Society | Desert of My Real Life

{February 8, 2010} The iPad and Education

David Parry recently wrote a very interesting post on ProfHacker regarding the impact that the iPad is likely to have on education. Parry is an assistant professor of emerging media and technology (what a cool title) at the University of Texas-Dallas and the author of academHack, one of my favorite blogs about technology and education (see my Blogroll). Parry, who is an avid Apple consumer, thinks the iPad is far from the panacea for education that its proponents claim it will be. For those of you who won’t follow the link to his post, I’ll summarize his main points.

Many are saying that the iPad will do for education (and textbooks) what the iPod did for music. Parry points out that the iPod is not revolutionary. It didn’t change the way we consume music. Instead, it was the development of iTunes that changed the way we consume music. The change in distribution channels rather than a change in consumption platform is what was important to changing the way we consume music. We can now purchase individual songs for only 99 cents (which is a price point that makes the inconvenience of illegal downloading not worthwhile) and create playlists from those individual songs. In order for there to be an impact in our consumption of textbooks, the cost would need to drop a lot and we would have to be able to assemble new textbooks from individual chapters (and perhaps even individual fragments of text) from existing textbooks. No one in the textbook business is talking about an iTunes-like experience for textbooks.

Parry’s second major point is, for me, even more important for those us who are involved in higher education. He points out that the iPad is designed to be a media consumption device. But he (and I) wants his students to be more than media consumers. To be successful citizens in the digital age, students need to be critical consumers and creators of media. With its lack of camera, lack of microphone, lack of multitasking ability, the iPad teaches people how to be passive consumers of media. Such a device is bad for educating the active, critically questioning citizen for today’s (and tomorrow’s) digital world.

Parry raises many additional issues and explains the two I mention here much more articulately than I have. Go read his post.

{January 27, 2010} iPad Jokes

I guess I was not the only one who thought of other types of pads when the name iPad was announced. This is very funny: http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2010/01/ipad_apples_way_of_reaching_ou.html?sc=fb&cc=fp

{January 27, 2010} TechnoHype

For weeks, we’ve been hearing rumors of the new Apple tablet computer. There was much speculation about what Apple would call its sure-to-be-revolutionary device–I heard suggestions like iTab and iTablet but Apple went with iPad (which makes me think of sanitary pads but I’m sure that’s not what they had in mind). The hype today has been amazing (but not unprecedented) to me. In his announcement of the product, Steve Jobs said that it is “magical” and “at the intersection of technology and liberal arts” (whatever that means).

The hype reminds me of what happened in 2001 when Dean Kamen announced the development of the product he was then calling “Ginger.” I heard report after report about how this product (whatever it was going to be–no one knew) was going to revolutionize our everyday lives, allowing us to live and work in new, never before imagined, ways. The hype continued after the product was revealed but now, several years on, we realize that it’s a cool product but our lives have remained just about exactly the same as before. What did that product turn out to be? The Segway. Very cool but also very, very over-hyped. The hype about the iPad feels very similar to me. Only time will tell.

{January 23, 2010} Influenza Epidemics

My grandmother will turn 92 this April. If you do the math, you will see that she was born in 1918, a year in which hundreds of thousands of Americans were killed by an influenza epidemic. In October, 1918, in the midst of World War I, 195,000 Americans died of the flu, making it the deadliest month in American history. The flu killed the most robust of people who contracted it. Soldiers were among the hardest hit, both in Europe and in the United States. I figure that I’m lucky to have ever been born, given that my grandmother was six months old, with little immune defenses against one of the deadliest influenza epidemics in modern history, in this deadliest month. A bunch of coincidences have brought this flu epidemic to my mind in recent days.

As I have written about in earlier blog posts, I recently bought a Kindle. One of my favorite authors is Dennis Lehane (a Boston author who wrote Mystic River, among other great novels) and so the first work of fiction that I’ve been reading on my Kindle is The Given Day, Lehane’s novel set in 1918. It focuses on labor and race issues set against the deadliness of the flu epidemic of that year. I haven’t finished the novel yet, but so far, it has been informative and enjoyable.

