a colleague's proposed path out of the thicket, I concluded with a mangled version of this etymologically suspect aphorism. I did excuse myself by noting the weak foundations of Ye Olde Orientalist Saying, but when I mentioned the e-mail to my Mandarin-speaking partner we dove into the Chinese more deeply. That's when things got interesting.

"Bring up Google Translate," my partner suggested. I did. And then he did a bit of typing into my web browser.

Now we could have just gone to Wikipedia's article, Chinese word for "crisis" ... where we learn that:
Chinese philologist Victor H. Mair of the University of Pennsylvania calls the popular interpretation of wēijī in the English-speaking world a "widespread public misperception." Mair argues that while wēi (危) does roughly mean "danger, dangerous; endanger, jeopardize; perilous; precipitous, precarious; high; fear, afraid" (as in wēixiăn 危险, "dangerous"), the polysemous jī (机) does not necessarily mean "opportunity." The compound noun jīhuì (机会) means "opportunity," but jī is only a part of it; jī has numerous meanings, including "machine, mechanical; airplane; suitable occasion; crucial point; pivot; incipient moment; opportune, opportunity; chance; key link; secret; cunning." More importantly, these are "secondary" meanings—according to Mair, jī only acquires the connotations of secondary meanings (such as "opportunity") when used in conjunction with another morpheme (in this case, in jīhuì); by itself, it does not necessarily have these meanings. Mair suggests that jī in wēijī is closer to "crucial point" than to "opportunity."

Though he's not a credentialed philologist, this is just about exactly how Matthew explained the loose construction of the "crisis = danger + opportunity" myth to me. But if we'd left it at that, I would have lost a chance to play interesting on-line games with Chinese characters.

Check it out.

First, we asked Google to translate the words danger and opportunity into simplified Chinese characters:



Then, we took the first character of each of the compounds returned by Google Translate, and used them as input to see how they translate back into English:



Neat, eh? You can try it in your own web browser, but if you don't care to and can't make out the fuzzy screenshots, the upshot is this:

  • take the first Chinese character of what Google Translate returns for "danger"
  • concatenate the first Chinese character of what Google Translate returns for "opportunity"
  • feed the resultant two characters into Google Translate and translate it back into English; the result is "crisis"

But that's just the start.

Because it was here that I flashed on a professor of philosophy from whom I took a course when I was an undergrad at UC Berkeley. Prof. John Searle had recently published his "Chinese Room argument" on the relationship between rule-driven manipulation of symbols (a.k.a. computation) and understanding; cf. "Minds, Brains and Programs" in Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

In the more than three decades since, Searle's argument has spawned a breathtaking span of debate on the relationship between syntax and semantics -- formal operations on language vs. meaning. A cleanly articulated 14,000 word summary of the give-and-take can be found on-line in David Cole's The Chinese Room Argument, published in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Here's the paragraph-length description of Searle's argument, from the introduction to Cole's SEP article:
The Chinese Room argument, devised by John Searle, is an argument against the possibility of true artificial intelligence. The argument centers on a thought experiment in which someone who knows only English sits alone in a room following English instructions for manipulating strings of Chinese characters, such that to those outside the room it appears as if someone in the room understands Chinese. The argument is intended to show that while suitably programmed computers may appear to converse in natural language, they are not capable of understanding language, even in principle. Searle argues that the thought experiment underscores the fact that computers merely use syntactic rules to manipulate symbol strings, but have no understanding of meaning or semantics. Searle's argument is a direct challenge to proponents of Artificial Intelligence, and the argument also has broad implications for functionalist and computational theories of meaning and of mind. As a result, there have been many critical replies to the argument.
This is a blog post, not a philosophical treatise, so I won't (foolishly) attempt to critique three decades of argument conducted by very, very smart people.

What I will say is that our Google Translate experiment demonstrated Searle's original point with searing immediacy. It was a you can do this at home moment.

