Steven D. Brewer's blog

Someone recently linked to this interview with Richard Stallman. I'm not sure I'd ever seen him speak before. I thought the interview made him look pretty good, although the fact that he was being interviewed by such a moronic boob probably cut some both ways. Like when the boob says, "If God wanted people to fly, he'd have given them wings" and Stallman replies, "Well, there's no god, so it's not really a meaningful question."

The central topic was Free Software, of course. Stallman tries to explain what Free Software is and why it's important, but it's totally outside the boob's frame of reference. Stallman tries to explain that it used to be that when you bought something, you controlled it. But that when you buy a piece of software, if the software isn't free, the software limits and controls you. The boob just doesn't get it. It was like watching Stallman try to argue with a prisoner in a prison yard:

Prisoner: "But I can walk around anywhere I want in here, can't I?"

Stallman: "But there's a whole world out beyond those walls!"

Prisoner: "Walls? What walls?"

Stallman: "ARRRGH!"

To be fair, Stallman did not say "ARRRGH!" But I did watching him patiently try to explain to this boob, over and over again, in small words, trying to get him to grasp the point. As I said recently, things are only getting worse in this respect. I've got great respect for Stallman that he keeps pushing against the flow.

Cory Doctorow has written eloquently about the coming war on general purpose computing. Apple has been leading the charge and newer versions of the MacOS are implementing the tools that can be used to choke off general purpose computing with the Mac.

apple store
launchpad
file system

An Apple representative came to UMass today to talk about Mac Deployment and Management Strategies for Higher Education. Apple is essentially moving away from the model that computers will be provided or provisioned or managed by a business. You can still do some of those things, but that's not the right way to do it, as far as Apple is concerned.

The guy they sent, of course, isn't talking about what the strategy actually is -- its just about the helpful tools they provide (and don't provide) and what they enable you to do. In the end, it's about capturing the relationship between Apple and the individual -- and cutting out the institution.

Some of it makes sense and I can support. It's partly about individual empowerment. I've always advocated for making computers as useful to users as I know how. I don't want to hide things or block things or remove things to limit what people can do, like some sysadmins do. My model has always been to give the end user as much control as possible, but to make it easy to set everything back for the next user, so they get the best experience possible too. Apple has adopted the model where everyone has their own computer and, although an institution might want to set policies, they should really leave all the interaction to just between Apple and the individual.

They provide some workarounds and make sounds like you can still do it some other way, but it's clear where Apple is going. You can have any kool-aid you want, as long as its Apple™ Flavored.

Apple quit trying to compete directly in the enterprise a while ago. They don't try to sell server-class hardware, or pretend that their server tools are suitable for the enterprise. They were still popular for computer labs, however, because they, at least, tolerated open management approaches. That time is now drawing to a close.

My new Macbook Air also makes another point clear: they no longer see the operating system as a generic commodity. They're building tweaked and customized versions of the OS for each hardware class. There really isn't such a thing as "MacOS X". The underlying architecture is the same, but they have unique drivers and configuration for each model. And they don't really welcome anyone interacting with those at any level, other than buying something through the Apple Store.

They want to convert everyone to be consumers of technology. There may be developers, but only in the sense that they work around the edges of what Apple has staked out for themselves as controlling the relationship with the end user. Caveat Emptor.

Several years ago, after several unsuccessful attempts, my union persuaded the University to implement a computer replacement policy. Most other colleges and universities, had implemented computer replacement policies years previously. Our faculty mostly had to hustle to find the resources to replace computers, either with a grant or professional development funds or just with their own money. The fund, matched by the University administration, provides sufficient money so that each faculty member can get a low-end laptop or desktop computer (or tablet) roughly every three years. On Friday, I picked up the first laptop purchased for me through this program.

I decided to get a Macbook Air. I decided to name her "inga" (which is a kind of bad Esperanto joke). The laptop was helpfully set up by OIT (although I think I would have preferred to just get it as provided by Apple new). It has McAfee installed, which appears to conflict with the trackpad driver, causing the trackpad to freeze up for 10-15 seconds every few minutes. They also seem to assume that people want to use a computer with a general account like "user" instead of having their own account -- that's really inconvenient for logging into online services, where it always defaults to having the incorrect username set. They also helpfully installed Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Suite but, since the computer only has a 60GB SSD, those (plus the operating system) fill up more than half the drive.

I'm temped to dump the MacOS and just install Ubuntu. I think the MacOS reached its apogee with Snow Leopard and has been declining ever since. Unfortunately, you can't buy new hardware with Snow Leopard. There are no features that Apple has introduced since then that I want to use. Installing Ubuntu looks a bit daunting, however, and I thought before going to the effort, I'd try Mountain Lion to see if it had anything I wanted. It doesn't -- it's worse than Snow Leopard in every respect, as far as I can tell.

