OutsideTheTextJekyll2016-04-25T10:23:59-04:00/David Parry/dave@outsidethetext.com/blog/about-that-privacy-class2016-03-12T09:43:18-05:002016-03-12T09:43:18-05:00David Parrydave@outsidethetext.com<p>This semester I have been teaching an upper level Communication and Digital Media class, <a href="http://outsidethetext.com/classes/Privacy/">Privacy and Surviellance in the Digital Era</a>. I have previously taught one of our introduction to the major courses, Communication Ethics, in which we talk about the ways in which digital media impact a range of cultural issues, everything from things like socialization online, to intellectual property, and of course privacy. Over the course of the last five to six years I have noted a decided shift in interest on these issues. Several years ago I would have said the section on privacy I did in the intro class tended to be one of the least popular in the course. Which is not to say students were not interested, especially when I introduced them to cookies, adblockers, and the whole tracking ecosystem, it’s just that students were not engaged as with the other sections. However in the fast two years something shifted and this has become one of the students most engaged topic areas (as judged both from in class experience and reading evaluations). I am not sure what has caused this, one could attribute it to a post-Snowden bump, but I am not sure that really is the case (as students generally seem more concerned about corporate privacy versus government privacy). After experimenting last semester with some ideas in this lower level course, I decided to offer an upper level course, solely focused on this issue.</p>
<p>You can read the <a href="http://outsidethetext.com/classes/Privacy/syllabus/">syllabus here</a>, this is also the class website, so you can see assignments etc. There are a few things though I wanted to explain as the logic behind the syllabus isn’t probably entirely clear, as well as some atypical assignments (that I hope will work out).</p>
<p>I wanted to students to understand that the issue of privacy is a complicated one, not simply a matter of privacy versus security, which is how the issue is all too often framed in the public debate. So my first goal was to get students to understand that privacy has a complex history, especially with regards to media, and secondly to think about privacy as a value, ask themselves what it is and why they do/do not value it. So, that is the first part of the class, we read broad discussions about privacy and looked at how (both within the US context and global one) developed as a value.</p>
<p>In the second part of class I wanted students to pull apart the multiple angles upon which privacy is threatened. The idea here is to get them to see that this isn’t just about government surviellance, but also corporate power, and social surviellance. It’s not just 1984, but Huxley, and Kafka. This is the section we are working on now, and will finish after spring break.</p>
<p>For the third part of class I wanted students to experience privacy in a different way. Typically my default behavior as an instructor is to have students write a reasearched paper as a way of synthezing the material they have learned in class, but I have also been trying to develop other ways of having students experience the knowledge. So I designed <a href="http://outsidethetext.com/classes/Privacy/assignments/">two assignments</a> that students will complete over the third part of the class.</p>
<ul>
<li><em>Privacy Plan</em>: The idea here is to get students to articulate 1. What they value about privacy. 2. To research and then use the tools available to them to maximize a particular aspect of privacy that they find important. 3. To reflect on that experiment and develop a concrete plan for once class ends what they will do going forward. My thinking here is a to have a directed staged assignment in which students hopefully come to reflect on privacy, but also understand the specific steps they can take in the future to maximize their own.</li>
<li><em>Mock Congressional Hearing</em>: I shamelessly stole this assignment from another professor here at Saint Joseph’s University in political science who has a widely popular and succesful Mock Supreme Court Hearing as her final. As much as I wanted students to understand invidiual choice in this matter, I also wanted them to have a sense of how these are also policy questions and political discussions shaped beyong particular individual choices. So as a final for the class we are having a mock congressional hearing where students play the role of legislators and various interest groups, and articulate said position (even if they don’t necessarily agree). I cooked the books here a bit to combine house members and senators on the same hearing panel, in part because there were perspectives from each I wanted students to see. Some students are going to play the roles of legislators, others of corporations called to testify, others of law enforcement groups, and some of civic organizations with stakes in this debate.</li>
</ul>
<p>The class should be finished in a couple of months and I’ll update this post at the end of the semester for those who want to borrow this syllabus, tell me how to improve on it etc.</p>
<p><a href="/blog/about-that-privacy-class/">On That Privacy Class</a> was originally published by David Parry at <a href="">OutsideTheText</a> on March 12, 2016.</p>/blog/protonmail2016-03-02T10:11:42-05:002016-03-02T10:11:42-05:00David Parrydave@outsidethetext.comOf late I have been trying to make significantly more intentional choices about which online digital services I use. These choices always seem to me to be a trade-off between convenience (ease of use), network effect (use the service everyone is using), and cost (free in dollars, expensive in privacy loss). One of the things, like many, that is easy to find a service for free is email. Amongst both my colleagues and friends, gmail has become almost a standard. Understandably so, it is cheap (at least in terms of dollars), it is convenient (a mostly adequate user interface), stable (rarely goes down, and certainly not for extended periods of time), more than adequate spam filters (lets talk about all the fishing attacks and spam I get at my university), and secure (Google has fairly good security). The downside though is obvious, they read everything in your inbox, while it might be secure, it certainly isn't private.
Every since I can remember I have had my own email address, run out of my own domain (outsidethetext.com). But this self hosted email has gotten to be burdensome. I spend a lot of time configuring things, mostly spam filters and whitelists. Over the past year this has become fairly annoying and often downright burdensome. So I have been looking into options. Criteria: I want something where all the email is encrypted on the provider end, so the provider has no access to the data. It also needs to be stable. I can cope with a degree of inconvenience for privacy and security, but that's relative.
After trying out a range of services, I've ended up settling on [Protonmail](https://protonmail.com/).
#### Upside:
* Secure and Private: [Data on their side is encrypted](https://protonmail.com/security-details). Probably not the most secure system, but meets my threshold.
* Ease of Set Up:
* Allows Custom Domain: They allow custom domains. This means I can point a domain I own to them. And more importantly it means that if I want to stop using Protonmail, move to another service I can just change service providers without changing email. I have already done this, it was honestly fairly simple.
* Business Plan: "There is no Cloud only other People's Computers" & "If you aren't paying you aren't the customer you are the product." We all know this. But I also think it isn't entirely true. If a service like email or file syncing follows a premium model it can provide its services for free to some (especially those that need it but can't afford it) but also generate operating revenue from those willing to pay for enhanced features. This is what Protonmail does (paid gets you more storage and custom domains). I want a service that isn't look to scale to infinity and become a unicorn, but also one that has a sustainable business model. This is really about supporting and building a responsible digital ecosystem.
#### Downside:
* Doesn't work with email clients. To check Protonmail I have to either log in via the web. So I can't use Thunderbird. I prefer mail clients to webmail. They do however have an app for android and iphone which makes it possible to use on mobile devices.
* Cannot import PGP key. Right now you cannot import your own PGP key, and messages going outside of Protonmail aren't encrypted. This would normally have been a deal breaker for me, but it is in their [development plan](https://protonmail.com/support/categories/protonmail-is-great/) to enable this.
Right now Protonmail is my plan going forward. The mobile apps work well, the interface is as good as any web interface can be. And the development plan going forward seems to be focused on addressing some of my remaining issues. Once they allow importing of PGP keys I'll probably switch over my main email to this and start using it a lot more. Right now I have been only using it for limited correspondence.
**Update:** As part of the [Privacy Class](http://outsidethetext.com/blog/on-that-privacy-class) I am teaching, I challenged students to develop privacy plans. For a few of them this involves pursuing an alternative to gmail. Some of them selected Protonmail and have indicated that it has been easy to use with no complaints. This confirms my impression that for someone used to webmail based email (not thru a client like Mail.app or Thunderbird), students almost universally use webmail on their computers, the transition is less notable. None of them who choose Protonmail indicated any problems. And the fact that they were able to get free accounts, with limits, confirms the business model for now: people like myself support Protonmail thru payments and minimal email services can be provided for others for free.
<p><a href="/blog/protonmail/">Protonmail</a> was originally published by David Parry at <a href="">OutsideTheText</a> on March 02, 2016.</p>/blog/NetNeutralityDraft2015-02-12T01:53:02-05:002015-02-12T01:53:02-05:00David Parrydave@outsidethetext.com<h3 id="the-ruling">The Ruling</h3>
<p>Last week, after a very long campaign by various interest groups, on both sides of the debate, Tom Wheeler finally announced his proposal for FCC rules governing the internet. What seemed highly unlikely a year ago, now seems highly probable: FCC will use its Title II authority to reclassify the internet, a strong win for Net Neutrality. What is even more is Wheeler announced that he plans to include “bright line” rules for mobile broadband as well.</p>
<p>Win. Win. Win. Throw a Party. Let’s hear it for Net Neutrality.</p>
<h3 id="not-so-fast---">Not So Fast . . .</h3>
<p>Okay, just to be clear here, I am a strong proponent of Net Neutrality. Indeed I think it is probably one of the most important policy issues facing not only our government, but global governance structures as well. And, I am glad that the FCC is moving to reclassify under Title II. During the SOPA and PIPA debates it seemed to me that we were rapidly moving towards a structure where monied intrests and government would look to control internet governance and architecture. And while SOPA and PIPA were defeated, it looked like to me that rather than legislate the internet in one big package, we would see a bunch of small moves that would eventually degrade the integrity and value of the network (Netflix’s deal with Comcast being one of the premiere examples here). So, it is encouraging to get such a big decision that clearly moves to protect the internet, arguing that ISPs should be held to “common carrier status.”</p>
<p>But while many of the citizen groups that campaigned hard to see this happen celebrate, I am still worried. I don’t think this was necessarily as “big” a win for grassroots movements as some want it to be. To be clear here, I have no doubt that organizations like <a href="https://demandprogress.org/">Demand Progress</a> and <a href="https://demandprogress.org/">EFF</a> played a significant role in helping to secure a Title II ruling, and these groups deserve a lot of credit, and if all my donations to EFF ever did was to help make this happen I would consider it my best yearly donation I ever make, but still there is something about the way this ruling went down that ought to concern the wider public.</p>
<h3 id="why-this-all-matters">Why This All Matters</h3>
<p>To see why I am concerned I want to take a step back and point to what I think is important about Net Neutrality. To look at this issue from the perspective of politics and communication.</p>
<p>I don’t think I would overstate the case to say that the <em>operating architecture of a good Democracy is communication</em>. That is to say, that a democracy functions only on condition that citizens can communicate to and with one another.</p>
<p>In <em>The Republic</em> Plato says that the optimal size of a democracy is 5,040 people. This seems like a strange idea, that democracy has an optimal size, and indeed one so small given the size of many contemporary democracies. But Plato’s point was that a democracy could function only in so much as the people could adequately communicate with each other, have their ideas heard by the other members of the polis. The 5,040 number reflects the largest <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnyx">number of people that could gather in one place</a> and be heard.</p>
<p>Indeed at the founding of the United States, one of the arguments mounted by the anti-federalist is that the United States is just too big too spread out to be capable of becoming a democracy. Its size and diversity, what we now see as an advantage of the US nation state, was seen as a serious impediment to democracy. Madison’s answer to this critique was “roads, and post offices.” Or more precisely that given the new technological affordances of the late 18th century a democracy could work, because the ability to communicate across distances had greatly increased.</p>
<p>Communication is central to the functioning of a democracy. There is a much longer argument here, and one that would take us away from the direct topic at hand, but suffice it to say the technology of communication shapes the possibilities (the limitations and affordances) of how publics are able to talk, deliberate, discuss, and form. Indeed this would be my reading of the first amendment, a model for how democracy works: freedom to determine personal views (religion), the ability to meet to discuss those views (right to assemble), the ability to share and discuss those views (press and speech) and then the ability to use that discussion to alter civic life (petition the government). Any such system requires a robust communication mechanism.</p>
<p>And in the long form of this argument I would make the case that the broadcast era, television and radio, are low points in democracy, because they centralize the means of communication, enabling a select few to reach a very wide public, and short circuit any kind of mass deliberation. Broadcast media are actually pretty bad for a democracy because of the centralization of communication.</p>