Not only do I have no ability whatsoever as a Chinese philologist, I'm not even a Chinese speaker. Yet I easily followed (my partner's) English language directions about how to snip this or that character from a 'page' (result pane) out of a 'rule book' (Google Translate) to construct an apparently meaningful argument about the relations between Chinese words.

At the end of the exercise, I still didn't understand Chinese.

It's true that I can speak a few phrases of Mandarin. I learned them when I prepared for travel to China a couple of times over the past decade. I can say "yes" and "no" and "I don't want it" and "chili oil." I can count off a few numbers. The most complex statement that (a) I can speak in Chinese, and (b) is actually comprehensible to Chinese-speakers is this one:

我不会说汉语

Transliterated into Roman characters, this amounts to something like: "Wo boo hway shwo han yu."

Translated, it means: "I can't speak Chinese."

And there you have it.


Related posts on One Finger Typing:
Linguistics, semantics, pragmatics: words, meaning, and wacky translations
Translation 
Google yanks APIs, developers caught with pants around ankles
Are computer languages really languages?


Thursday, September 1, 2011

A lost midwestern pizza opportunity

Ian's Pizza by the Slice is an institution in Madison, Wisconsin -- or so it seems from half a continent away. In February, Ian's sent a stack of free pizzas to the State Capitol where citizens of Wisconsin were starting a long and dramatic siege. The issue? Governor Scott Walker's move to break labor unions through a budget proposal that eviscerated collective bargaining rights. The pizza joint's feed-the-masses gesture was live-blogged at 3:26 am on Wednesday, 16 February on The Huffington Post, and the news was heard 'round the world. An avalanche of orders came pouring into Ian's over the following weeks, called in from around the U.S. and beyond. Ian's was suddenly the conduit for 43 states and 10 countries to show support to the protestors (these numbers reported by The Huffington Post on 21 February).

I'm not going to recap Wisconsin's fight between organized labor and the G.O.P., we all got plenty of that in February and since. Full disclosure, though: I will show my own colors, in case readers are in any doubt. I'll do so by quoting Paul Krugman's column, Wisconsin Power Play, of 20 Feb 2011:

For what’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t about the state budget, despite Mr. Walker’s pretense that he’s just trying to be fiscally responsible. It is, instead, about power. What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin -- and eventually, America -- less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy.

Follow the link if you'd like to know why Krugman thinks that. But the fact that he's right isn't the subject of this blog post. Neither is the fact that a couple of American oligarchs were major contributors to Gov. Walker's election campaign.

Why not? Because the thing that really caught my eye when I learned about Ian's Pizza is this: their best-selling slice is Mac n'Cheese. You read that right. Mac n'Cheese pizza.

Holy cholesterol, Batman!

I'd never dreamed of such a thing, let alone heard of it, never mind had it recommended by a decade of college-town customers voting with their pizza orders.

When I learned in July that work would take me to Madison in August I knew right where I was going for pizza while visiting. Regular readers will recall my Chicago deep-dish pizza post of several weeks ago. I suppose it's been a summer for Pizzas of the Midwest, and I was ready to step up for more.

I especially wanted to go to Ian's on State, the employee-owned branch of the enterprise that supplied the protestors this past winter. Like many, I'd been following the news closely, and I'd really really really meant to order a pizza or three as an act of solidarity. I'm chagrined to admit I didn't get around to it. With apologies to my U. Wisconsin colleagues, and in my feeble defense, I did send a donation to support Democratic Party efforts to turn the oligarchic tide. But I cannot tell a lie. I didn't order even a single solidarity pizza, Mac n'Cheese or otherwise.

Still. I wanted to make that pilgrimage.