Maybe Mountain Lion would be OK if I aspired only to be a consumer of software: to just install commercial software from the Apple Store. But I don't want to install *anything* from the Apple Store. Everytime I see the Apple Store it makes me angry. It makes me livid that Apple will only update the OS and software though the Apple Store.

Luckily, my old laptop is still functional so I can keep using that until I get the new laptop set up and functional. I had suspected that Mountain Lion was a further decline from Lion and it was good to have the chance to finally confirm that was true. Ubuntu here I come.

A couple of weeks ago, I got a WIRELESS PROTO SHIELD, SD CARD SLOT from newark/element14 with the goal of enabling us to play longer sound clips for our secret project. On Monday, I met with the students and we worked on this for a bit.

At first, I tried to keep using the PCM Library we had been experimenting with, but found that it required reading the entire sound clip into memory before playing it, which wouldn't solve our problem. I googled around a bit and found this blog post, which explains how to do it with the TMRpcm library.

In just a few minutes, I had recorded some sound clips and gotten them to play. The only trick was finding the right way to export the clip from Audacity: Set the project rate to 16000, record, export as Other Uncompressed Format, and set "Options" to Header: WAV (Microsoft) and Encoding: Unsigned 8 bit PCM. They are much, much clearer than our previous attempts using PCM and appear to be able to be of arbitrary length. The only downside is that the arduino can't do anything else while it's playing the sound clip, but that shouldn't be fatal to this purpose.

In a recent Globe editorial they advocate for the University to implement two cost-savings measures:

UMass needs to show state lawmakers that it can produce the graduates the state needs while holding down costs. Before giving the state universities the support they seek, both Patrick and the Legislature need to make sure that they have achieved sufficient savings through two major reforms: Limiting state aid to students who extend their undergraduate experience well beyond the normal four-year graduation path; and eliminating redundancies and duplications in the sprawling higher-ed bureaucracy.

The Globe authors fail to consider alternate explanations in this overly simplistic presentation of the reality of public higher education.

The Globe presents an outdated portrait of lackadaisical students who can't be bothered to complete their degree in four years. They suggest that "a part-time job" might be part of the reason why. Do they know how many hours students typically work these days? Many students have two part-time jobs. Many students are working nearly full-time outside of class to make ends meet. As the State has systematically defunded public higher education, students have had to pick up those costs. One of they ways they've responded is to work more. Perhaps one reason many students take longer to finish is that they're too busy to take more than the minimum number of classes.

It's easy to wave one's hand and talk about redundancies and duplications, but there really aren't that many left. In the previous, repeated and bitter rounds of budget cutting, anything that was duplicative, or wasn't needed, was already cut. Through MHEC, practically all of Massachusetts higher education (check out the list of members) already coordinates purchasing and negotiates group rates with suppliers.

Overly simplistic solutions don't solve anything. Massachusetts higher education is complicated in large part because different institutions serve different functions for different populations. We wouldn't imagine we could teach Chemistry classes with Biology faculty. Trying to build a single administrative structure to support all of the diverse institutions in Massachusetts public education is not likely to save anything -- just result in poorer, less-effective administration. In the long run, that's going to cost more.

The biggest drivers in the funding crisis in the public sector are declining wages for the middle class and increasing health-care costs. Improving education addresses both.

The ICT Summit happened. Since I became Interim Director of the IT Program, it's been a the largest thing on the horizon. It was great to finally reach it and now have it safely behind me.

I thought we had a pretty good lineup: Interesting exhibitors, good panels, free lunch, and a poster session. But attendance was spotty -- especially early. It proved harder than I had expected both to recruit speakers and to attract an audience. And to get people to actually show up.

One mistake I made was trying to do too much stuff myself. I ended up giving the opening remarks, coordinating the first panel, and running the IT Challenge. I really should have found other people to do all that stuff -- or maybe just done one.

The IT Challenge turned out great. In the end, I was only able to recruit three teams of students to compete. I wasn't sure how difficult to make the puzzles: In the end, I backed off of the difficulty a bit (giving some additional clues), but I needn't have worried. They struggled a bit with the first puzzle but, after that, one team just sailed through the rest and, by 10:45, had completed the challenge. They came in at lunch time to receive their prizes and the accolades of the attendees.

I was pleased with my opening remarks and the first panel. Looking back at the issues that were raised over the course of the day, I think they were exactly on target.