As I have also written about in earlier blog posts, I decided to get the flu vaccine this year. The swine flu was predicted to have been the deadliest since 1918 although it has turned out not to be. The reasons for its relative mildness are not yet known but perhaps one thing is that we now understand how the flu is spread. And of course, we do have vaccines that are quite effective.

The other night, PBS showed a documentary about the 1918 influenza epidemic. The documentary details the devastation of the flu as well as the doctors who fought against. They developed a vaccine which didn’t work because they were focused on bacteria and the flu is viral. Little was known about viruses in 1918. Luckily, according to the documentary, “As mysteriously as it had come, the terror began to slip away.” It had virtually disappeared in Boston by early November. Armistace Day (Nov 11) brought end to war in Europe and the worst of the epidemic was passing. It appears that the flu ran out of “fuel”–people who were susceptible. Survivors developed immunity. 550,000 Americans had died in the 10 months of the epidemic. At least 30 million people around the world had died. Nearly every human being on Earth was infected with the virus and therefore developed immunity. And that probably explains why the swine flu of 2009, although not as deadly as predicted, didn’t hit elderly people very hard. They had developed immunity from previous exposures.

An interesting side note to this story is that I had lunch with my grandmother today. She lives in an elderly housing building in Goffstown, NH, where she, and my father, and I, all grew up. This was the building that she had gone to high school in, and my father had gone to junior high in, and I had gone to 5th and 6th grade in. When it was no longer needed as a school, it was renovated into apartments for the elderly. She noted today that she graduated from high school in 1935 (at the age of 17 since she had skipped a grade when she was the only student in her grade in her one room school house). This is the 75th anniversary of her high school graduation, a high school that was located in the building in which she now lives. I asked if her class was going to have a reunion. She said probably not, since she is one of only two of the sixteen she graduated with who are still alive. And the other woman, who is nearly two years older than my grandmother, is not in very good health. So no, they will probably not get together to celebrate their graduation from high school 75 years ago.

Life goes on and on and on. And I’m struck by the arbitrariness, the luck, of it all.

{January 13, 2010} Google in China

Google has received lots of criticism from human rights activists since it started to do business in China in 2006. The criticism is focused on Google’s willingness to comply with Chinese official demands for censorship of information. For example, when the Olympics were held in Beijing in 2008, Google censored criticism of the Chinese government from groups such as Human Rights Watch. When presenting search results, they put a disclosure statement on the search page that said something like “in compliance with local laws or regulations, some search results are missing.” This has been a case of the lure of a huge Chinese marketplace triumphing over principles. The lure of money can do that to even the best of companies.

Today, however, Google has decided to change its policies in China. Apparently, the decision to change came when Google discovered their systems had been the target of hacker attacks attempting to break into the GMail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Although the official statement never explicitly accuses the Chinese government of being behind these attacks, the implication is there. Imagine the disillusion in the Google front office when they realized that even though they were cooperating with the Chinese government, that cooperation was not appreciated, was not enough. And so now, Google has said that they will stop censoring search results and may even end up pulling out of the Chinese market altogether. If they do pull out, it could mean the loss of billions of dollars. This is a significant decision and I hope Google benefits in other parts of the world for having made this decision. In other words, I hope we hear as much praise for Google having made this decision as we heard criticism of their censorship concessions.

US companies continue to cooperate with the Chinese government in maintaining control of information getting into China. The next company that should receive pressure to stop collaborating is Cisco Systems, which builds the hardware for the Great Firewall of China, run by the Chinese government to block information deemed offensive or dangerous from getting to the average Chinese Internet user.

So hooray for Google. Let’s hope their experience is a lesson for other telecommunications companies.

{December 28, 2009} Even More Security Theater

By now, you’ve probably heard about the thwarted terror attack on a flight bound for Detroit. If you haven’t heard details, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to light his underwear on fire to set off explosives (the same explosives that Richard Reid–the shoe bomber–used). He failed to ignite the explosive materials and passengers and crew jumped him and put out the fire.

We’re still living with the legacy of Richard Reid’s attack. Every time we fly, we have to take our shoes off for special screening. So I would have expected the TSA response to Abdulmutallab’s thwarted attack to be … well, that every time we fly, we all have to take our underwear off for special screening. Makes sense, doesn’t it? But imagine the outcry from the public if we had to get naked in order to fly. And so, naturally, that is NOT the TSA response. Instead, the TSA has come out with a set of rules that make it incredibly obvious that none of this is about actually making us safer but is instead about responding in some way, in any way, so that people FEEL safer.