So it turned out that the hotel I stayed at last week was right around the corner from the original Ian's, on Frances St. Not the one on State, but there it was, right on the way to Grainger Hall where I met in front of a whiteboard with fellow propeller-heads for three days of Identity and Access Management software-designing fun. It was a busy few days. We defined our terms and proposed our use cases, articulated conceptual models and drew diagrams and arrows and tables and sequence diagrams on our whiteboard. We photographed our whiteboard and posted the images to our wiki. We drank a lot of coffee. Before I knew it, it was time to run for the airport.

Yup. You see what's coming, right?

I blew it.

By the time I trotted back to the hotel for the last time on Friday afternoon, it was twenty minutes until the west coast contingent of our meeting was due to catch a shuttle to the Dane County Regional Airport. I looked longingly across the street as I passed Ian's on Frances. We'd just scarfed down ordered-in sandwiches so we could draw a last few diagrams on the whiteboard, discuss them, dissect them, annotate them, draw arrows between boxes and circles, photograph them, and post the images to our wiki.

I had a choice.

Either I could stop at Ian's and inhale a slice of Mac n'Cheese pizza, or I could triage a half-dozen critical e-mails from my Berkeley colleagues over the hotel's internet connection before unplugging for the journey home.

Pizza.

Internet.

Pizza.

Internet.

I'd brainwashed myself those last three days. Oh yes I had. I'd been staring at that whiteboard for so long I was convinced that nothing, not even a slice of Mac n'Cheese pizza, was more important than Identity and Access Management.

Is that why I did the so-called responsible thing? Perhaps. Whatever the misguided reason, I walked by Ian's and answered e-mail for a quarter of an hour, then boarded the hotel shuttle. I boarded that shuttle even though I was wholly unsatisfied with respect to Mac n'Cheese pizza, which remains an unrealized dream, a chimeral fantasy, for this one-time visitor to Madison.

But you can guess what that means.

As California's own oligarch-friendly ex-Governator has been known to say: I'll be back.







Related posts on One Finger Typing:
Chicago deep-dish pizza
Eating insects




Thanks to John Kannenberg for the Mac n'Cheese pizza slice image from his Flickr photostream.

Monday, May 30, 2011

Google yanks APIs, developers caught with pants around ankles

Thinking of the intertubes like a programmer

In 21st century Intertubelandia, everything's connected to everything else. From the perspective of a web-oriented or mobile-oriented software developer, that often means that some part of what gives value to the software one builds is the available and accessible software that someone else is running elsewhere in Intertubelandia.

Examples on the web: If you've ever visited a web site that offers the option to click a button that translates the page into another language -- perhaps one you can understand more easily -- you're likely seeing a link to the Google Translate web element. If you've set up a iGoogle or a My Yahoo! page, and populated it with widgets that show you the weather in your city, or a scrolling feed of what your Facebook pals are up to, or the latest news from the New York Times or CNN, you're taking advantage of services being run someplace other than the company or organization whose URL you're visiting.

Examples on mobile devices: If you own or have test-driven an Android-platform mobile phone, or an iPhone, or an iPad, and have fiddled with apps that allow you to discover what movies are playing nearby, or to check in on foursquare, or to tweet, or to update your Facebook status, or to check stock market prices -- you've taken advantage of somebody's server running someplace, somewhere, that's communicating with an app on your device.

How does all this technomagic work?

The devil's in the details, but the short answer is via exchange of data through a set of consistent patterns of request and response that programmers call an API -- an application programming interface.

When a programmer creates software that relies on somebody else's service being available and accessible, she strongly prefers that the relied-upon service be stable.

Stable means that the API -- the patterns by which data is exchanged -- won't change radically or frequently, so she won't have to rewrite her software over and over again. Stable also means that the service will continue to be available, so that her software continues to work.


When reliable services prove unreliable

There are a lot of programmers out there in Intertubelandia who count on Google services to remain stable. On its face this seems like a reasonable expectation. Google is a very large company. They employ a lot of talented engineers, and their server farms are ginormous. They are as popular, powerful, and highly-valued as they are in large part because their stuff works consistently and is pretty much always there (except when it breaks, as things do).

