Thanks to Internet, it is possible for a musician in Bolivia to be listened to in Toronto. My blog is read by people in Brezil. However, there is a very serious threat on this brave new world: that individuals and small communities get lost in the ever increasing noise. Just think about how progressively less reliable and useful email has become. I think this is partly a technology issue: we need increasingly poweful tools as cyberspace grows.
Yuhong’s new blog talks about leadership. She quite accurately points out that in research, as in all creative work, leadership is a very important quality. I’ve struggled myself with the concept while I was filling out funding applications (yes, I’m still working on funding). People ask you to prove you are a leader… but what does it mean to be a leader?
Yuhong proposes the following definition:
- Always take into account everyone’s interest
- Be generous
- Have a vision
I like Yuhong’s definition!
This morning, I went out and decided to do some research on the city where I live from a creative class point of view. I found two reports. One by Richard Florida himself on Canadian cities. The report was paid for by Ontario, but it looks objective. Second of all, I found a report by the department of Canadian Heritage on attracting talent in Canada.
What comes out of these reports is that Montréal is not a very creative city. It more creative than the Canadian average, but well below Vancouver and Toronto. However, it is definitively a tech. center, it actually surpass both Toronto and Vancouver in terms of being a technopolis. Florida’s report point out though that these figures might be misleading: a lot of tech. workers in Montréal work in the aerospace industry and their job might be in a tech. industry, but it is unclear how much technology is involved in their work. There are creative and talented people in Montréal, but according to the Heritage Canada report, they are poor if not starving.
I must say that these reports match my intuition. I’ve been back from the maritimes for a few months now, and while Montréal is well ahead of the maritimes in terms of food for example (and yes, it does contribute to the creativity index), I’m a bit disappointed. A lot of people in Montréal don’t get it. It is all about big corporations, big unions, big salaries for them. Hey! I want a big salary too! Don’t get me wrong… But the open culture isn’t there.
I would describe the culture here as a “république des satisfaits” (well-off republic): that is, you have a large segment of the population, the baby-boomers, who are squarely in control of the society. They occupy all strategic jobs and resist changes. They have good paying jobs and don’t really care for creativity or openess. I should point out that Montréal is one of the most unionized city in North America. And they make sure younger folks stay out. I suspect they also keep foreigners out. This is somewhat an easier thing to achieve here than in the rest of North America where people are slightly more mobile. I suppose that it is also culturally influenced by France which has a strong sense of hierarchy. Whatever, it sucks and Montréal pays for it: my intuition is that more great jobs are created in Vancouver and Toronto than here.
However, I don’t think this applies as well to the anglophone community in Montréal. I suspect, I hope, they stand closer to Toronto and Vancouver in terms of their creativity index. That’d be an interesting study to make. Are Montréal anglos more open? Wow. You could start quite a debate there.
Stephen wrote an article: Whither the Semantic Web. We agree so much that you’d think I steal my good ideas from him (I do).
Semantic Web researchers need to realize that the Semantic Web is happening now. But it isn’t happening where they think. My blog, my entire web site, is described using simple, accessible XML in a RSS format and useful software access it now. Millions of people do the same, either because they are technically capable or by using existing some of the great software out there, much of it free.
On the other hand, the W3C is in a sea of insanity with specifications adopted merely for their political merits, certainly not because they’ve proven themselves to be useful. Don’t get me wrong: some of XPath and XSLT is truly useful. DTDs are useful. But then, things like OWL? Please! I’ve seen no demonstration that such sophisticated specs are actually usable in the real world. Yes, people are lazy and stupid: take it into account when designing new technology.
I think that a lot of this insanity is motivated by researcher’s need for difficult and complex problems to justify their existence. After all, if Joe in his tavern can understand your problem and your solution, it can’t be very serious research.
Let complexity be thy guide.
The following page points to some research on the impact of latency on gamers and, in particular, on recent research involving Unreal Tournament:The Effects of Loss and Latency on User Performance in Unreal Tournament 2003.
I think this is an absolutely great way to attract students: do research on gaming technology. In fact, I once proposed to NRC that I could do some research on Web porn technology, but my boss (Bruce Spencer) seemed reluctant for some reason to invest government dollars in the porn industry.
I still haven’t given up on using porn technology as a research topic though. However, I think that just like gaming, you’d need to work extra-hard just to justify your research topic.
Which is not to say that my research is not on cool topics. I think that inDiscover is quite cool. I also have other things coming that may appear as sexy to some people (but no porn research as of yet).
Just like art, I think that research should be thought provoking.
Here’s an interesting post by viral-learning about Learning Object reuse. One of the defining factor for Learning Objects ought to be reusability, you’d think. However, Downes once correctly pointed out to me that reusability is not really a defining factor… indeed, can you point out to a non-reusable learning object?
It remains an interesting topic. One of the pretensions of object-oriented programming is object reuse. You see it in textbooks. Supposedly, people would continuously reuse code because code is embedded in objets. In practice, it is a claim I haven’t seen come true. It hasn’t proven to be a powerful paradigm in my experience. Objects are useful modeling tool, but they are no magical bullet and they don’t clearly make reuse easier. Not in my experience.
What works? APIs. Coherence sets of function calls you can use in many of your projects.