<p>Enter the digital network. The particular affordance of the digital network is that it allows the largest number of participants to (in theory) participate in the discussion. While attention may be centralized, the communication architecture treats all communicative utterances equally, at least at the technical level, this is the central idea behind Net Neutrality. Indeed it actually isn’t such a strange idea, or a particularly new one. (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause">The Post Office was originally conceived of as a net neutral</a> way of communicating, and foundational for the operation of the American democratic process.)</p>
<h3 id="back-to-wheeler">Back to Wheeler</h3>
<p>This brings me back to Wheelers comments on the move to classify ISPs under Title II. What is particularly striking about his comments is the <em>utter lack of civic justification</em> for Title II, but rather a heavy reliance on the economic, innovation argument for reclassification.</p>
<p>In the <a href="http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/">opening paragraph Wheeler</a> says, that he is moving to “preserve the internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression.” What is concerning though is after this initial opening sentence the rest of the remarks drop almost any mention of the “free expression” justification, and instead rely almost entirely on the “preserve innovation” argument. Indeed the rest of the article pits commercial interests against consumers, treating the public’s interest in this matter as simply one of economics and consumerism. Indeed the only other mention of the internet as a means for public communication, community development, and individual expression comes in the closing paragraph where the internet is cited as, “an unprecedented platform for innovation and human expression.” </p>
<p>The story Wheeler tells to justify the switch to Title II is of a company, NABU, that gets locked out of the market because the networks were able to act as gatekeepers. Throughout his remarks he shows that open networks allow for economic innovation and progress, while closed ones slow down the march of progress and benefit a few players.</p>
<p>Okay, so fine, I have no doubt that open networks foster innovation, that the greatest measure of progress occurs when there are not limits to the barriers to entry. But honestly the fact that NABU got squeezed out of the market by AOL seems to me only a secondary reason to argue strongly for Net Neutrality.</p>
<p>The primary argument for Net Neutrality is, and ought to remain, the principle that an open network invites the largest range of participants to the communicate, to share ideas, form communities and engage in civic conversations. Honestly even if Net Neutrality hurt economic innovation, the political and civic justification would outweigh the economic one.</p>
<p>Basing a decision on the information architecture of our democracy on whether or not it fosters economic innovation seems like a bad policy. A proposal whose logical justification turns on economic innovation and progress is a weak endorsement of a central civic institution, a bit like saying lets support libraries because people go to them to research how to open businesses. Sure that’s one use for the system, but that’s not its most important one, not even close. Or if you rather its a bit like saying the Postal System is great because it allows for businesses to engage in direct mailing to promote their business.</p>
<p>In some sense I understand this. In order to win the battle for Net Neutrality activists concerned about the civic function of the internet sided with the powerful business interests that want an open net. Government works in large part due to money spent and having powerful allies like Google, Netflix, Twitter, and Facebook who can bankroll lobbying efforts is important. But let’s also be clear many institutions supporting the move to Title II do so not because of any social benefit, but merely for an economic one, and if they suddenly were to benefit from a more restricted, business determined structure they would switch sides by the close of the stock market that day.</p>
<p>And I don’t mean here to poor cold water on all the work activist did. I have no doubt that the heavy public commenting (which Wheeler mentions) and aggressive civic campaigns helped tip the battle here, but lets also be reasonable in our assessment, this was also in large part effective because the monied interests were divided, and an justification for Title II that rests in part, and in this case in main, on innovation and progress as the reasons is a weak one indeed. </p>
<p>Importantly here, let’s keep in mind that a <a href="https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/title-ii-is-not-net-neutrality-and-net-neutrality-is-not-utility-regulation">Title II reclassification isn’t Net Neutrality</a>, and it isn’t reclassifying the net as a utility or a civic institution. This ruling doesn’t recognize that citizens have rights online, it doesn’t regulate what ISPs or businesses can and can’t do relative to privacy (Facebook, Google, etc would fight this), it just gets us closer to the reclassification and protecting the network according to common carrier status, that’s it. Yes a step forward, but also a reminder that there is lots still to be done.</p>
<p><a href="/blog/NetNeutralityDraft/">Title II a Win, but I am still Worried</a> was originally published by David Parry at <a href="">OutsideTheText</a> on February 12, 2015.</p>/blog/Onion-pi2015-01-02T01:53:02-05:002015-01-02T01:53:02-05:00David Parrydave@outsidethetext.com<p>In my classes I have tried to incorporate more and more experiential, practice based learning. I have found that merely discussing the issues is not nearly as meaningful as a careful discussion of the issues informed by a practical engagement with the topic at hand. One of my favorite classes to teach here at Saint Joseph’s is Communication Ethics, a foundational course for the degree program where we introduce students to the broad topics and issues surrounding digital media; everything from copyright and remix culture to social movements and civic media. Obviously one of the topics we discuss in this class is privacy, both in terms of personal privacy but also how larger individual relates to governments and corporations. As just one example I have students install Ghostery and pay attention to who and for what motives their online interactions are being tracked. Obviously one of the topics we cover here is encryption and anonymization, specifically <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_%28anonymity_network%29">Tor</a> and VPNs. But in an introductory class like this I don’t always have the luxury of infinite time, and days dedicated to exploring specific tools. So I like to have easy ways to demonstrate tools. Enter <a href="https://learn.adafruit.com/onion-pi/overview">Onion Pi</a> . . .</p>
<h3 id="building-an-onion-pi">Building an Onion Pi</h3>
<p>I got to thinking about this based on the somewhat questionable project <a href="http://anonabox.com/home.php">Anonbox</a> which got delisted from Kickstarter (in October), but now seems to be available via Indiegogo.* The idea here is to create a wireless access point to which any device can connect and to which all the traffic by default is routed thru Tor. After a little research I realized how easy it would be to build one of these on my own, that way I could then take it class (or really anywhere) and quickly and easily demonstrate Tor. What’s more as a wireless access point which is routing traffic over Tor it makes it easy for multiple people to use at once.</p>
<p>So, I ordered up a Raspberry Pi (I had all the other stuff lying around) and got to work, based on the <a href="https://learn.adafruit.com/onion-pi/what-youll-need">adafruit tutoriall</a>. The tutorial was really thorough, and honestly I spent more time configuring the Pi, getting the software installed on the SD card, and then setting it up as a Wireless Access point. As a rough estimate it took me probably an hour to accomplish, but if you had a spare monitor, keyboard and mouse to plug into the Pi to speed up configuration you could probably get this done in like 30 minutes (I didn’t so I had to use a bit more complicated solution). Really though once the Pi is set up as a wireless access point it takes only about 5 minutes to get is working as a Tor access point.</p>
<p>Anyway, here it is up and working (next to my Pirate Box). . .</p>
<p><img class="center" src="/images/onionpi.png" title="Onion Pi" alt="Onion Pi" /></p>
<p>Last step though is I need a case to make it portable, but that should be <a href="http://www.thingiverse.com/search/page:1?q=raspberry+pi+case&sa=">pretty easy to fix</a> (lots of options).</p>
<p>The limit is that it needs to be plugged into an ethernet cable, although I imagine it is possible to configure it to work with a wireless network, as a bridge of sorts.</p>
<p>Anyway its ready for class later this semester. Now I don’t have to worry about letting students try and configure their own computers to run Tor, or worse, getting permission to put Tor on the lab computers. Easily demo-able this way, and then students can see the so-what, and for those who are interested I can point to the online tutorials where they can set up their own computers, or heck even build their own Onion Pi.</p>
<ul>
<li>I am not saying that Anonabox does or doesn’t work, I have no knowledge either way. The reason it got delisted from Kickstarter had to do more with not being entirely clear about the project. Read about it <a href="https://www.bestvpn.com/blog/11371/anonabox-tiny-low-cost-open-source-tor-router/">here</a>. You can get an Anonabox for $50 which is cheaper than the <a href="https://www.adafruit.com/products/1410">Adafruit DIY kit</a> although to be fair you actually get more in the Adafruit kit.</li>
</ul>
<p><a href="/blog/Onion-pi/">Onion Pi</a> was originally published by David Parry at <a href="">OutsideTheText</a> on January 02, 2015.</p>/blog/what-i-use-now2014-12-12T07:53:02-05:002014-12-12T07:53:02-05:00David Parrydave@outsidethetext.com<h3 id="what-i-use">What I Use</h3>
<p>Many semesters ago I started writing about my digital tools, recommending some of my favorites, and describing how I used them and why. I did this for a few reasons, on the practical level I found these types of posts by others to be tremendosouly useful to me helping me to find some useful tools and become a better user of technology, so in part this was a way to give back to the community I was taking from. I also enjoy testing out new technologies, for the most part I enjoy this and writing up what I found always seemed like a natural extension of this practice. The third reason though is more philosophical, and probably grounds why I keep doing writing up what I use. I find that the tools we use in part shape the practice of our work (whether that is in teaching or research or really in a field), but we often don’t discuss these choices treating the tools and means of production as irrelevant to the process, obfuscating what we are doing. I often feel as if our work practices are a black box labeled “magic goes here” where we don’t discuss process only product, but for me the process informs the product heavily and vice versa so discussing the process (particularly the tools is important, at least to me).</p>
<h4 id="the-big-picture">The Big Picture</h4>
<p>Over the years what I use has substantially changed. Back in the day, I used to be all Apple, Mac, iOS etc. Indeed you can find many blog posts talking about this or pictures of me using these devices. But I have changed a lot since then. I won’t detail all of the reasons here, although you can probably read in some of the particulars below. But the main guiding principle in my choices has been in choosing Open Source technology, technology that avoids locking me into one way of doing things, and privileging choices which allow the end user (me) to control the data and the system. I tend to move away from platforms which I don’t control the data, and completely avoid any platform or tool over which I have no control.</p>
<h4 id="main-tools">Main Tools</h4>
<h4 id="linux"><em>Linux</em>:</h4>
<p>My main computer at this point runs Linux (right now <a href="http://www.ubuntu.com/">Ubuntu</a>, I have played around with other flavors). The operating system is lean, fast, and most importantly I have root access to anything on the computer. Using <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software">FOSS</a> software is a moral bonus here. I also appreciate my students reactions when I tell them my Operating System is free. Initially there was a learning curve where I had to learn how to fix various problems via the terminal, but fortunately there is the “internet” and any problem I have I am able to fix myself (usually) with just a bit of research. Being able to fix ones own computer = huge feature. Not having to ask permission from some large corporate entity = even more huge feature. When I first started playing around with Linux years ago it wasn’t what you would call user friendly. Now in many ways I would argue that it is actually easier to use than iOS or Windows, you just have to be prepared to be your own help desk (or let the internet be your help desk). Software wise there are some trade-offs here, no access to the Adobe Creative Suite (for the more creative/art focused faculty with whom I work this makes it a non-starter) and their isn’t a really good presentation software either (really Keynote is now the only thing I go back to an Apple computer for).</p>
<h4 id="text-editor"><em>Text Editor</em>:</h4>
<p>Probably the application I spend the most time with is a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_editor">text editor.</a> I used to believe in fancy wordprocessing software but have come to realize that this isn’t really necessary. Almost all of the writing I do now, from informal meeting notes, to web content, to writing for the web, all the way to formal journal articles starts off first in a text editor. For stuff that is bound for the web or print this almost always means writing first in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown">markdown</a> than passing what I write thru pandoc to convert it to the most appropriate style/format. I still have some stuff (old notes, writing etc) that is either in Mellel or Omni Outliner and I kick myself everytime I have to go thru the laborious process of getting that info out of those formats. Right now my text editor of choice is <a href="http://www.sublimetext.com/">Sublime</a>, but I could change, its not really important (I have some colleagues who prefer Brackets or Atom) the point is that by writing in a text editor (mostly in markdown) my files are easily readable regardless of the application.</p>
<h4 id="firefox"><em>Firefox</em>:</h4>