Caught up in its ubiquity, it's easy to forget that Google has its own agenda. And that having an agenda means that the company might shift directions for reasons that aren't obvious, or at times that aren't predictable.

Like last Thursday.

Google announced on the Google Code blog this past Thursday afternoon that they'd be doing Spring cleaning for some of our APIs. Here's a pullout quote:

[...] some of our older APIs have been superseded by bigger and better things and others may not be receiving the necessary love. As the web evolves and priorities change, we sometimes deprecate APIs – that is, remove them from active development – to free up resources and concentrate on moving forward. Today we're announcing a spring cleaning for some of our APIs.


The blog post's author was Adam Feldman, Google's product manager for the company's APIs. He went on to list twenty APIs that Google would deprecate, including a number that will be shut down later this year -- not just "remove[d ...] from active development," but killed outright.

Some of the APIs that are being shut down are pretty popular. That is, a lot of developers have relied on those APIs to make their own software interesting or valuable. These software developers are confronted with two choices. They can find another way to obtain the functionality offered by the marked-for-death Google APIs, or they can give up on their obsolete software.

Oh well. "As the web evolves and priorities change..." (Or, as some might translate, "When our business model changes, without regard to yours...")


How developers are taking the news

How are developers taking Google's news of last week? It's a mix. There's a juicy string of comments on the Spring cleaning for some of our APIs blog post. They range from pissed off to disappointed to restrained to disgusted to pleading. Here are a few examples:


idndomains: "I guess A LOT of webservices will be hurt. Your new APIs are either pure bullsh[*]t or specially aimed to promote your own affiliates."

Franz Enzenhofer: "i have a question: why should any developer, any company which wants to build a valuable product for the long term use any of your APIs ever again?"

elmar: "I'd also like to voice my disappointment with the shutdown of the Translate API. It was a really cool tool for experiments in the language learning space."

Paul Dixon: "This news makes me sick."

Shortseller: "This is a pity. Is there any option to let the translate api live on a paid basis?"

Alexu: "Charge for Translate API, don't shut it down!"


In a very odd coincidence, on the very day it was announced, I discovered the Translate API was going bye-by as I wrote a blog post for Project Bamboo, in which I am involved through my job at UC Berkeley. My post announced a service that a colleague has just made available. That service relies on the very same Google Translate API that is now deprecated and set to shut down in December. Though we announced our service to project colleagues on the day Google Translate was slated for the dust-bin of intertube history, we're fortunate that our service is meant only as an example and an experiment -- a pattern for other services our project is slated to produce. We only needed Google Translate as an example of a remote service that our services can call. There's not a lot we invested in hooking up to Google, and by the time the Translate API goes away we won't need it anymore.

But.

The larger lesson is clear: you can't count on 'free' or 'experimental' services. If you do, you're going to be disappointed or worse.


Is it really Google's fault?

Did Google do wrong in deciding to shut down some of its APIs? I don't think so. Harm, perhaps, but not wrong.

The thing is, there's nothing surprising about Google deciding to shuffle its portfolio of service offerings. They never promised otherwise. They're a for-profit company -- with shareholders, even. What else could anyone reasonably expect? The company exists to make money.

One commenter on the 'spring cleaning' blog post noted, "It doesn't seem like Google is being honest regarding the reason for shutting down these APIs" (Amos Benninga). I'd have to agree. "As the web evolves and priorities change..." ... I mean, puh-leeze. On the other hand, that's not surprising either.

"Don't be evil"? Remember those three famous words? Wikipedia calls them "the informal corporate motto (or slogan) of Google, originally suggested by Google employees Paul Buchheit and Amit Patel at a meeting." The key word there is "informal." Google's "philosophy" states something a little bit different: "You can make money without doing evil." The key word there is "can."

It's silly to expect a for-profit company to continue to offer a service just because you like it or want it or even need it.

Software developers, beware.