What would be the equivalent in the Learning Object setting? The closest thing I could think of is a textbook. Are textbooks dead? I don’t think… they may simply no longer be printed in the near future…
Here’s a cool project: OpenTextBook. When I was at Acadia, we often wondered why students had to pay CAN$80 for a Calculus textbook when it was obvious that all such textbooks are the same, they have to be, and all of the content has been known for quite some time.
What are we paying publisher for, exactly? We could never quite figure out, but because, neither the university nor the professor ends up paying the bill, we keep asking students to buy expensive textbooks for no good reason.
To be fair, professors are not evil. Not all of them. Many wondered whether we could write a free calculus textbooks ourselves. I think there are some free textbooks but who would dare trusting them? I would trust a textbook that the community can peer review though. If people find mistakes, they can come in and correct the mistakes. It would not converge into a free, perfect textbooks, but it might end up producing an acceptable textbook, for sure.
I co-wrote this really cool document on Series. It is free! You can have the LaTeX source if you ask or are clever enough to navigate my hidden Web.
One day soon, I’ll co-wrote an open textbook. I should make a note of it.
I like Tim Bray. He gave us so many great things and I’m sure he will help Sun. I’ve learned through OLDaily that Sun’s employees can now blog without asking permission. This is quite clear: if you want to comment on today’s technology or on your daily work, go right ahead. You don’t need to ask your boss first as to whether you can say that or this. I would imagine that company secrets have to remain off the blogs, but such “secrets” are usually quite boring anyway and not what employees would want to write about, and a large company like Sun cannot hold secrets very well anyhow.
To be fair, many Microsoft employees have done this too, and with support from Microsoft. Again, these companies encourage open communication and thus, creativity. They cannot lose.
Interesting post on slashdot on Google’s Ph.D. Advantage. It would appear that:
Google’s willingness to let every employee spend 20% of his or her time on an independent project is a compelling motivator and that they estimate that Google has as many Ph.D.’s working for it as Microsoft, which is 30 times larger.
What’s interesting to me is that Google has a distinctive culture and everyone has felt it. It is hard to describe really, but the minute people tried to use Google, they discovered that it wasn’t just another search engine driven by business people who focused on the business case. And you know what? It has only gotten better over time. Some say that the dot-bust and generally depressing state of the industrial R&D won’t be with us for very long, that we will rebound. I think that despite everything we can think, Information Technology will still be a very good place to be just because this is what most people have trouble with: managing information and knowledge. If you work in any kind of organisation, I’m sure your days are filled with questions such as “where can I find this, who knows about this?”. I know my days are like that. That’s why I use email so much. That’s why I have a wiki, a cvs server, and a blog… and that’s why I keep on exploring new ways to manage data… because all of these techniques extend the reach of my brain and, to put it bluntly, they do make me smarter.
There aren’t too many job offers where a Ph.D. is considered a plus and unless you want a job in academia or are willing to start a company, if you want to remain in Canada, your Ph.D. might not give you a strong edge (though I don’t know for sure). A search on monster.ca reveals that there are 19 job offers in Canada with Ph.D. in the description. Not all of those are for Ph.D. holders though. For example Google is looking for a sales coordinator (Toronto) but they only mention that the founders had Ph.D.s. I’d say it is more like 10ish job offers in all of Canada.
Call me an optimist, but I think the days when business turns back to innovation for growth have to come back really soon. Google shows that an innovation-driven business can work. It can compete with the largest beasts like Microsoft, at least for a time. I want to believe in the rise of the creative class: wealth is mostly provided by creativity and creativity comes from creative people. My only worry is whether this will happen in Canada and in Montréal in particular. I just don’t know. Some people tell me that industry is really vibrant in Montréal right now. I haven’t been back long enough to know. I need to go downtown a bit more. I need to find out where the creative people are in this city.
Interesting commentary by 17th century on the One room syndrome. Many Ph.D.s have lived through this and know the feeling. You have to sit at your chair, in the same damn room day after day after day. You can imagine that what you’ll produce will be like a movie that people will pay to see… Hmmm…. not so in my experience. The reward is mostly just that: you become a “doctor”. Some of the time, it might good for your ego, and it helps getting some kind of jobs and contracts. But it ain’t a movie and it doesn’t bring you any kind of fame (99% of the time).
Once you become a “true” researcher (read: actually paid real money), things change a bit, at least for some of us. Sitting in the same room is just one piece of it, then you have meetings, networking, endless emails, administrative duties, funding proposal, students, and so on. Many people find they no longer have any time to sit in a room, especially the poor folks who get a 4-4 teaching load. Then, you have industry, where you end up doing pretty much what everybody else do. In my case, this meant a lot of programming (and I got good at it too!) and getting stressed out about having real people depend on your work.
My Ph.D. was a rather interesting experience. I basically lived totally isolated. I chose to cut ties from the university and from everyone else so I could focus on my work. Did it work? Yes. Was it a good strategy? Probably not. I would run every day, I would spend too much time on the Web, but I ended up finishing my thesis and it was ok. I was even lucky enough to have a job waiting for me (if you call a post-doc a job, but that’s for another day). I recall that I made all these sacrifices because I thought that the good life was waiting for me after the Ph.D.