What are the rules? Most of them have to do with limiting passenger behavior during the last hour of a flight. Why the last hour? Because that is when Abdulmutallab chose to initiate his attack. There is absolutely nothing special about the last hour of a flight. Why not the first hour of a flight? Because this is about security theater rather than actual security. So, during the last hour of a flight, you may not be able to use the bathroom or access your carry-on baggage or (and this is my favorite rule) have a pillow or blanket over your lap. Because that’s where your underwear is, of course.

Feel safe?

{December 26, 2009} Whose Property Is It?

When I was in graduate school more than 12 years ago, a new company opened up in Tallahassee that caught the attention of many students (and probably faculty members) at Florida State University. I don’t remember the name of the company but I do remember its business purpose. The company would pay students to take notes in their classes and then would sell those lecture notes to other students in those same classes. This service seems like a waste of money to me since any student already paying tuition for the class could simply create his or her own version of the lecture notes. If they went to class, that is. But I suppose the prime target of this company could be those students who haven’t yet learned to take good notes themselves. In any case, that business all those years ago in Tallahassee appeared to do very well in the face of some concerns expressed by various factions in the academic community.

I hadn’t thought about this company in years. Recently, however, this kind of business is much in the news. In 2008, Michael Moulton, a faculty member at the University of Florida, filed a lawsuit against a company called Einstein’s Notes, which sells what they call “study kits” for classes at UF. Moulton, and the company that publishes the textbook that he has written, claim that the material in Moulton’s lectures is copyrighted and therefore, by publishing student lecture notes without his permission, Einstein’s Notes is violating that copyright. The issue is a difficult one, especially because it is the material created by the student that is being sold by Einstein’s Notes rather than any written material created by the faculty member.

Copyright provides the author of a work the exclusive right to control the publication, distribution, and adaptation of that work. An idea cannot be copyrighted. Instead, copyright extends only to “any expressible form of an idea or information that is substantive and discrete and fixed in a medium.” This is key to these lawsuits, it seems, since the gray area seems to lie in whether the lecture itself is “fixed in a medium.” In Moulton’s case, it just might be. Moulton has published two textbooks based on his lectures and uses them in his classes. In addition, his publisher sells its own version of lecture notes for his classes. So when a student takes notes in a class based on the lecture, although those notes are not a “copy” of the professor’s lecture, they are derivative of the lecture. That is, those notes are a kind of adaptation of the professor’s lecture.

Of course, I’m not a lawyer but this is how I understand the issues in the Moulton case. I think things get murkier when a faculty member has not “published” anything related to his or her lectures, however. Moulton’s lawyer doesn’t seem to think so. He says that if a faculty member were to write out the high points of the lecture on a transparency and display them to the class via overhead projector, that fixes the material in a medium. If a student then bases her lecture notes on that transparency, her notes are a derivative of material that is copyrighted and therefore, is not eligible to be sold without the faculty member’s permission. The lawyer doesn’t say anything about whether material written on the chalkboard is fixed in a medium.

As an academic at a public university, I believe that education should be available as cheaply as possible for as wide an audience as possible. For example, I teach a computer literacy class for free for senior citizens and get enormous pleasure from seeing them learn. I would, however, have a problem if someone took my “lecture notes” from that class and sold them on the Internet without my permission. The material that I teach in that class is basic information, available in a variety of forms from a variety of sources. There’s nothing in the content that could be considered new information. What is original about the class is the way the material is organized and presented. Many of the senior citizens tell me stories about taking beginning computer classes elsewhere and feeling overwhelmed, lost and discouraged. This class, they tell me, is the first time they’ve felt as though they actually could learn to use a computer to send and receive email and to search the Internet. So there is definitely something unique and original about the way I’m presenting the information. Why would I have a problem if this material was made available through a company like Einstein’s Notes? It isn’t because I don’t want the material to be made available. Instead, it’s because I don’t think Einstein’s Notes should make money from my work without getting my permission and without compensating me.