Related posts on One Finger Typing:

Breaking technology: Google's Blogger outage
Moving one's life to the cloud
Safeguarding cloud ephemera Part I: the big picture
Safeguarding cloud ephemera Part II: keeping your blog alive




Thanks to Adam Crowe for his copy of "The shape of the online universe," an image available on Flickr and credited to the Lanet-vi program of I. Alvarez-Hamelin et al., via: www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/18944/

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Place in fiction

You know already if you read my last couple of blog posts that I was in Providence, RI last week on business. At the end of the Project Bamboo workshop I helped to lead, I went for a swim at the local YMCA. Just what the doctor ordered. I took the bus up the hill, had a swim, and strolled back downtown along a route recommended by one of the YMCA staff.

Skimming Providence

A few blocks along I passed the Olney Street Baptist Church. At the corner of the property a plaque was set in the lawn commemorating the Olney Street Riot of 1831. I knew nothing of Olney Street, little of Providence, and less of 1831 ... but my curiosity was piqued. I write about politics, I've seen a riot or two in my time, I was interested to know just what happened on that very spot some hundred eighty years ago.

The Brown University Library has an on-line exhibit that describes the Olney Street Riot and provides an eyewitness account in the form of a letter to his father from one John A.C. Randall. The letter is dated 25 September 1831:
"Last Wednesday night, some disturbance taking place in Olney’s Lane, a sailor, a young promising fellow, 2d mate of the Ann & Hope, who was in search of the cook of the ship with two or three others, was shot dead from a house occupied by negroes, and the rest wounded. The alarm spread rapidly, and a large company assembled, and tore down the house and one or two other small ones, occupied by negroes. The next night, the moon shining bright, an immense multitude gathered in the Lane, and began to show signs of tearing down more houses. The Governor, Sheriff and all the watchmen were on the spot ready to prevent it, if they could. The first who commenced, were immediately seized by the Sheriff and watchmen, who succeeded in holding only two of them, after hard fighting; the mob then burst forward, and drove all the watchmen off, and commenced pulling down all the bad houses in the Lane. They stationed sentinels, and went to work as busy as bees, first pulling down the chimney, and then with a fire hook and plenty of axes and iron bars tearing down the buildings and pulling them into the streets. The air was so still, and the weather so pleasant that Elisha tells me he could hear them talk when he was at the mill. The whole street was full of spectators, a great many of whom were cheering the mob every time a house fell. About 11 o’clock the Governor ordered out the 1st Infantry, and they marched up the Lane, but the mob stopped work and surrounded them, throwing stones at them, hissing and hooting, &c. Several of them were badly wounded by the stones, and they had to retreat. As soon as they were gone, they began work again, and leveled 8 or 9 buildings with the ground. They then marched over to Snowtown, and tore down two or three houses there, breaking windows in others. It was then near 4 in the morning, and they dispersed."

Because I am not directly wired to the intertubes (I don't even carry an iPhone), I didn't find all that out on the spot. I took note of the plaque, and continued down the hill.

The route recommended to me by the woman at the Y was a good one. The quiet streets of the College Hill neighborhood were lined with tall old trees populated with warbling, orange-breasted birds. Boxy nineteenth century houses were shaded by these great trees, many of the residences crowned with dormer windows and marked by plaques indicating for whom the home was originally built, and when. It was a settled-in neighborhood, a neighborhood with a past. I came to Prospect Terrace Park, overlooking the city center, the site of the statue and tomb of Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island. A preacher, Williams shaped the growth of the then-colony "through its acceptance of settlers of all religious persuasions," according to a brief biography on a site maintained by his descendants; as Wikipedia tells it, he was "the first American proponent of religious freedom and the separation of church and state."