It was a fascinating day. There were wonderful parallels and contrasts between the face-to-face education panel and the MOOC panel, just as I'd hoped. The prototyping/design panel was captivating. The open science panel was totally orthogonal in one plane and the alumni from ILM orthogonal in another another. Unfortunately, there were very few people who managed to attend all of the panels. A lot of people seemed to show up for one panel and then disappear. What was really interesting was the triangulation that came from hearing all of the blind men feeling the elephant speak. You get a less complete picture, when you only listen to one.

I think an important issue is that IT is becoming invisible as it transforms the world we live in. Everyone uses IT now without thinking of it as "IT". People are familiar with email and the web and smart phones. And familiarity breeds contempt: people are coming to think that they already know as much about IT as they need to know.

But the revolution is only beginning. And higher ed should be look to newspapers and journalism for a sense of the transformation that technology is likely to bring.

Welcome everyone to the 2013 ICT Summit. I'm Steven Brewer, Interim Director of the IT Program filling in for Patricia Galvis Assmus (who is on Sabatical, but who has joined us for the day to introduce our Featured Speakers: UMass Alumni who went on to become computer animators at Industrial Light and Magic. Welcome!).

We have other guests that have come down from Vermont and up from Philadelphia. And from the other Five Colleges -- thank you all very much for joining us today.

I would also like to thank our sponsors. The IT Program and ICT Summit are supported by the UMass Amherst Provost's Office. Left-Click Advanced is sponsoring our morning coffee -- thanks Kelly! HitPoint Studios is sponsoring our reception this afternoon. The Center for Public Policy and Administration and the College of Humanities and Fine Arts helped with travel arrangements. Five Colleges Incorporated helped out. And newark/element14 contributed to the IT Challenge Contest. Thank you all very much for making the Summit possible!

And I must thank Dennis Spencer who has done yeoman's work organizing the conference. If you got an email, or saw a flyer, or have a name-badge, or drink some coffee or, well, you get the idea -- Thank Dennis!

And while I'm thanking people, I would like to thank the brave students of Team Mercury, Team Marco and Team GopherIT who are struggling through the IT Challenge contest. The students are trying to use elite IT skills to solve (what I hope) are challenging puzzles. Everyone who competes gets a fruit pie, but the winners get a Raspberry Pi -- and are invited to join the guests for dinner tonight. A quick check of the leaderboard shows that they haven't solved the first puzzle yet. We'll continue to check back in throughout the day.

Why are we here? The IT program holds the ICT Summit each year to give us an opportunity reflect on how Information and Communication Technologies are transforming academic disciplines, education, and our everyday lives.

When I first began working with IT in Education, I remember being laughed out of the room when I suggested that, IN THE FUTURE, every student would have their own computer. People thought that was just crazy!

How many computers do you own? Maybe you have a desktop computer. And a laptop. And a tablet? And a smart phone? But computers are also in things you don't expect: your car has a computer. Your microwave probably has one. Maybe even your refrigerator. We are now literally surrounded by computers. They are everywhere — and often you don't even realize it.

How many people have an SD card? Have you seen the MicroSD Card? I have a 32GB MicroSD card in my tablet. You can get 256gb ones now -- and they can go up, in theory, to 2 terabytes.

But MicroSD cards don't just contain memory -- they also have an ARM processor: a tiny computer -- a 32-bit ARM7TDMI with 128k of code. It maps out bad blocks, does wear-leveling, and performs other magic for the card.

Computers are everywhere. And the change is still only beginning.

The IT transformation is affecting all of us. It is particularly useful to bring together people from different disciplines because it gives you another point of view to reflect on your own experience. William Gibson says, "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed." By looking at other disciplines you can gain insight into changes that haven't come to your own discipline yet -- and learn how to avoid pitfalls.

Today, Andrew Auernheimer was found guilty for adding one to an integer in a URL and seeing what happened. There's more to the story, of course: after he discovered that it returned private information, he automated the process with a script, collected a bunch of the returned data, and provided it to the media.

You can do the same thing with my blog. This post is node 603. The legal case is arguing that if you subtract one from the URL and go to 602 when the developer didn't intend you to, you could be sentenced to years of prison. That's what this court decision implies.

Years ago, I was often horrified by the shocking ignorance of the courts and politicians regarding basic technical facts about computer technology. Frequently, you'd see howlers like when Alaska Senator Ted Stevens famously described the Internet as a series of tubes. You can listen to the recording right there on the wikipedia page.

For a long time, I expected a new generation of more technically sophisticated people to come along and fix the broken legislation and court decisions made in the early history of the internet. Unfortunately, I've come to recognize that the problem is getting worse, not better.