<p>Obviously a web browser is central to my work (and really at this point isn’t the browser pretty much the main application on any computing device). I go back and forth between Firefox and Chrome. I have always found Chrome to be a little more high performing, eats less memory, doesn’t crash when I have 20 tabs open and I can leave the browser open for weeks without restarting. I find Firefox to be a little pickier, but the performance issues are only slight, not enough to warrant me switching. Mozilla > Google. The ability to use plugins though makes Firefox and Chrome the only two acceptable choices in my world. Plugins I use: <a href="http://getpocket.com/">Pocket</a>, <a href="https://www.ghostery.com/en/">Ghostery</a>, <a href="https://lastpass.com/">LastPass</a>, <a href="https://www.eff.org/privacybadger">PrivacyBadger</a>, <a href="https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere">HTTPS Everywhere</a>, Shortcuts for Google, Push Bullet, <a href="https://www.openaccessbutton.org/">Open Access Button</a>, Findbar, Search by Image, Instant Fox. (My extensive plugin use might have something to do with why I don’t get top performance out of the browser.)</p>
<h4 id="thunderbird"><em>Thunderbird</em>:</h4>
<p>Really I am not a fan of checking email via the web browser, I want a dedicated client for this. Thunderbird does the trick. It also (like Firefox) has a plugin architecture that enables me to tweak it down to suit my needs. I tried out Mailpile, but it was designed to look and feel like web browser email, so I think I am probably not the target market even though I like the project in theory. Plugins I use in Thunderbird: Enigmail, Mail Redirect, QuickFolders, Quick Translator.</p>
<h4 id="jekyll-and-octopress"><em>Jekyll and Octopress</em>:</h4>
<p>As you might be able to tell I have switched around a lot on my website. I used to be an avid Wordpress fan, using it to host my own personal site as well as all the resources for teaching. But after spending a year using <a href="http://octopress.org/">Octopress</a> and <a href="http://jekyllrb.com/">Jekyll</a> I can say I doubt I am going back. The learning curve was honestly pretty steep at first, and it took me a while to wrap my head around the idea of writing the files locally on my machine, than compiling the website locally, then deploying as static html to the server, but once I did (thanks <a href="https://twitter.com/timlockridge">@timlockridge</a>) I have come to appreciate the myriad advantages. Again, I end up having access and control over all my files locally. Also no worrying about databases and updating Wordpress. And finally when it comes to mothballing classes and setting up the website for a new semester it is ridiculously easy, and I am able to preserve each semester now as its own seperate site, archiving it without having to worry about things getting ridiculously clunky or updating multiple wordpress installs.</p>
<h4 id="spideroak"><em>SpiderOak</em>:</h4>
<p>I use this so much I forget about it. Basically its a more secure version of Dropbox. I really only use Dropbox for sharing things with others, but for backing up my files, and syncing between my own computers SpiderOak > Dropbox.</p>
<h4 id="iannotate"><em>iAnnotate</em>:</h4>
<p>Wait, I know an iOS app? Yes, I still have an iPad, next tablet I get I will probably get an Android one, but for now I still use an iPad. Mostly I read on it, and that is where iAnnotate comes in. I save journal articles I want to read into a folder and then mark them up in iAnnotate. Ridiculously useful. Also handy for “signing” forms without having to print them out, sign them, scan them, and email them back.</p>
<p>And that’s pretty much it, I would say 80-90% of my computing time is spent with those applications. I use the Libre Office suite when I need a Word Processor or a Spreadsheet, but really I get most of what I need done in the other applications. There are other smaller tools I use occasionally, and a suite of programs that I use for 3d printing. But in terms of work practice that is pretty much it. </p>
<p><a href="/blog/what-i-use-now/">What I Use Now</a> was originally published by David Parry at <a href="">OutsideTheText</a> on December 12, 2014.</p>/2014/my-new-laptopdevice-policy2014-09-14T00:00:00-04:002014-09-14T00:00:00-04:00David Parrydave@outsidethetext.com<p>So I have been thinking a great deal about pedagogy lately, partly because I made the move to a University that focuses on teaching, partly because I am now chair of the department, and partly because I felt that it was just time, that I had a way of doing things and hadn’t spent as much time thinking through whether or not that way of doing things was the most effective, or more to the point whether or not there was reason to change.</p>
<h3 id="my-old-laptop-policy">My Old Laptop Policy</h3>
<p>I used to have a mostly* laissez faire* laptop policy. I was of the attitude that students could be responsible for legislating their own attention. I was also persuaded by the idea that in most parts of their lives post-college they would be free to have laptops, or even more generally computing devices, out and use them. Indeed even within academia at things like chairs or faculty senate meetings many people have computing devices out. At most points in your life no one tells you you cannot have your computing device, part of being a professional and an adult is figuring this out: when it is appropriate to use a computing device, when it isn’t, and when it is okay to be distracted and when it isn’t. And since I think about my job as broadly speaking an issue of helping young adults become the adults they want to be then it struck me as a bad idea to take control away from them, to actively police their attention rather than teach them how to marshal their own attention. I don’t teach because I want to police people, I do it because I want to help people learn, and at the core of my pedagogical belief is the idea that students learn best when they are in charge of their own learning.</p>
<h3 id="but-lately">But lately</h3>
<p>But the last couple of years I have noticed a distinct difference between class discussions when students have devices out in class and ones in which they do not. A few days I begin experimenting with subtle ways to change the class dynamics. It started by creating an activity that required them to close their laptops to do something, write something down, talk to their neighbour etc, and then transitioned into a discussion. If students didn’t open their laptops the discussion went better, was more productive, more students participated, more engagement, more listening. Things would start to shift once students started re-activating their devices. And I have an attendance policy, students aren’t free to miss class, so maybe I needed a device one . . .</p>
<h3 id="potential-policies">Potential Policies</h3>
<p>I suppose their are a range of policies, from the let students do whatever they want as long as they aren’t disturbing their neighbour policy. To the shut off wifi in the room and not allow any devices to be out during class (I guess there is even the more extreme policy of seizing devices if you see them out . . .). No way I would want to go with an extreme solution, making the decisions for the students forcing them to “behave” just wasn’t going to work for me, whether thru technological means (locking the wifi out) or through dictator means (me setting an absolute policy and enforcing).</p>
<h3 id="but-still---">But still . . .</h3>
<p>I kept coming back to wanting to build a better learning environment for my students. And as most of the research now suggests laptops in the classroom can be a serious impediment to learning. I appreciate the digital network, value it, see its potential for social good. But I also recognize that no technology is neutral and that any piece of technology brings with it affordances and limitations. And the limitations of the ubiquitous connection and plethora of screens and distractions kept coming back to me. I won’t spell out all of my reasons here or point to all the research. Mainly though because I don’t have to, because <a href="https://medium.com/@cshirky/why-i-just-asked-my-students-to-put-their-laptops-away-7f5f7c50f368">Clay Shirky pretty much wrote that post already</a>, and I would pretty much agree with everything he wrote.</p>
<h3 id="but-then-again---">But then again . . .</h3>
<p>But then again I really wasn’t ready to commit to a full on ban of laptops in the classroom. I considered Howard Rheingold’s policy of only allowing a certain number of students to have laptops open at a time, something he discusses in <em>Net Smart</em>. But I decided against it. Instead I did something else . . .</p>
<h3 id="what-8220we8221-did---">What “we” did . . .</h3>
<p>The class itself is about digital media, and intro to digital media course. So there is an unusual opportunity in this course to make the issue of attention, distraction, and media not only a policy but a subject of discussion. This class has as one of the texts Rheingold’s <em>Net Smart</em> in which we read the section on attention very early on, as well as discuss some of Cathy Davidson’s work. I began that day by asking them to shut their laptops, turn off their devices as we discussed attention. What followed was a fruitful, and mature discussion about devices, how and why we use them, why they distract us, and what it does to the spaces we inhabit and socialize. And importantly I should say I tried to not make it about “us adults” vs “them kids” which I think is how the debate gets too often framed. I used examples from my own life our experiences where I have been totally guilty of not paying attention.</p>
<p>So, at the end of class I decided, actually sort of more or less decided this on the spot (so this wasn’t totally well thought out) to then make the discussion about what the policy in class should be, make the question: how do we in class want to make sure we maximize attention while still respecting individual choice. Different students expressed different opinions, pretty much everything in Shirky’s piece came up (the issue of not only individual attention, but those around, the spiral effect of once a few check out lots do creating a downward spiral). Then I had them vote they got to choose between two policies.</p>
<ol>
<li>Individuals in class can freely choose, although thoughtfully so about their own device use in class.</li>
<li>Devices in class are to be turned off, for everyone, unless directly being used for class.</li>
</ol>
<p>The vote was really close in the end something like 9 or 10 for choice #1 and 11 or 12 for choice #2. So in the end that’s the policy. <strong><em>No device use, except when directly related to the work going on in class.</em></strong> I should probably say that I am not totally comfortable with this, it seems still a bit like students are being forced to behave in a certain way. But I like it because the community chose to have it that way after a fruitful informed discussion. I think one of the things that makes me most uncomfortable though is how close the vote was. So I definitely plan on revisiting later in class, letting them discuss the policy again, and maybe we can even create a laptop zone in class, where students can use devices, but only if they sit in those seats restricting the distractions to one area, so those who know its a problem for them can avoid those seats, and also students would have to pre-decide (before class began), and admit that “hey I want to be able to check facebook,” in effect uping the transaction cost, but still leaving it ultimately up to them.</p>
<p>And all of this might totally fail, as often it does, but hey, then it will just be a reason to have another conversation and re-work things.</p>
<p>(Side note to this whole thing, take it for what it is worth, small sample size and all, but the students who were most vocal about wanting to preserve the overall community of the classroom were all women, and the ones who were most vocal about the more liberal policy were all men . . .not sure if that’s significant.)</p>
<p><a href="/2014/my-new-laptopdevice-policy/">My New Laptop/Device Policy</a> was originally published by David Parry at <a href="">OutsideTheText</a> on September 14, 2014.</p>/blog/buying-printers-for-class2014-08-12T06:53:02-04:002014-08-12T06:53:02-04:00David Parrydave@outsidethetext.com<h3 id="background">Background</h3>
<p><em>I am teaching a course on 3dprinting this semester (you can <a href="http://outsidethetext.com/classes/Printing/schedule-of-readings/">see the syllabus here</a> if you are interested it is a mix between theory, history of information & communication, and praxis, printing stuff). It has been a difficult class to construct and think about, in large part because the desktop 3d printing market is so young and these things aren’t nearly as easy to use as computers or 2d printers.</em></p>
<h3 id="the-issue">The Issue</h3>
<p>So one of the first “big” choices I faced in teaching a class about 3d printing was solving the hardware issue. Unlike say teaching a class that requires students to blog, I can’t expect them to have the hardware. Indeed, I am pretty much guaranteed that students will not have personal access to a printer so I needed to figure out a way to provide them. This creates a few issues. First, printers cost money. It would be nice to provide enough for each student to have one, but that isn’t probably economically feasible. Right now a printer cost anywhere between $300 and $3000 (okay they can actually cost a lot more than $3000 but for my purposes am playing in the $300 to $3k range). Second is ease of use. The easiest option is to go with Makerbot. It is really just plug and play. Makerbot comes with its own software and is really easy to use. Indeed its ease of use is probably what makes it so popular among educational institutions, especially the secondary ed market. But Makerbots are expensive $2,900 or so. It’s true you can purchase a Makerbot pull it out of the box, load software onto your computer and be printing in 10-15 minutes. And for the most part you can get fairly good quality prints out of the machine.</p>
<h3 id="but---">But . . .</h3>
<p>Aside from cost there are two big issues here. First is that Makerbots are too easy. </p>
<p>Too easy? </p>
<p>Yes. Too easy. Part of what I want students to learn is the technology of these things, how they work, their ins and outs, to think about the way they work, along with how they work. By making the machine less easy, it seems less like “magic” and more like something students are capable of intervening in/modifying. Thinking with machines means understanding how to make interventions. The Makerbot’s principle advantage is the software, it is really easy to use, but that comes at a cost, not understanding how the software works.</p>
<p>Which brings me to the second problem with going the popular Makerbot route: lock-in. If you learn to use a Makerbot, you get really good at learning to use a Makerbot, but that knowledge doesn’t so easily transfer to other systems. Aside from the <a href="http://outsidethetext.com/theworkofplastic/blog/2014/06/11/makerbot-raiding-the-commons/">deplorable path</a> they are taking in terms of Intellectual Property it seems the Makerbot system is likely to be one of a 3d printing ecosystem that is convenient to use but in which you are locked in, unable to transfer out (similar to say the way iOS works). </p>