I don't think my social studies classes covered Roger Williams when I was in grade school. I didn't realize the statue in the park represented him because I didn't know who he was, let alone that dust from Williams' grave is interred beneath the statue -- and I didn't get any of that figured out until I had a chance to do some on-line research. Once I returned home I also did some nosing around in a couple of the field guides I keep handy; I believe the birds I noticed were Baltimore Orioles. They sang a lovely song.

All in all, it was a nice walk, but I would hesitate before setting a story in Providence. My knowledge and experience is too thin.

Rendering San Francisco

My current novel project is called Consequence, and much of it takes place in San Francisco. A collective of political activists at the core of Consequence live in the Duboce Triangle, a neighborhood in the geographical heart of the city. The building where the collective makes its home is roughly modeled on a building near Duboce Park, one owned by old friends and housemates. I've been in the neighborhood many times, over many years, in every season, weather condition, and hour. Once or twice I was even in the vicinity for a police riot. While I have taken certain liberties -- adding a corner store here, pumping up the vibrancy of a street scene there -- I am confident that the city I describe bears a close resemblance to the actual neighborhoods depicted in my fiction.

Recently one of the owners of my model-building asked if he could read Consequence in typescript. M-- is an old friend, he's been a friend for nearly half my life, and I was interested in his take for a lot of reasons: because I've been 'borrowing' his home for all the years Consequence has been gestating; because M-- and I have done a fair bit of political work together; because he's a very sharp reader (we almost never like the same books ... but it's great fun to argue our often diametrically opposed opinions).

M-- gave me some terrific feedback, but the bits I want to point out here have to do with place. He lives in the neighborhood in which much of my novel occurs, and I don't. He's there pretty much every day, and has been for more than a decade. I'm not, and haven't been. So there were a number of details in my draft that rang false for him. That street scene I portrayed with enhanced vibrancy? Nope, it's not like that, he said. The way I describe the location of the collective's home in relation to the borders of the neighborhood? Not quite right. The 22 Fillmore bus route? It travels north-south, from the outskirts of the city to a neighborhood closer to the center, but people don't say that it goes "downtown" as one of my characters thought to himself.

I think his comments were mostly on the mark. Not surprising, M-- lives closer to the place my novel is set than I do. And some of his complaints will motivate me to nip, tuck, and otherwise improve my portrayal of place in Consequence -- in some cases I already have.

But I do think that some of the details that struck M-- as oh-so-wrong are not going to matter once readers get their hands on this novel. Some of the details of place that I wrote ring true within the novel's frame, even if they deviate from the precise character of the Duboce Triangle, or from M--'s experience or perception of his neighborhood. For most readers of Consequence, the Duboce Triangle will remain a fictional construct. And that's okay by me.

What everybody else says

I'm far from the first to write about place in fiction. I'm may not even be among the first hundred-thousand. Just last month, my favorite agent-who-blogs, Nathan Bransford, wrote a post on What Makes a Great Setting. Two out of the three books about writing fiction that I keep nearest to my keyboard include chapters on place: The Gotham Writers' Workshop Writing Fiction ("Setting and Pacing: I'm here, therefore I am"); and Noah Lukeman's The First Five Pages ("Setting").

I don't think the topic has been exhausted. In fact, I have every intention of coming back to it. It supports further musing and new examination, by writers and readers both.

In that light, I wonder what you have to say about places you know through fiction. If you're a reader, how important is a novel's rendering of place to your experience? Do you care whether an author is accurate in her portrayal of places that are passed off as 'real'? Always, or only sometimes? If you're a writer, how close do you like to stick to places you know deeply? How comfortable are you writing about places you know only superficially, or through research?



Thanks toWill Hart for the photo of the Roger Williams statue in Prospect Terrace Park (CC BY 2.0).

Monday, June 21, 2010

Are computer languages really languages?

A group of professors, librarians, and information technology professionals from a mix of universities joined in spirited conversation at a reception on the 18th floor of the Providence Biltmore Hotel last week, responding to the friendly provocation of a colleague. The topic: should Ph.D. candidates in the humanities be permitted to fulfill their programs' language requirements by learning a computer language? Currently, doctoral candidates at most universities are required to learn one or more human languages in order to complete their degrees.