A lot of the revolutionary transformation that happened with the early internet was due to the use of simple, open protocols (like http and html) that could be easily inspected and remixed by anyone. A commercial entity would never have built it that way.

People often talk about how markets are efficient, but they're efficient like the old joke that goes "I don't need to run faster than the bear -- I just need to run faster than you." To which you might add, "And if I break your leg, I won't even have to run." Corporations are willing to invest huge amounts of money and make their products much less attractive and less useful to consumers if they think it will curtail competition and help their bottom line more.

As technology is increasingly commoditized and packaged for non-technical users, the underlying data structures and protocols are concealed. People using an "app" on an iPhone have no idea what's actually behind the scenes. If you're a mere consumer of technology, you don't have access to any of the really empowering features -- it makes it difficult or impossible to adapt the technology to your own uses.

Several years ago, I wrote a little script to transform data from CSV into a file written in "dot" that could be plotted by graphviz. It was cool because you could pipe the output of the script to graphviz and then to ps2pdf to go straight from csv to a PDF file. Or you could get the dot file and edit it by hand to add colors or make some things bold. When I had students use it, I found that they'd essentially never run a program at the command line before.

It doesn't bode well for the future that the next generation is being turned into consumers of technology. We need a commitment to open technologies and protocols that encourage remixing and reuse. We can't leave the market to the control of the corporations -- they won't build it that way unless we give them no other choice.

This semester, I was elected to the Rules Committee of the Faculty Senate and have been serving now for a few weeks. Originally, I had planned to summarize the meetings in my blog, as I've often done for other things. But the meetings are long and complicated -- and it's hard to summarize discussions concisely without running the risk of misquoting people, or putting words in their mouth. But I am starting to gain some insight into what the Faculty Senate can do.

Some early experiences I had with the Senate showed me its limitations. A good example was the effort to get the campus to implement a "Teaching, Learning, Technology Roundtable" (TLTR) as a mechanism for stakeholders to have input into technology decisions. When I arrived on the campus, many people complained that technology decisions seemed to be made in some kind of smoke-filled back room and then simply imposed on the students and faculty. (This is perhaps an exaggeration, but with an element of truth: there was little transparency.) We proposed the TLTR model in the Faculty Senate University Computing and Electronic Communications Committee and passed a resolution. The motion came before the Senate and was approved. The administration gave an administrator a new title, Vice Chancellor for Instructional Technology. He held private luncheons for administrators for a year and a half, and then retired. And that was the end of it. One faculty member, who discovered that the "Committee" discussing instructional technology had no (zero) faculty, kicked up a fuss, and got himself invited. But it was (I thought) a lesson in the lack of power of the Senate to make something happen. (And we're still talking about the same problem -- I hope to raise it with the Chancellor again on Tuesday). But I've learned something about what the Senate can and can't do.

The Senate can't really make things happen. What it *can* do is raise questions. The Faculty Senate can be the conscience for the campus: identifying problems and raising concerns. If you try to push it to get out in front and start picking the solutions, you're going to be frustrated.

We've had some good, fruitful discussions. There's a new "Champion Center" going in next to the Mullins Center. A Faculty Senate committee looked at the siting and made some suggestions about ways that the new development could address existing problems in that area: lack of public bathrooms, an accessible path from the road to the playing fields, etc.

In some areas, the administration has refused to discuss issues. When the idea of reconsidering the change to FBS Football was raised, the Chancellor indicated in no uncertain terms that the topic was not open to discussion. When the topic was raised that the funds saved by switching from 3 to 4 credits had been diverted from supporting the Integrative Experience (IE), the Provost pushed back angrily saying that the monies had been provided to the Deans and that Departments needed to address themselves to their college for support. This is a particular issue in Biology (and other large departments) for which the Integrative Experience is, essentially, an unfunded mandate and has produced solutions that represent substantial compromises to the vision that the IE initially represented.

This evening, I took Alisa for dinner at Hillside with the Chancellor and the Rules Committee. There was a lot of good conversation about many topics. I got a chance to make a pitch for the excellent education in the Biology Department, to talk about town-gown relations, and even to say something about my Esperanto activity (he brought it up, because I had given him a copy of Premitaj Floroj at the first meeting after I joined the Rules Committee).

The Chancellor has been thinking about town-gown and has good ideas. One concern that I've had is that much of the town-gown relationship happens through a small handful of people: the chair of the select board, the two police chiefs, and a handful of key administrators. There are a few larger events, but they tend to be social in nature (a town-gown reception at Hillside, the block-party in Amherst). I would like to see a more substantive event that brings together more people to explain the existing relationship, broaden the base of stakeholders, and explore ideas for improving the interaction.