<p>There are other options. If I wanted to go the expensive route and had all the money in the world, and wanted easy printing I would probably select <a href="https://www.ultimaker.com/pages/our-printers/ultimaker-2">Ultimakers</a>.</p>
<h4 id="cost-and-learning">Cost and Learning.</h4>
<p>One of these, ready to use printers, cost in excess of $2000 though. True you can actually get a much cheaper one like the Davinci but they also require that you buy their plastic not just any plastic. Thus, you end up back at the 2d printer problem, where companies sell them at or below cost only to extract higher profits from buying the printer cartridges and ink. No thanks. So in the end I decided to purchase <a href="http://printrbot.com/">Printrbots</a>. They are inexpensive, work well, you can tinker with them, and since they are built on the reprap platform aren’t going to be restricted to one kind of plastic. We got a mix of the Plus models and the Simple models. I’ll report back later . . .</p>
<p><a href="/blog/buying-printers-for-class/">Buying Printers for Class</a> was originally published by David Parry at <a href="">OutsideTheText</a> on August 12, 2014.</p>/2014/buying-a-bunch-of-printers2014-08-12T00:00:00-04:002014-08-12T00:00:00-04:00David Parrydave@outsidethetext.com<h2 id="but-not-that-kind-of-printer----">But not that kind of printer . . . .</h2>
<h3 id="background">Background</h3>
<p><em>I am teaching a course on 3dprinting this semester (you can <a href="http://outsidethetext.com/classes/Printing/schedule-of-readings/">see the syllabus here</a> if you are interested it is a mix between theory, history of information & communication, and praxis, printing stuff). It has been a difficult class to construct and think about, in large part because the desktop 3d printing market is so young and these things aren’t nearly as easy to use as computers or 2d printers.</em></p>
<h3 id="the-issue">The Issue</h3>
<p>So one of the first “big” choices I faced in teaching a class about 3d printing was solving the hardware issue. Unlike say teaching a class that requires students to blog, I can’t expect them to have the hardware. Indeed, I am pretty much guaranteed that students will not have personal access to a printer so I needed to figure out a way to provide them. This creates a few issues. First, printers cost money. It would be nice to provide enough for each student to have one, but that isn’t probably economically feasible. Right now a printer cost anywhere between $300 and $3000 (okay they can actually cost a lot more than $3000 but for my purposes am playing in the $300 to $3k range). Second is ease of use. The easiest option is to go with Makerbot. It is really just plug and play. Makerbot comes with its own software and is really easy to use. Indeed its ease of use is probably what makes it so popular among educational institutions, especially the secondary ed market. But Makerbots are expensive $2,900 or so. It’s true you can purchase a Makerbot pull it out of the box, load software onto your computer and be printing in 10-15 minutes. And for the most part you can get fairly good quality prints out of the machine.</p>
<h3 id="but-">But …</h3>
<p>Aside from cost there are two big issues here. First is that Makerbots are too easy.</p>
<p>Too easy?</p>
<p>Yes. Too easy. Part of what I want students to learn is the technology of these things, how they work, their ins and outs, to think about the way they work, along with how they work. By making the machine less easy, it seems less like “magic” and more like something students are capable of intervening in/modifying. Thinking with machines means understanding how to make interventions. The Makerbot’s principle advantage is the software, it is really easy to use, but that comes at a cost, not understanding how the software works.</p>
<p>Which brings me to the second problem with going the popular Makerbot route: lock-in. If you learn to use a Makerbot, you get really good at learning to use a Makerbot, but that knowledge doesn’t so easily transfer to other systems. Aside from the <a href="http://outsidethetext.com/theworkofplastic/blog/2014/06/11/makerbot-raiding-the-commons/">deplorable path</a> they are taking in terms of Intellectual Property it seems the Makerbot system is likely to be one of a 3d printing ecosystem that is convenient to use but in which you are locked in, unable to transfer out (similar to say the way iOS works).</p>
<p>There are other options. If I wanted to go the expensive route and had all the money in the world, and wanted easy printing I would probably select <a href="https://www.ultimaker.com/pages/our-printers/ultimaker-2">Ultimakers</a>.</p>
<h4 id="cost-and-learning">Cost and Learning.</h4>
<p>One of these, ready to use printers, cost in excess of $2000 though. True you can actually get a much cheaper one like the Davinci but they also require that you buy their plastic not just any plastic. Thus, you end up back at the 2d printer problem, where companies sell them at or below cost only to extract higher profits from buying the printer cartridges and ink. No thanks. So in the end I decided to purchase<a href="http://printrbot.com/">Printrbots</a>. They are inexpensive, work well, you can tinker with them, and since they are built on the reprap platform aren’t going to be restricted to one kind of plastic. We got a mix of the Plus models and the Simple models. I’ll report back later …</p>
<p><a href="/2014/buying-a-bunch-of-printers/">Buying a Bunch of Printers</a> was originally published by David Parry at <a href="">OutsideTheText</a> on August 12, 2014.</p>/blog/teaching-a-class2014-08-10T23:02:33-04:002014-08-10T23:02:33-04:00David Parrydave@outsidethetext.com<p>So this semester I am teaching a class on 3d printing. One of the advantages of being a chair I guess is that the same person proposing a somewhat out there idea for a class is also the same person approving it. I have managed to track down a handful of classes that are focused on 3d printing, but all of them focus on the engineering aspect of this technology, its uses and applications, or as a way say to quickly model a product prototype. But I am more interested in the social aspect, the cultural side, if 3d printing is the medium what is the message? </p>
<p>But I also didn’t want to have a class that is just talking about 3dprinting. 3d printing has transformed the way I look at the world, in part this is because of all of the reading I do about printing, studying its trends, looking at what is being done in the field, and reading the academic research. But also in part this is because I spend a lot of time printing, actually doing the work of printing in 3 dimensions. Learning by doing. I want to replicate this experience with students. And finally because nothing I have seen students interact with recently has amazed them as much as 3d printing. Students I show this to are genuinely excited about giving it a try and I wanted to harnesses this “excitement” and wonder. You know the old saying about any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic . . .and that sense of magic is a nice starting place from which to begin a class.</p>
<p>I ended up <a href="http://outsidethetext.com/classes/Printing/schedule-of-readings/">designing a syllabus</a> that tries to capture both of these tracks. You can see the schedule here. The way I designed the course is for Tuesdays to be “theory” days. We will do readings and discussions on these days. My hope is that students will come to appreciate the cultural questions here, but also to understand the longer history of the way that information and materiality are connected and constructed. Thursdays are print days in which early on, I plan to construct exercises to introduce them to printing and hopefully over the second half of the class to turn their creativity loose and see what they come up with.</p>
<p><a href="/blog/teaching-a-class/">Teaching a Class</a> was originally published by David Parry at <a href="">OutsideTheText</a> on August 10, 2014.</p>/2014/file-sharing-in-the-classroom-piratebox-and-librarybox2014-07-02T00:00:00-04:002014-07-02T00:00:00-04:00David Parrydave@outsidethetext.com<h4 id="background"><a href="http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/PirateBox.png"><img class="aligncenter wp-image-902 size-medium" src="http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/PirateBox-300x166.png" alt="PirateBox" width="300" height="166" /></a>Background</h4>
<p>Last semester I had the advantage of teaching in the new Communications and Digital Media classroom here at Saint Joe’s. It’s a fabulous space, that just on architecture and design changes the learning environment. (Key technology: moveable tables and chairs.) But the classroom was in part over designed, or at least in some areas, using high end software that was less than user friendly. Case in point: Tidebreak.</p>
<p>The idea behind Tidebreak is that any computer in the room can share their files with any other computer in the room, large or small. And even more “snazy” the instructor can “copy” the screen of any computer in the room and display it at the front of the room. So when students are working on projects in groups it is easy to demonstrate one groups work for the whole class. (There are a lot of other features in Tidebreak but these are the major use scenarios.) The problem is the tech is clunky, not easy to set up, and even less easy to use. For me it often got in the way of accomplishing what I wanted, spending time figuring out how to use it, rather than having it fade into the background. Due to the expense of tidebreak, and its less than ease of use, we decided to not renew the license. But I still want a way to replicate some of the functionality in that classroom. Primarily I want a way to share large files easily between computers. Not just from instructor to students but also between students, a large shared drive in the classroom for students to deposit and retrieve files. A use Dropbox a great deal in the classroom to share small files with students, but this isn’t as effective if you need large files. For example if you are working on image or sound manipulation and want to share a bunch of files with students, size quickly becomes an issue. Also Dropbox still replicates the faculty centered knowledge model, distribution takes place from me to the other students. True students could also share files from their own Dropbox accounts, but that quickly gets cumbersome.</p>
<h4 id="the-solution">The Solution</h4>
<p>Enter <a href="http://piratebox.cc/">PirateBox</a> and <a href="http://librarybox.us/">LibraryBox</a>. (Click the links for more in depth descriptions.) I must admit I have a bias towards lower tech hardware solutions over higher tech software solutions. Not that this line is entirely clear, but I would rather control the hardware and have something in place than rent a software license to do something. Piratebox and LibraryBox are essentially local hardware solutions to filesharing. They each create their own independent local wireless networks for file sharing, think very local shared drive. That is, in each case you have to be physically close to the “box,” and connected to it via wireless. Once connected you can download and share files. This type of setup allows you to upload files to the box (wirelessly) then all of the students can download them easily. Poof low-tech, cheap (more on this later), solution to file sharing. And since this is a lowtech solution I am not so concerned about it breaking (and more importantly not paying a yearly license fee). True I could go the shared drive route, have the University set up a shared drive on the network that students can access and share files. This would probably work for small files, although it would also carry the cost of central authority at the university level where you have to get permissions correctly enabled blah, blah, blah . . .</p>
<p>So this summer I set up a PirateBox and a LibraryBox played with both with the intention to use at least one (maybe both) this coming summer. After installing both and playing around with them I think I am going to start though by using PirateBox, although LibraryBox is much easier to use. Why?</p>
<h4 id="piratebox-vs-librarybox">PirateBox vs LibraryBox</h4>
<p>Both systems operate on essentially the same architecture. In fact LibraryBox is a fork of PirateBox by Jason Griffey. The crucial difference though is LibraryBox maintains central control, with the main administrator having the ability to control the files being shared. It works better as a system for one person to upload a bunch of files and allow an infinite number of local downloads. That is it isn’t really configured to allow multiple users to upload files (anonymously) and share them anonymously. This can be a good thing though, I imagine in many use cases someone would install a LibraryBox and want to make sure it is used as a local means to share only approved files. This indeed strikes me as the central motivation behind forking PirateBox. make a version for libraries that allow the local hosting and distribution of files, say in a Library, or more creatively perhaps as part of a digital installation like in a history exhibit or art installation, or again in a classroom or lab for sharing files with students. Without central control the library (or whomever is hosting) will run into the copyright problem (people uploading files which infringe on copyright) or egads . . .the porn problem. So from an institutional perspective this central control makes sense.</p>
<p>And it should be noted that a serious advantage of LibraryBox is the installation. Although both PirateBox and LibraryBox are set up via the same methods I found LibraryBox markedly easier to install. Jason’s <a href="http://librarybox.us/building.php">instructions are really thorough</a> and he was really responsive to questions (nothing like customer service even though I ain’t paying for a thing). He even wrote up an extra FAQ after I asked him about PirateBox vs LibraryBox. The install was really clean, no errors, super simple. The only “difficult” part is just waiting for the install to take place (this step takes a bit, in my case 20 minutes). Indeed the only problem I had was in wiping the router and setting it back to factory default so I could try PirateBox (that was tricky, involved putting router in safe mode . . .lots of terminal work . . .blah, blah, not so easy, wouldn’t recommend).</p>
<p>PirateBox on the other hand was a little trickier, for whatever reason the <a href="http://piratebox.cc/openwrt:diy">documentation was not as clear</a>. Indeed at some point I couldn’t figure something out and looked back at the steps I followed to install LibraryBox to set it up. Eventually I got it working, and I don’t know if this is significant or not but it took more like 40 minutes to install, using the same hardware as I did for LibraryBox, twice as long (don’t know if that is significant or not).</p>
<p>But still I am going to go with PirateBox. Why? Because at least for my use PirateBox embodies more of the hacker, decentralized ethos we are trying to convey to our students. I don’t want them to necessarily ask for permission from me to share and exchange files in the classroom. The anonymity and design features of PirateBox are closer to what I want my students to practice and think about.</p>
<h4 id="what-i-used">What I Used</h4>