For example, the UC Berkeley Department of Philosophy requires that the candidate:
pass a departmental examination in French, German, Greek, or Latin requiring the translation of 600 words in two hours with the use of a dictionary."

At Harvard, if you want a Ph.D. in English, you must:
show proficiency in either two ancient languages, or two modern languages, or one ancient and one modern language.

At Willamette University:
A reading knowledge of one modern language is often required for a Master of Arts degree, and two languages for a Ph.D. degree.

At the University of North Carolina, if you're going for a Ph.D. in linguistics it seems to be assumed that you know your way around the Indo European language family, so:
All students must complete one year of a non-Indo-European language or one semester in the structure of a non-Indo-European language.

Interested in getting a doctorate in French at Penn?
In addition to French, students are required to demonstrate reading knowledge of another foreign language, normally one that is used significantly in their chosen field of specialization."

None of these advanced degree programs accepts knowledge of a computer programming language in fulfillment of its foreign language requirement. Should they? Credible arguments were advanced on each side of the debate at the Biltmore.

To my suggestion that computer programming languages are necessarily reductive, while the humanities are naturally synthetic -- and therefore programming languages are no substitute for human language requirements in humanist Ph.D. programs -- a librarian at one university nodded agreement, while a distinguished faculty member from an institution on the other side of the country noted that there are strong arguments for the value of reductive approaches to scholarship. (Fans of artificial neural networks might simply disagree with my characterization of computer languages.)

To a suggestion that human languages contain a wealth of implicit and explicit culture, and of perspective that may differ significantly from that contained in another, a pair of IT professionals responded that the logically rigorous intellectual culture in which computer programming is grounded is different from cultures familiar to many (and perhaps most) humanists. They asserted that programming languages are deeply useful and important -- arguably essential -- to those who wish to understand the modern world. Programming languages, they proposed, reveal alternate views of the world as well and fully as human languages.

Some suggested that a scholar's engagement with sophisticated software tools would equip her to utilize technology in the service of humanist inquiry, without need to grind through actual coding. Others replied that inability to decipher the assumptions implicit in the way those tools are realized (via code) render their workings opaque, and their utilization clumsy and superficial.

Most agreed that where a doctoral language requirement reflects expectations that a Ph.D. ought to be able to access knowledge in the dominant languages of the academy, the requirement verges on outdated. While knowledge of French, German, Greek, and Latin might once have opened access to most of what is known by European academics, the languages of scholarly discourse over the past several millennia, in Europe and elsewhere, are far broader than these. Moreover, the conceit that knowledge of multiple languages might permit a single human mind to ingest most or all the scholarship of any substantial discipline may have been credible some hundreds of years ago, but today is ridiculous. There's too much out there.

Not long after the reception ended at the Biltmore, I wished I had advanced the argument that grasp of a programming language's syntax and the ability to code up a few simple classes or subroutines is no guarantee a newbie programmer will grok the intellectual framework on which that language is based. But then I got to thinking further. It's also true that mastering a few semesters of Greek doesn't equip a person to deeply understand Homer, Plato, and Aeschylus.

I'm trying to maintain a semblance of equanimity here, but I don't suppose it's hard to see where my sympathies lie.

I started dabbling in computer programming in the eighth grade (Fortran and Basic, with punch cards) and have written dozens to thousands of lines since in Pascal, dBase and its variants, Visual Basic, C, Java, Ruby, PHP, Perl, SQL, and so on; not to mention scripts in unix shell and DOS batch flavors, and a bit of Javascript. I've also done more than my share of machine-parsable typing in declarative languages and textual markup, from Ant to XSLT, from HTML to CSS ... and so on. I've never taken seriously the notion that any of these belong in the same category as human languages. Sure, you can build fun and useful logical constructs that cause machines to do neat stuff. But the sum total of every line of code I've ever written isn't a thousandth as expressive of humanity, or of the world as humans perceive it, as any single short story I've sent out in search of a sympathetic editor.