Moulton’s lawyer points out that Einstein’s Notes puts a copyright notice on the lecture notes that they sell. In other words, the company sells the lecture notes but then attempts to prevent those notes from being copied. They are claiming copyright on material that they played no part in creating. In what world does that make sense?

{December 17, 2009} Security Theater Revisited

I’ve written about the theater of airport security before. Now here is an excellent piece written by an ex-cop about why airport screening fails to keep us safe and is really all about the illusion of security. Her interesting observation at the end of the piece is that she believes more and more people are beginning to realize it’s all an illusion and that will mean that fewer people will be willing to comply.

{December 11, 2009} Kindle Again

I’ve been talking about the Kindle for over a year. I was first intrigued by the idea of the technology a year and half ago on a trip to Spain when I ran out of reading material on the plane. I wasn’t convinced to buy the Kindle then because of price issues and because of the fact that Amazon seems to have messed up some copyright issues. But finally, I caved and bought one about two weeks ago. I’ve used it a fair amount in these two weeks and I have mostly positive, although mixed, reviews of it.

I have mostly loved the Kindle. I have read my first non-fiction book already. I have begun my first novel which I am loving reading on the device. I love being able to browse the Kindle store at any moment. The device has been the subject of conversation with a variety of people, wherever I have chosen to use it. My one area of disappointment has to do with reading the Boston Globe. To subscribe to the Globe on the Kindle is $9.99 per month. To buy the paper version of the Globe is significantly more expensive than that. If I bought just the Sunday Globe each month, it would cost $4 per week. Each daily paper is $1.50 up here in NH. To buy any single issue of the Globe on the Kindle is only $.49. So I thought it would be a great deal to read the Globe using this device. The problem is that for your $.49, you do not get the entire Globe. This has been a great disappointment for me.

I almost always buy the Globe on Sundays and I am especially fond of the Ideas/Books section. The Kindle version of the Sunday paper is significantly limited, however. I have decided that I will buy the paper version of the Sunday Globe so the Kindle is useless for that purpose.

All in all, I am very happy with my Kindle. I did, however, have to purchase a case for it that makes it feel as though I am reading an actual book. Some aesthetics are important.

{November 23, 2009} Digital Rights Management Part 2

I’ve written about digital right management before. My latest encounter with these technologies came this weekend and I’m reminded that the “rights” mentioned are not the rights of the consumer.

A couple of weeks ago, I realized my car is equipped with a jack that allows me to plug in an MP3 player to play music through my stereo. Yes, my car is more than three years old but my excuse for only having just found this jack is that it is located in the center console, beneath the parking break. Who would have looked in such an unlikely spot for an MP3 player jack? In any case, once I found it, I thought that I should buy a cable that would allow my cheapo, no-name MP3 player to be connected. Liz and I found those cables this weekend in Concord at Pitchfork Records for $5.

I decided that I would augment my newly useful MP3 player with some new music. Rather than purchase entire CDs which I would then rip and put on the player, I went in search of a legal, online source for music. I checked out a few options and thought that I would include iTunes music store in my research. So I downloaded the iTunes player and started to browse the music. They have a great selection and you can listen to a sample of each song before you purchase it. That’s a nice feature. Finally, I made my selection, entered my credit card information and completed the purchase.

Then I tried to download the song to my non-iPod MP3 player. Unfortunately, Apple doesn’t want me to be able to play my newly, legally purchased song on a non-Apple device. And so it is saved on my computer in a proprietary format that cannot be played on any device that is not some version of an iPod. So I have now purchased a song that I can listen to on my computer but not on my MP3 player. Unless, of course, I buy an iPod.

This kind of digital rights management is all about the rights of the company that sold me this song. I have no rights in this situation. Through some research, I’ve learned that I can save the song to a CD in the proprietary format, change some settings in my iTunes player so that all ripped songs are ripped as MP3 files, and then rip the song from the CD. If I do that, I will apparently have an MP3 version of this song that I have purchased legally. I haven’t tried this method yet. If I only have a couple of songs that I need to go through this process with, it is certainly manageable. But it’s still a pain.

I understand that companies want and need to protect their digital rights. This particular practice, however, strikes me as monopolistic and against the underlying ideas of capitalism, that the market should prevail. Why isn’t anyone suing Apple for these anti-capitalist practices?

Pages

Past Posts

Blogroll