<p>I used a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/TP-LINK-TL-MR3040-Wireless-Portable-Compatible/dp/B0088PPFP4/?tag=jasongriffey-20">TP-Link TL-MR3040</a> which cost me $35. You can actually do it for cheaper but the MR3040 is smaller and can run off a battery so it is far more portable. But if you don’t need portability you can do it for cheaper, just make sure you get one of the <a href="http://librarybox.us/building.php">approved routers for the LibraryBox</a> or for the <a href="http://piratebox.cc/openwrt:diy">PirateBox</a>. The only other thing you need is a flash drive. I got a small 16GB one, but if you envision sharing really large files it might be worth going for one with more storage capacity. My next step is to design and print a case for it, to give it a cool look. And if you don’t want to build your own you could always just <a href="https://librarybox.myshopify.com/collections/all">buy a LibraryBox</a>, I don’t know if you can just buy a PirateBox. All in all for less than $50 you can create a robust local file sharing system either anonymous and centralized, or anonymous and decentralized.</p>
<p>Check back in after the semester to see what how this went, and what my experience with it is.</p>
<p><a href="/2014/file-sharing-in-the-classroom-piratebox-and-librarybox/">File Sharing in the Classroom: PirateBox and LibraryBox</a> was originally published by David Parry at <a href="">OutsideTheText</a> on July 02, 2014.</p>/blog/scotus-tech-and-3d-printing2014-07-01T11:21:23-04:002014-07-01T11:21:23-04:00David Parrydave@outsidethetext.com<p><img class="center" src="/images/courthouse.png" width="622" height="467" title="3d print from elindow" alt="3d print from elindow" /></p>
<p>Last week the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on two significant technology cases. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf"><em>American Broadcasting vs Aereo</em></a> and <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf"><em>Riley v. California</em></a>. I am not going to break down the implications of these cases here, or discuss them in depth, far better minds than I have already done this, but what is worth talking about is how given two different technology cases, the court approached the decision in two significantly different ways. In the Aereo case the court ruled by analogy, saying effectively Aereo looks like cable therefore it must be cable. In the Riley case however the court saw how the smart phone, is a different piece of technology, really nothing like opening a cigarette case that the state wanted to claim as precendence for searching a phone without a warrant.</p>
<p>In order to understand the differences between these two rulings you should read <a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118402/supreme-courts-cloud-computing-confusion">Margot Kaminski’s take</a>. In her piece she argues that the court saw the cellphone as pardigm shifting, but Aereo as not. A lot has been made of the analogies and the ability of the court to understand tech based on what analogies they draw. Kaminski sums it up as:</p>
<blockquote><p>In Riley, the Court created a clear rule to govern paradigm-shifting technology. In Aereo, the same Court punted to future decisions for a case-by-case determination of how new technology intersects with the law. As Justice Scalia pointed out in the dissent in Aereo, the majority opinion adopted “an improvised standard ("looks-like-cable-TV") that will sow confusion for years to come.”</p></blockquote>
<p>So the question as Kaminski points out is why would the court employ two very different approaches. Kaminski has her own take about how the court chooses to apply old or new standards, one with considering. But I want to add another: familarity with the technology.</p>
<p>It seems to me that in the cell phone case the justices understood the technology in question. This is easy to ascertain by the arguments put forward in the decision, references to how the phones work, amount of data stored. But its also just common sense. I couldn’t find any pictures of the justices using smartphones, but given their ubiquity its hard to imagine that most of them don’t have one. And that even if they don’t (let says one or two justices still use a fliphone) smartphones are so ubiqutous in modern life, from TV and movies to just watching friends and relatives use them, that its hard to imagine the justices do not understand this technology.</p>
<p>Not so with Aereo. Aereo is far less ubiqutous. Indeed when I talk to people about the case the first thing I usually have to do is explain to them what Aereo is (again not so with smartphones). How many of you know someone with an Aereo subscription? compare that to a smartphone? And it is clear from the <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-461_o7jp.pdf">oral arguments as well,</a> that the justices just don’t quite grasp the tech here. Breyer asks about the phonograph and a record store, Scalia thinks HBO is broadcast over the airwaves. Now this is not to pick on the justices, or call them idiots, there is no doubt that they are brilliant legal minds, but questions of technology are substantially different from questions of law. Or more narrowly questions of law are only one part of the larger picture of techno-cultural questions. (I wonder if each justice shouldn’t have a legal clerk whose expertise is solely in technology.)</p>
<p>The Riley case benefits from not coming to the court until a moment at which the nature of the smartphone is widely understood, leading to the favorable, “get a warrant decision.” But in the Aereo case the technology has the misfortune of coming before the court before it is widely embedded within the culture, and broadly understood. This favors a conservative approach. Maybe at a later date I’ll do a longer analysis of this, looking at when transformative tech comes to the court and how it has been treated historically. But also my sense is that this is a particular problem of this moment or rapid technological change.</p>
<h4 id="but-what-about-3dprinting">But what about 3dprinting</h4>
<p>So what does this mean for 3d printing. There are likely to be many cases involving 3d printing in the coming years. From IP cases to gun control. When I think about the future of 3d printing I always think of <a href="https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/it-will-be-awesome-if-they-dont-screw-it-up-3d-printing">Michael Weinberg’s great piece “It Will Be Awesome if We Don’t Screw it Up”</a>. Its an important read, the tone of which is summed up in the clever title, as Weinberg notes all the ways that the legal regime, and specifically IP cartels might try to restrict the technology.</p>
<p>So what can be done. Ideally I would gift a 3d printer to each one of the justices so that they start to play with and understand the promise of the technology before they rule on it. Heck gift one to all members of their families, so they just start seeing 3d printers as part of their daily landscape. But that probably won’t happen. It would be nice if court battles over 3d printing were delayed, especially any of the significant ones, this would lead more towards a Riley ruling and away from an Aereo one. But that’s difficult to coordinate and organize. But I do think there is one advantage that 3d printing has, and that is in the battle of the analogy or metaphor. The name helps 3d printing, is just like printing, except you print objects instead of just paper. Of course the just here looms large and carries transformative potential, but keeping the frame as “printing” is probably fairly useful.</p>
<p><a href="/blog/scotus-tech-and-3d-printing/">SCOTUS, Tech, and 3d Printing</a> was originally published by David Parry at <a href="">OutsideTheText</a> on July 01, 2014.</p>/blog/making-guns2014-06-25T15:14:41-04:002014-06-25T15:14:41-04:00David Parrydave@outsidethetext.com<p><img class="center" src="/images/liberatorparts.jpg" width="600" height="413" title="3d printed gun" alt="3d printed gun" /></p>
<p>Inevitably one of the first conversations I get in with people about 3d printers involves printing guns. In some sense this is understandable, typical of the trajectory of any technology where part of the hype cycle is imagining the worst possible use to which a technology can be put and then generating fear, almost always irrational, based on said scenario. Accordingly much of what is written in this regard is sensationalist and really not the type of nuanced careful thinking that is required here, to be sure there are exceptions but the, “ban 3d printers cause everyone will soon be making their own guns” is not really the useful place from which to begin the conversation.</p>
<p>To start with, we are not exactly at the point where the average desktop printer can actually just print off a working gun. Within the US context at least, there are much easier ways to acquire a firearm (although in <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/japanese-man-arrested-guns-3d-printer">Japan where gun laws are different</a> this is not the case). And while not a problem at this particular moment, it is something worth legally, and philosophically thinking about, as a broader question: What happens when controlling manufacturing and distribution channels is no longer a sufficient strategy for controlling an objects distribution within the culture? When manufacturing is distributed control becomes much harder. For a good sense of some of the issues here, and a brief background on 3d printed guns in the US context its worth watching this <a href="http://www.vice.com/motherboard/click-print-gun-the-inside-story-of-the-3d-printed-gun-movement">Vice Video on Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed</a> who is at the center of the 3d printing guns movement.</p>
<p>But more narrowly there is another legal question here, is it currently illegal to print a gun? and more importantly, again within the US context is it even constitutional to ban the printing of 3d guns. Last year <a href="http://www.phillymag.com/news/2013/11/21/philly-becomes-first-city-ban-3-d-gun-printing/">Philadelphia became the first city to ban</a> the printing of guns. Leave aside whether or not this is just political attention/headline grabbing, or even enforceable, there is another question: Would this law stand up to a constitutional challenge?</p>
<p>Now I am sure there are arguments on both sides, reasons legal scholars would argue that for and against the laws constitutionality. And I wouldn’t be surprised to see such a case in the not to distant future. So in my research on this question I ended up reading an article by Peter Jensen-Haxel, <a href="http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev/vol42/iss3/6/">3d printers, Obsolete Firearm Supply Controls, and the Right to Build Self-Defense Weapons Under Heller</a>. Now I am not sure I am completely persuaded by this argument but Jensen-Haxel does make a strong case that the Supreme Court ruling in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller">Heller case</a> would lend itself to a ruling that citizens have the right to print 3d guns that are otherwise not illegal to own.</p>
<p>The reasoning is that the 2nd Amendment is about a citizens right to acquire firearms, that we interpret that right to mean purchase from another manufacturer is just a particular historical anomaly. Indeed as the article points out “it appears American history supports a general right to make one’s own arms for personal use, without exception” (479). And what is more as the article points out, if you believe people have a right to arm themselves for self defense than it logically follows that people ought to have the right to manufacture their own weapons for this purpose, especially manufacture their own custom weapons to suit their own personal physical needs. Part of the ruling in Heller says that outlawing handguns is unfair because people who are incapable of holding a larger firearm (like a rifle) are disadvantaged. Colt made all men equal, not the rifle. So if you are someone who has the use of only one hand then a handgun is pretty much your only option for a firearm. By extension people ought to have the right, according to this train of thinking, to manufacture guns to meet their own particular physical requirements. A blanket outlaw of all firearm home manufacturing would affect citizens unequally.</p>
<p>Now lets leave aside for a moment whether this reasoning is sound, whether you agree with it or not, or whether or not you agree that the 2nd amendment even protects the right of ubiquitous firearm ownership. What is interesting here to me is the way that technology, in this case 3d printing creates a question of the law (or more accurately our social values) that was previously not available. Lessig calls these <a href="http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/2010-11/CodeAndRegulation/sec3.html">“latent ambiguities,”</a> matters that were ambiguous in the law that didn’t have to be settled because the technology didn’t demand it. In his book Code 2.0 he raises a host of these. (For example would an automated system scanning emails that doesn’t involve human intervention and which did not interrupt or intrude on citizens conversations be unlawful search and seizure? It really depends on what you believe the law was designed to protect?). Now in Lessig’s work he almost exclusively focuses on the way that software/the internet raises a host of legal questions and latent ambiguities that we have to resolve. But with 3d printing I think we get a whole host of additional questions that have to be answered, and 3d printed guns become just one place where we see this clearly.</p>
<p>As the Jensen-Haxel article points out, there was a relatively common right to self manufacture weapons. Common law recognizes this right and one can see it prior to the rise of industrial manufacturing of weapons. With industrialization and mass manufacturing we tend to think of manufacturing and ownership of items as two distinct acts, often regulating the former far more than the later. Lots of things are illegal to sell or make with certain permits and/or licenses but not to own. This makes historical sense, if we want to prevent toys from ending up in the hands of kids who might choke on them, we make a law that says toys have to have a label that says choking hazard.</p>
<p>So in many ways 3d printing (or home manufacturing more broadly speaking) hearkens back to an older time, before industrial/mass manufacturing, where things are individually produced for use or consumption by the people who will be using them, but in another sense represents a new moment where this individual manufacturing is also massively automated and distributed. Our current paradigm of thinking, and the law is just one section of this, isn’t really equipped to deal with the range of questions and issues this shift will bring about. Look beyond guns, what about all the things we restrict in manufacturing and selling that people will now just be able to individually produce, again back to the toys that are choking hazards. In some ways the current licensing and legal system will work, you will probably still need an inspection for your 3d printed house, or your printed car will still need a license and inspection to be on the road, but in many ways we will have to rethink our organizational regimes which rely on the difference between information and objects. (And even in the housing case there will still be problems as parts and pieces are often labeled as having passed a certain manufacturing standard and thus rated for use in a particular instance.)</p>