On the other hand, I'm not a linguist. And I think the world will be a better place if I decline to play one in the blogosphere.

So I hearby solicit your opinion.

Is it as intriguing to you as it was to last week's gathering on the 18th floor of the Providence Biltmore to consider whether computer programming languages are equivalent in intellectual power, expressive richness, or cultural significance to human languages like English, Chinese, French, Arabic, German, Sanskrit, Spanish, Russian, Farsi, or Japanese?

Do you think a computer language ought to fulfill a foreign language requirement for any or all Ph.D. programs in the humanities? Or not?


(Thanks to Quinn for the reception photo.)

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Macmillan Makes a Play in Electronic Textbooks

The blogosphere is beginning to buzz about Macmillan's announcement of its Dynamic Books publishing platform for electronic, digital textbooks, to launch in August.

It came to my attention Monday (22 Feb 2010) via the Chronicle of Higher Education. The news was reported in Publisher's Weekly the same day; the New York Times story is datelined the day before, but the URL suggests the Grey Lady might have fiddled with her timecard.

The launch, timed to coincide with the rampup to Fall term 2010 on campuses everywhere, will be modest: 100 titles. This is a small dent, but in a non-trivial market: there were 17.7 million college students in the Fall of 2006, according to the National Association of College Stores ... and the average student spends $700-1000 annually on course materials, according to Turn The Page: Making College Textbooks More Affordable (a May 2007 report of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance). Multiplying the apples times the oranges, that's more than $12 billion any way you slice or section, in a U.S. book market pegged at "between $23.7 billion and $28.5 billion" according to statistics from the Book Industry Study Group, publishers.org, and others cited on parapub.com. "Non-trivial" is something of an understatement here.

The Turn The Page... report suggests that "many of today’s instructors envision an environment in which they can assemble instructional materials from a variety of print, electronic, and video sources for their students, rather than choose all materials from any one publisher." Anybody who has purchased a professor-assembled, photocopied "reader" is familiar with this concept ... it was in vogue when I was an undergraduate, and that was decades ago.

But Dynamic Books goes some distance further along the social media path. The big news here is that professors will have the ability and incentive to customize published textbooks to their particular classes, including the option to add their own material, edits, and illustrations. That is to say, the published textbook will be a framework on which a professor can stamp her own pedagogical mark. How cool is that? The books will be readable on laptops, iPhones and the soon-to-launch Apple iPad. They'll be cheaper than printed books, as e-book editions tend to be.

Publishers like this concept because it cuts used books out of the loop (in an earlier post, I mentioned this point made by Dan Poynter at the SF Writer's Conference this year, in reference to e-books generally), and textbook authors will see similar (if not quite so lucrative) benefit too. Students who buy textbooks like the lower prices (lower even than used books) and the portability implicit in many-books-one-device content delivery. In Macmillan's offering, professors not only get to teach as they wish, but have a financial incentive as well. As the CHE article put it: "Professors who customize a textbook have a chance to make some extra money. For each customized copy that a student buys, the professor who contributed the material gets a dollar. That could add up if a professor's retooled book becomes popular and is assigned by professors at other colleges."

In my professional incarnation I've been involved with Project Bamboo for the last two years or so. In wide-ranging discussions around multi-institutional support for arts & humanities scholarship there's been a lot of interest in "crowdsourcing," (where distributed groups or communities contribute to a large project in small increments -- the Wikipedia thing, though Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales finds the term "incredibly irritating"). At the same time, faculty whose long years of study and peer-reviewed authority are primary assets, the ability to measure and validate the reliability of information is a major concern.

It may be that the facultysourcing enabled by Dynamic Books hits that nail right on the head.