<p>Going back to the guns to see how this is a bigger problem, what constitutes selling a gun? If someone sells you the blueprints to make a gun is that selling you a gun? Right now no, the information itself isn’t regulated. We just regulate the selling. The right to keep and bear arms is interpreted as the right to purchase a manufactured weapon from a licensed seller, but that’s about the object not the information, which in the very near future is going to be far more important. (Similarly making Moonshine is illegal, but I can find all the information online on how to do it, even buy all the parts, just the manufacturing is illegal. Which really doesn’t prevent anyone from making their own Moonshine at home.) So when people talk about the revolutionary potential of 3d printing or the Maker movement I think what we are really talking about is the rise of the importance of information and the decreasing importance of materiality. Legislating, licensing, restricting material isn’t going to be do effective, information, the plans, the details, the how tos are where the real purchase is at. And that is a much harder thing with which to deal.</p>
<p>Or, to make the point with one interesting example: What will the NRA do? You might think that they would be all for 3d printing guns, more guns for the people. But really since the NRA is an organization that represents and protects the gun manufacturing industry, at home printing, which would be fewer gun sales might not be so attractive. Sure they could sell ammunition, or plans, or kits or something, but I am guessing if the practice became common they wouldn’t be too happy about decreased revenue. The NRA’s interest isn’t in gun information becoming common, but rather gun objects, only if they sell them though, becoming common.</p>
<p>Image: Flickr: 3d printed gun parts <a href="https://secure.flickr.com/photos/apbpix/8760619690/in/photolist-em9t25-cKdnTj-rGko-g1KQ9p-gC66F6-g1KHa3-8V5L2S-g1KxNh-g1KZ7p-g1KXpN-86TJh5-86QvTX-e2YL4A-6FUhqH-gwmN7H-gwmAC2-gC4Vjh-g1Ljrp-g1KNQJ-52b5pS-gC5Ay1-gC4YTm-hAyNpH-g1L4mK-g1EDcJ-jNn5BB-gwmFi5-eTdiYF-g1LfMa-g1Le9R-gwm16W-g1L6Lr-niCFQF-g1L3vt-nkwUWT-nxGPFj-eW7tD3-eW7tEh-eVV4oH-eVV4mp-eW7tyy-eW7tFA-eVV4nr-eVV4q8-eW7tBL-eW7tKQ-eVV4p2-eW7uhW-eW7tTu-eW7tAo/">alexpb</a></p>
<p><a href="/blog/making-guns/">Making Guns</a> was originally published by David Parry at <a href="">OutsideTheText</a> on June 25, 2014.</p>/blog/makerbot-raiding-the-commons2014-06-11T15:32:21-04:002014-06-11T15:32:21-04:00David Parrydave@outsidethetext.com<p><img class="center" src="/images/gordon.png" title="Greed" alt="Greed" /></p>
<h3 id="backstory">Backstory</h3>
<p>Over the last couple of weeks various individuals in the 3dprinting community have been significantly angered by Makerbot. You can read more about the controversoy at Hackaday and Fabbaloo. But the essence of the story here is that Makerbot filed for a cluster of patents on 3dprinting. Interestingly enough the patents seem to at the very least be based on the work of others (not Makerbot), so understandably so quite a few folks were outraged about this.</p>
<h3 id="is-this-theft">Is this theft?</h3>
<p>This isn’t theft. First of all because one cannot steal intellectual property. If you illegal download a CD or copy another company’s patent it isn’t theft. As much as the RIAA and the MPAA would like you to believe that you are stealing, the law doesn’t read that way, at most you have violated someone’s patent or copyright rights. (It isn’t stealing, how could it be, the person still has what you stole you just copied it.) Look I have no love of what Makerbot did here, but I think we have to understand the particulars of what is going on. Indeed, for what it is worth I would argue what they are doing is worth than theft . . .</p>
<h3 id="what-did-they-do">What did they do?</h3>
<p>Stories will differ here, and even some notable Open Source advocates such as <a href="http://boingboing.net/2014/05/30/whats-the-story-with-the-mak.html">Cory Doctorow are defedning Makerbot</a>. The rationale here goes that Makerbot as a company built on the designs of others, but what they have made is something new, a novel and unique invention that is <strong>built</strong> on the work of others, much of which was freely created and uploaded to <em>Makerbot’s</em> own design website, Thingiverse. So to some it seems as if Makerbot is claiming patent rights over stuff other people invented and then uploaded to the site. If you read the patent filing this doesn’t precisely (at least in one instance) seem to be the case. They disclose the other objects (the ones uploaded to the site) as prior art, and posit that their patnet is a specific new invention. In others though as OpenBeam covers there appears to be more direct filing for patents on something others were at the very least simultaneously developing, the auto-leveling design in particular looks suspicious, given that others were demonstrating it before Makerbot even filed for the patent. At the best they are moving quick to be first to file, to claim dominion over what many poeple are working on, at worst they are waiting to see what the community makes and then selecting the best ideas and patenting them. In this sense Makerbot views the entire reprap community as part of their R & D department. This might sound crazy but the job listing for an IP lawyer posted by Makerbot hints at just this. Makerbot is looking to hire an <a href="https://makerbot.applicantstack.com/x/detail/a2m4ro95lbqq">IP lawyer to shore up their patent interests.</a></p>
<h3 id="this-is-a-business-strategy">This is a Business Strategy</h3>
<p>Make no mistake about it this is a coordinated business strategy. Makerbot was recently acquired by Stratasys. Stratasys has historically been one of the largest players in the industrial 3dprinting landscape but for the most part ignored the home market. Indeed as many would tell the narrative it was the big industrial players like Stratasys who held 3d patents and wouldn’t use them to develop a desktop market that prevented the market from developing. Only once the initial patents expired did a home market of tinkers develop (out of which Makerbot arose, more on this later).</p>
<p>It is now clear to most anaylsts that the desktop 3d printing industry promises to be lucrative. Whether this develops into home machines that we all have next to our toasters and blenders (what I would guess) or just distributed manufacturing centers where these smaller machines are easily available to anyone (imagine something like FedEx, Kinkos or UPS installing these). There is a lot of bank to be made here. The corporate powers that be know this, and Makerbot is now part of that corporate nexus.</p>
<p>Now ~~Makerbot~~ Stratasys can make money off selling individual desktop machines but that is a limited market, one can only sell so many printers when there are many companies manufacturing them at lower and lower prices. (A Makerbot while it looks snazzy, is about twice as expensive as comporable printers.) If one really wants to make money on printers you do this thru two ways 1. Controlling the design files people are printing and selling those to people (similar to an app based economy like iTunes). This is clearly the move Makerbot is making with Thingiverse looking to become the online marketplace for <em>selling</em> 3d print files, not the place for <strong>sharing</strong> files. Snufalafgus is just the tip of the plastic fabricated iceberg. 2. Is controlling the patents which would allow them to extract “rent” from every desktop machine. That is, for each of their patents, for 20 years, they would be able to extract “rent” and/or prevent a competitor from making a similar or competiting product. This is exactly what the <a href="http://makezine.com/2013/11/27/stratasys-sues-afinia-ramifications-for-the-desktop-3d-printing-industry/">Afina patent lawsuit</a> is about. ~~Makerbot~~ Stratasys is looking to corner the market on 3d printing. You either block competitors from making 3dprinters, or you get a share of the revenue for every home 3d printer sold. The goal in either case isn’t really improving the 3d printing space, but rather maximizing profits and controlling marketshare.</p>
<h3 id="copyrights-arent-patents">Copyright’s aren’t Patents</h3>
<p>This might seem like a tangent, but its a really important point, actually it is probably the central deeper issue here, the one that 3d printing as a technology is going to produce many legal questions around. Currently the law treats copyright and patents as two separate things, that is while rhetorically we might think of them as belonging to the same class of good, Intellectual Property, they are actually very different things, legally speaking. Copyright primarily covers creative works, think books, films, music etc. while patents cover inventions. You can’t patent a book, and you can’t copyright a new jet engine. (Confusingly a few things like software overlap.) The important difference here though is that copyright is just granted, you write something it is copyrighted, while patents require regsitration. In other words just because you invent something doesn’t mean you get a patent on it, you have to register it with the patent office.</p>
<p>Now there are lots of reasons for these differences, and lots of analysis as to why its useful to differentiate between the two classes of goods. But two points are worth making here. 1. 3d printing would tend to collapse this difference, rendering even fuzzier the justification for differentiating between the two (but lets table this issue as it would take much longer to discuss) and 2. Patents thus favor corporations and large players. While in both cases, copyright and patent, victory often goes to the one with the most lawyers, the person or corporation who can pay the most to defend their intersts, in patent law you have to pay to register your invention. This makes it really cost prohibitive to the end users on Thingiverse to be patenting all of their files, but not to a company like Stratasys who can look thru all of the files, find the best, slightly improve on them and then patent them.</p>
<p>Right now users are uploading files to Thingiverse and labeling them with a Creative Commons license. Now I am not a lawyer, so this isn’t an expert legal opinion but it is not at all clear to me that this is an effective strategy for licensincing design files. Now sure, in the case of “creative works” i.e. <a href="http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:126567">something like this</a> you can probably protect it with a copyright, where the design elements can be separated from its use function. But with many of the “things” we are talking about <a href="http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:310472">copyright wouldn’t apply so well</a>, you need a patent. And unlike copyright you don’t automatically have that just by publishing it. This gives significant advantage to the larger players. (Notice how this cartoon that is making the rounds <a href="https://imgur.com/r/3Dprinting/MaAOOYi">confuses Patents and Copyrights</a>.</p>
<h3 id="commons-based-production">Commons Based Production</h3>
<p>So initially in theorizing about commons based peer production scholars looked at collaborative production that was mostly if not entirely based on non material production. That is what was being produced in the “new internet commons” of peer production where goods were information based. Mostly this turns around software production but also platforms where individuals collaboratively produced information, Wikipedia being the uber example often used. But even smaller things, like Clay Shirky’s example of Flickr, are information based not material object based. This makes sense as peer production for material goods is a much harder thing to pull off. In an information object freeriders don’t reduce the commons when freeriding, reading Wikipedia (taking from the commons) without contributing to it doesn’t actually harm the resource. Indeed in many cases as Doctorow observed this type of commons can actually create value off freeriding, overgrazing isn’t a problem, the Internet is the “sheep that shits grass.”</p>
<p>To be sure there are examples of collaborative peer production around material objects, communities coming together to clean up a park, build a playground, etc. but these are usually far more local and far smaller in scope.</p>
<h3 id="the-reprap-commons">The Reprap Commons</h3>
<p>3dprinting though is a different model entirely, or at least within the Reprap community that is largely responsible for the growth in the at home/desktop market for 3dprinting. It is very much interested in material production, a 3d printer is an object whose end design is production of materiality. But the design and invention has very much followed a commons based peer production model. When I describe the Reprap community to people who don’t follow 3d printing, I often say imagine Wikipedia or Linux, but instead of building an encyclopedia or an OS the community is focused on building 3d printers. It’s a sharing economy/community. Yes there are monetary transactions that take place, but the overall goal is to produce open design plans that enable anyone to copy them, independent of licensing and legal restrictions. That is the community exists largely outside the patent structure, it isn’t invested in developing and patenting ideas, rather its interested in building 3d printers, and patents quite frankly get in the way of this goal. (If you want a sense of the Reprap community you can start by <a href="http://forums.reprap.org/list.php?1">checking out their forum</a>.</p>
<h3 id="raiding-the-commons">Raiding the Commons</h3>
<p>Makerbot started as part of the open source hardware community. Indeed according to Zachary Smith one of the founders of Makerbot, this was one of the underling, founding principles, <a href="http://www.hoektronics.com/2012/09/21/makerbot-and-open-source-a-founder-perspective/">MakerBot was built on a foundation of open hardware projects such as RepRap and Arduino, as well as using many open software projects for development of our own software.</a>. So initially Makerbot was a company that participated in this commons based peer production, an open hardware movement, in the spirit of the open software movements. Note this didn’t preclude Makerbot from being a business or making money of selling the printers. Many companies exist around the Reprap community selling the hardware, supplies, and kits to build these machines. It’s just that it is all still “open” as in a commons which any of the participants are free to take, and supposed to contribute. The Reprap community has an ethos and Makerbot was participating in that ethos.</p>
<p>Fastforward, to the present and 3dprinting now promises to be a lucrative business, especially for those who can capture a large market share, i.e. be the first movers. In Doctorow’s narrative, and I think this probably follows the Makerbot company line, Makerbot is largely an open company that has made the move to become more closed and thus is being critiqued. Companies are critiqued based on their relative moves not their absolute position.</p>
<p>But I think this misses the point. Its not as if Makerbot is just becoming more closed, they are, apparently the new Replicators won’t even run alternative open source software, purchasing a Makerbot locks you entriely into their system. Imagine by analogy if for years Britannica had participated in Wikipedia helping to build it into a rich resource, engaging in peer production, developing a rich commons of an encyclopedia, but then decided to start using the stuff created, building on it, but creating a new encyclopedia that was copyrighted, and that prevented Wikipedia from further evolving. Or if IBM suddenly forked the Linux distribution and started copyrighting parts of the code. In both cases these scenarios can’t happen because of the copyright licensing. But here’s the rub, Makerbot isn’t playing in copyright territory they are playing in patent territory.</p>
<p>Prehaps the designs Makerbot has come up with are “new” “novel” and sufficiently different as to warrant a patent, and in this case pointing to the designs that are prior art might not matter. Maybe Makerbot has developed something unique, invented something orginal, rather than just copy the designs of others, lets give them the benefit of the doubt here (although it looks worse than this, especially in the case of the bed leveling patent). Even in this best reading Makerbot is only capable of establishing this position because they freely built on, borrowed from, and benefited from the commons production of others. Imagine for a moment if any of the inventions that were open, like the extruder Makerbot seems to have based theirs on, was patented, effectively blocking Makerbot from inventing their new one. Or consider all the patents that could be here, that aren’t, or that are here that are preventing future development.</p>
<p>As James Boyle outlines in <em>The Public Domain</em> engaging in Creative Commons, Peer Production, or Open Source removes ones ability to invoke monopoly priveleges (copyrights) but comes with the benefit of being able to harness the strength of a community of diverse creators, in many scenarios its worth the trade off. But in this case Makerbot is trying to have its cake, eat it, and prevent others from making another without first paying them. This isn’t a case of a company becoming slightly more closed, or a tech company growing up and needing to satisfy investors by protecting IP interests. This is a case of a company wholesale raiding the commons, taking what was open, and trying to close it up. They are using Thingiverse as a giant R&D department encouraging a “sharing” economy which they than can use to turn into a “patent and selling economy.” Makerbot is doing what Disney did, borrow from the commons to create a host of products than changing the rules of the game so no one else can borrow. Taking what was common and fencing it in. In this respect, even if Makerbot hasn’t wholesale copied from others, the ire they are receiving is totally justified. Indeed, I would argue this is worse, copying one person’s work is one thing, but building up fences around what was common to all is an entirely other.</p>
<h3 id="rescources">Rescources</h3>
<p>If you are interested here is a brief list of places I have seen individuals expressing anger/frustration/hate at Makerbot about this:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://richrap.blogspot.fr/2014/05/makerbot-patents-twist-knife-on-open.html">Makerbot Patents Twist the Knife on Open Source 3d Printing Roots</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.openbeamusa.com/blog/2014/5/22/stay-classy-makerbot">Stay Classy Makerbot</a></li>
<li><a href="http://traverseda.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/makerbot-blatently-steals-and-patents-a-community-design/">Makerbot Blatently Steals and Patents a Community Design</a></li>
<li><a href="http://hackaday.com/2014/05/24/makerbot-files-patents-internet-goes-crazy/">Makerbot Files Patents Internet Goes Crazy</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.fabbaloo.com/blog/2014/5/25/has-makerbot-crossed-the-line-for-some-yes">Has Makerbot Crossed the Line</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.tridimake.com/2014/06/do-not-buy-makerbot-3d-printers.html">Why You Should Not Buy Makerbot 3d Printers</a></li>
</ul>
<p><a href="/blog/makerbot-raiding-the-commons/">Makerbot. Raiding the Commons.</a> was originally published by David Parry at <a href="">OutsideTheText</a> on June 11, 2014.</p>/blog/changing-possibilities2014-04-10T09:35:13-04:002014-04-10T09:35:13-04:00David Parrydave@outsidethetext.com<h3 id="different-forms">Different Forms</h3>
<p>One of the things I have been interested in with 3d printing is the way that it makes new forms possible. Because objects are more or less “grown” from raw materials, layer by layer, rather than carved out of raw material, or produced by injection modeling, different types of forms are possible. This makes possible an aesthetics connected to 3d printing. If we think about modernism as being shaped by clean lines and sharp edges which was in part influenced by using and working with industrial materials like steel and glass, working with materials in a new way migth influence a new aesthetic. </p>
<p>I think you can already start to see this taking shape in many of the designs on Thingiverse which have a much more “organic” feel to them, where straight clean lines are eschewed for curves and a structure that looks far more like something out of nature.</p>
<p><img class="center" src="/images/2layerring.png" width="615" height="454" title="image" alt="images" />
<img class="center" src="/images/cellularlamp.png" width="427" height="286" title="image" alt="images" /></p>
<p>Above are two examples of what I am talking about. The first is the <a href="http://www.shapeways.com/model/135832/2-layer-twist-ring.html?modelId=135832&materialId=78">2 layer ring, available on Shapeways</a> with many similar variations. The second is a <a href="http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:19104">cellular lamp</a> from Thingiverse. Again many other objects with similar looks are available on Thingiverse.</p>
<p>So I started printing things that are only possible to make if you have a 3d printer, i.e. can’t be done with traditional manufacturing techniques.</p>
<p>The first is a relatively popular print on Thingiverse, a <a href="http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:126567">Julia Vase</a>. Because of how it is constructed there would be no way to get a mold out of the vase once you made it. Sure you could do something similar by casting it (lost wax) or hand blown, but this is plastic. It also reflects the aesthetic qualities that I was talking about above.</p>
<p>Second I printed a ball inside a box. Yes this was printed as all one object.</p>
<p><img class="center" src="/images/ballinbox.jpg" width="360" height="446" title="ballinbox" alt="A Ball in a Box" /></p>
<p>Third I printed a ship inside a bottle, a take on the ship in a glass bottle.</p>
<p><img class="center" src="/images/shipinbottle.jpg" width="640" height="360" title="shipinabottle" alt="A Ship in a Bottle" /></p>
<p>Finally, I printed a bolt and a nut. Except the bolt has a head on both ends, i.e. the nut spins up and down but can’t come off.</p>
<p><img class="center" src="/images/nutbolt.jpg" width="360" height="640" title="nutbolt" alt="A Nut and Bolt" /></p>
<p><a href="/blog/changing-possibilities/">Changing Possibilities</a> was originally published by David Parry at <a href="">OutsideTheText</a> on April 10, 2014.</p>/blog/plastic-wood2014-03-24T09:34:48-04:002014-03-24T09:34:48-04:00David Parrydave@outsidethetext.com<h3 id="plastic-wood">Plastic Wood</h3>
<p>One of my lines of thinking about 3d printing is that it isn’t about plastic, or not strictly about plastic. Desktop machines, now, mostly print in plastic, but the variety of materials with which we can print is surely going to expand. Already big industrial machines exists for printing in metal, there is of course the 3d printing in chocolate thing, and perhaps most interesting, 3d printing biological material. But plastic is important here, not because we will only print in plastic, rather it seems to me that one of the conceptual shifts of 3d printing is starting to treat all material as plastic. Plastic in the adjective sense not the noun sense. The material anything is made of is flexible, recyclable, reuseable, moldable into a variety of shapes.</p>
<p>This is a long way of saying that I acquired some <a href="http://www.geek.com/news/laywood-filaments-lets-you-3d-print-with-wood-1517745/">laywood</a> the other day and started printing with it. Some folks have been really sucessful in getting high quality prints using laywoo. Printing off stuff whose finsihed product looks and feels like wood. Yes <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=laywood&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=ooypU8LnLtOZqAbdpoC4Aw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg&biw=1536&bih=740">printing in wood</a>. Wood seems to me even more odd a substance to print in than say metal, because of its organic nature. But then in another sense I guess it isn’t that strange, for 3d printing is a lot about “growing” objects, additive manufacturing, versus taking a chunk of raw material and carving it down, subtractive manufacutring.</p>
<p>Anyway this is my first “wood” print. It took me longer to get it configured than plastic, and to me it feels more like particle board or MDF than say hardwood. But it definitely has a “woody” feel to it, much different than the plastic. Laywood isn’t all wood though it is actually a composite of PLA and sawdust, which probably explains why it feels like MDF.</p>
<p><img class="center" src="/images/woodbox.jpg" width="357" height="339" title="Wooden Box" alt="Wooden Box" /></p>
<p>The box is small, but you can sand it as if it is wood, and it certainly smells like wood while it is printing, or while you are sanding. I think you could also finish it with something like Danish Oil as long as whatever you were using wouldn’t eat away at the plastic.</p>
<p><a href="/blog/plastic-wood/">Plastic Wood</a> was originally published by David Parry at <a href="">OutsideTheText</a> on March 24, 2014.</p>/2014/01/making-digital-counterpublics2014-01-26T00:00:00-05:002014-01-26T00:00:00-05:00David Parrydave@outsidethetext.com<p>This year at the MLA I was part of a panel on Making Digital Counterpublics. Drawing on the idea that Habermas’ public sphere is an as yet unachieved ideal, scholars such as Nancy Fraser and Michael Warner have argued for the need to recognize alternative or parallel publics. Amid discourses regarding the value of the humanities, this session engages ways digital tools and platforms may be combined with engaged civic pedagogy to facilitate counterpublic formation for marginalized populations, activist organizations, and community outreach. The link below will take you to the website of the panel, containing information on all the presentations.</p>
<h3 id="making-digital-counterpublics1"><a href="http://outsidethetext.com/making-digital-counterpublics/" title="Link to Panel Website">Making Digital Counterpublics</a></h3>
<p>(Photo from Kim Knight’s “Fashioning Circuits Class”)</p>
<p><a href="/2014/01/making-digital-counterpublics/">Making Digital Counterpublics</a> was originally published by David Parry at <a href="">OutsideTheText</a> on January 26, 2014.</p>/blog/ordering-a-printer2014-01-04T10:27:42-05:002014-01-04T10:27:42-05:00David Parrydave@outsidethetext.com<p><img class="center" src="/images/3dprinterclose.png" title="[983] [608] [title text [alt text]]" /></p>
<p>After a couple of months of research I finally decided on what 3dprinter I wanted to purchase. Given the diversity and the expansion of the market there really is no shortage of choices out there. And while in the past year the entry price on ready to print out of the box machines has fallen sharply, the price variation between models and companies is still rather significant, with higher end home models like the Makerbot and UltiMaker costing just over $2k, but other machines with slightly less build perform and usability coming in at under $1k. The <a href="http://printrbot.com/shop/assembled-printrbot-simple/">printrbot simple</a> is $399, or $299 if you are willing to assemble yourself, granted the size of the print is fairly limited but for less than $500 it looks impressive and lots of people have positive reviews. Luckily there are a lot of resources out there that helped me make the decision. The two most important were <a href="http://makezine.com/volume/guide-to-3d-printing-2014/">Make Magazine’s Guide</a> (although they really don’t cover repraps) and the <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/3Dprinting/wiki/index">Reddit guide</a> complete with a <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/3Dprinting/wiki/printerchart">handy buying chart</a>.</p>
<!-- more -->
<h4 id="criteria">Criteria</h4>
<p><strong>Open Source</strong>: Not surprising given my strong open source stance, purchasing an open source printer was tops on my list. I wanted a machine whose hardware and software were both open. So, if Makerbot’s recent acquistion by Stratsys and the <a href="http://makezine.com/2013/12/03/stratasys-lawsuit-patents-and-more-an-interview-with-makerbots-bre-pettis/">insuing patent wars</a> they are kicking off wasn’t enough to dissuade me from their machine, their move to closed source is a complete deal breaker (not to mention <a href="http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/08/home-3d-printers-take-us-on-a-maddening-journey-into-another-dimension/">being overpriced</a>).</p>
<p><strong>Reprap</strong>: I wasn’t 100% sold on getting a version of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RepRap_Project">reprap printer</a>, but I do think from an academic angle I am really interested in the reprap movement, a distributed group of individuals collectively working to bring 3d printing to the end user with the goal of making a printer which can print itself. Reprap still has a ways to go to making a fully printable printer, but the reprap community is largely responsible for moving these things out of high end industrial manufacturing to the individual market. Indeed one could make the argument that they are responsible. I will have a lot more to say about this in the coming months but needless to say I had a preference for a reprap model.</p>
<p><strong>Print Capability</strong>: I wanted something with a sizeable print platform. I don’t necessarily need something with a huge platform but I would like to expirement with printing larger prints, so as good as the Printbot simple is I eventually ruled it out. I also want the ability to print in multiple materials, so a heated bed to print both ABS and PLA was necessary.</p>
<p><strong>Print Quality</strong>: I don’t need something that prints excellent out of the box, I am find with working to dial it in. But I do want something that if I work to dial it in I can get a good quality print out of.</p>
<p><strong>Kit vs. Assembled</strong>: Obviously a pre-assembled printer is easier but a kit is cheaper. Although it takes longer to get working I was willing to invest the time in building to get a better printer and because this is also a learning exercise. No better way to learn than to build a kit (except maybe buying all the parts instead of purchasing a kit).</p>
<p><strong>Upgradability</strong>: One of the reasons I like open source stuff is the ability to tinker, change, alter and upgrade. As different parts and technologies improve I wanted the ability to modify my printer and upgrade. This also brings me to a sub criteria which was durability of the frame. While many things are upgradeable I didn’t want to be taking the printer apart completely to upgrade the frame, a solid frame to me was important.</p>
<p><strong>Community</strong>: Since I am a newbie at this I wanted to make sure there was a strong user base already that can give advice and help troubleshoot when I can’t independently figure something out. This relates to reprap above.</p>
<p><strong>Delta verus Cartesian</strong>: There are two styles of printers right now. Ones that print along the X,Y,Z access and those that use a traingulation system based on three reference points (Delta). While I was intrigued by the Delat printers and for a while was seriously considering one, I concluded that I wanted something with a bit more of a track record (the Cartesian printers have been around longer).</p>
<p><strong>The Finalist</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://printrbot.com/shop/plus-v2-1-kit/">Printrbot+</a></li>
<li>Reprap Prusa i3 Kit (from either <a href="http://www.makerfarm.com/index.php/prusa-8-i3-kit.html">Makerfarm</a> or <a href="http://norcalreprap.com/">Norcal Reprap</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://reprap.org/wiki/Mendel90">Mendel90</a></li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Mendel90</strong>: While I think any of the above options would have been great choices (open source, strong communities, reprap based printers) I decided on the Mendel90 because I liked the frame design and wiring design a bit more, using dibond as the frame instead of plastic parts and rods, or laser cut wood. I purchased a kit from <a href="http://hydraraptor.blogspot.com/">nophead</a> (more on this later) and am expecting the printer soon, although I can’t actually start building until sometime later next week.</p>
<p><img class="center" src="/images/Mendel90.png" title="[476] [655] [title text [alt text]]" /></p>
<p>Images via: Wikimedia and Nophead’s Blog</p>
<p><a href="/blog/ordering-a-printer/">Ordering a Printer</a> was originally published by David Parry at <a href="">OutsideTheText</a> on January 04, 2014.</p>/2013/my-new-way-of-handling-teaching-materials2013-08-19T00:00:00-04:002013-08-19T00:00:00-04:00David Parrydave@outsidethetext.com<h2 id="adventures-in-github">Adventures in GitHub</h2>
<p><em>This semester I am trying something new for teaching</em></p>
<p>A while ago Brian Croxall suggested that what we need in higher educaiton is a Git Hub for syllabi. Or more precisely Brian was suggesting that we ought to alter the frame by which we think about creating, modifying, and sharing syllabi. In his piece <a href="https://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/forking-your-syllabus/39137">for Profhacker</a> Brian suggests that we should think of syllabi as itterative documents, which we borrow, and share with each other. The model for this is GitHub, the platform for sharing coding projects. When coders want to build on the code of other coders they do what is called “forking,” basically taking the code from the original creator, and building on it for one’s own purpose (with a link to the original source). I am not going to recast the enitre frame here (although I think Brian’s argument is useful, a way to think about our practice of producing syllabi), instead I want to share how I am going to attempt to do this.</p>
<p>I wanted to start producing syllabi in such a way that it was easy for others to see, to borrow, to reference, to iterate, borrow from others and publish in a range of formats (web, print, etc.). The idea here is to write and store the syllabus in such a way that makes it easy to use/reuse, push to various locations, and to “rip-mix-burn” with what others are doing. Rather than go into all the details about why I would want to do this (again see Brian’s post and the links he provides as a starting point) I want to walk thru how I am doing it. This is very much still a work in progress, so I have a lot yet to figure out.</p>
<h2 id="the-format-writing-in-separate-markdown-files">The Format: Writing in Separate Markdown Files</h2>
<p>I started by writing in Markdown. There are lots of reasons I am chosing to write in markdown rather than say a Micorsoft Word document, another word processor, or even in html. The most important of which though is its portability. It is relatively easy (more on this later) to write in Markdown format and then export it to one of the other formats I need (to say the web, or a word processing document). Also markdown has the advantage of having <a href="http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax">really simple syntax</a> (just a few things to remember) and yet handling everything I need, bold, italics, headers, blockquotes, lists, and links. In fact I have started writing everything in markdown first, including this blog post and my current research articles. It had a really short learning curve, and after just a few days it feels totally natural. I like to write in a program that on the left is the writing format, and on the right is a live formated rendering of what I am typing. This really helped with learning to write in Markdown. I mostly write in a program called <a href="http://alternativeto.net/software/retext/?platform=linux">Retext</a> but there are <a href="http://mashable.com/2013/06/24/markdown-tools/">lot of options</a> for writing in Markdown depending on what system you are using, and I suspect in the future I will just compose in a basic text editor (but for now the live preview is a nice crutch).</p>
<p>For now I keep the schedule of readings in in one file, the course description (policies, textbooks, grading policy etc.), the course information (time, date, classroom, office hours) all in separate files. I actually think that in the future I might separate out the description into a few more files (making it easier for someone to just borrow or “fork” that part of the syllabus). I think the more discrete units that I break the syllabus into the easier it will be to source, modify and credit it. You can see all the files I currently have <a href="https://github.com/academicdave/Syllabi/tree/master/DigitalLiteracy/Fall%202013">here</a>. There are other things in that folder (.odt files and .pdfs I’ll get to those in a moment). So essentially to edit the syllabus I just edit the markdown files (the ones listed as .md).</p>
<h3 id="the-core-github">The Core: GitHub</h3>
<p>I am organizing this all through GitHub, or rather publicly sharing it all through GitHub. I actually write and edit the files on my computer and then “push” the changes to GitHub which is updated. This allows others to view, share, and modify portions or all of my syllabus rather easily. More importantly GitHub handles the tracking of this sharing and referencing (forking). So if someone wants to “fork” my syllabus all they have to do is joing GitHub, set up their own account and fork the syllabus. For those unfamiliar with Github you might want to check out <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/08/the-software-that-builds-software.html">The New Yorker Article</a>. Simply put though GitHub is a place for sharing information, iterating that information, and tracking those iterations, whether they are yours or someone elses. Really the ideal platform for sharing syllabi and assignments. And since the files are published in markdown you can actually just read the text right there, no downloading and opening a file.</p>
<p>One of the key features of a Git system is that it acts as version control, this way I can easily keep track of the changes I am making to the syllabus. Or, for that matter others can see the changes I have made to the syllabus over time.</p>
<p>As the semester progresses I am going to add in an assignments folder where I plan to write up all the assignments as separate files. This will help me to iterate the assignments, to borrow my assignments from others, and to share them with anyone else.</p>
<h3 id="publishing-the-syllabus">Publishing the Syllabus</h3>
<p>So I’ve started to think across all areas of my writing about separating the text from the particular venue. Just writing in close to plain text (hence the turn to markdown) then exporting the text to whatever format I want, applying the “styling” at the point of publishing not the point of composition. Right now I am using <a href="http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/">Pandoc</a> to compile all the markdown files, and convert them to various formats (.odt, .docx, .html). In fact the .odt and .pdfs in the link above were produced this way. The “syllabi template” file just applies the styling so that when the markdown files are compiled into a document file it looks like a print syllabus. Doing it this way made it ridiculously easily to put my syllabus online as html but to also produce a print copy to hand out on the first day.</p>
<p>The key is that I will only edit the markdown files and have the others be updated. Right now I have to manually update (i.e. tell Pandoc to do this) but in the future I want to get this step automated, so that I edit the markdown file and the website will automatically update, along with the “print” version.</p>
<h3 id="this-wasn8217t-easy">This Wasn’t Easy</h3>
<p>The problem with this is that it wasn’t easy. There was a lot of learning curve both with GitHub and converting files. I could justify this as both related to my field of study and I am interested in figuring this out (not the least of which because I am thinking about using this as a way to share research as well). But honestly this isn’t really a workable solution for most academics, especially the non tech savvy. Even with programs that make interacting with GitHub easy, or file conversion easy, this is still a bit labor intensive. I think now it actually saves me time as I can write the syllabus once and update it across venues easily. But I certainly haven’t reached the point where I am saving myself more time than it took to learn. But I do think both in terms of composition and in terms of sharing this is certainly a model for how we as academics can share our pedagogical resources.</p>
<h3 id="which-brings-me-to---">Which Brings Me To . . .</h3>
<p>I think what we need is a way to do this (outside of the CMS’s Universities use), but do it with relative ease. Something like GitHub for syllabi. Enter <a href="http://coursefork.org/">Coursefork</a>. This seems to be the niche they are going for, easy to use uploading of teaching materials, with the ability to edit, share, and credit others work. I’m not associated with Coursefork, although I have been able to use the Alpha system and they seem to be headed in the right direction. I don’t know if they will succeed or not, but I will say that I hope that something like this does succeed, both in the practical sense (a platform like this would be useful) and a more abstract sense (the idea of forking and sharing syllabi). After spending sometime working like this I am convinced that forking and sharing syllabi is the way to go, we just need practical tools for it, along with the conceptual framework of “forking.”</p>
<p>Note: I want to give a lot of credit to <a href="https://github.com/afamiglietti">Andy</a> who not only already did this (so I modeled my workflow after his) but also had put his <a href="https://github.com/afamiglietti/Emac_2321_Spring_2013">EMAC 2321</a> syllabus on GitHub which serves as the reference for the COM 200 syllabus I put up. Unfortunately in the learning I didn’t get the forking right and so my syllabus doesn’t show as a “fork” of his, something I need to figure out how to correct here.</p>
<p><a href="/2013/my-new-way-of-handling-teaching-materials/">My New Way of Handling Teaching Materials</a> was originally published by David Parry at <a href="">OutsideTheText</a> on August 19, 2013.</p>/2013/next-year-something-new-22013-04-26T00:00:00-04:002013-04-26T00:00:00-04:00David Parrydave@outsidethetext.com<p><a href="http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/620x434.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-885" alt="620x434" src="http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/620x434-300x210.jpg" width="300" height="210" /></a></p>
<p>I have accepted a job at Saint Joseph’s University, to be chair of a new department focusing on digital media. So in the fall I will be an Associate Professor and Chair of the Communications Department at Saint Joseph’s University. I am really excited about this job opportunity, as the “next thing I want to do.” SJU is building a <a href="http://sju.edu/majors-programs/undergraduate/majors/communication-studies-major">Communications major</a> focused on digital media and <a href="http://beautifulsocial.org/">social engagement</a>. For me this hits the intersection of two of the things that I am professionally most interested in, coupled with the chance to help build and develop this program this job turns out to be an exciting next move. In many respects I just feel honored that the existing faculty at SJU thought I was the right person for the job. Although making a move to something new can be a bit intimidating, I am really excited to work in this program.</p>
<p>When I was considering taking the job a few people I talked to thought I was crazy, asking why I would want the responsibilities of a chair, why I would want to leave a TT track job at a research institution (where I was just getting tenure) for a smaller institution. Maybe they are right, but I think there is a lot of upside to taking the job as a chair, especially at a liberal arts school that values teaching. More importantly though I really like helping to build things. And while I was weighing whether or not to take this job I looked at academics that I really admire, like Kathleen Fitzpatrick or Dan Cohen, folks who gave up secure tenure track jobs to pursue doing something new and I realized this wasn’t an opportunity I wanted to pass up (to be sure I am not giving up tenure this job comes with tenure). This is a chance to do something new, and focus down on what I really value about higher education: working with students, and empowering them to build a better world.</p>
<p>And so as much as I appreciate the chances and opportunities I had here in EMAC, and as much as I will miss working with the students, in the fall I will be moving to Philly . . .</p>
<p>P.S. That’s actually a photo of the building where my office will be (I think).</p>
<p><a href="/2013/next-year-something-new-2/">Next Year. Something New.</a> was originally published by David Parry at <a href="">OutsideTheText</a> on April 26, 2013.</p>/2013/04/knowledge-rights-versus-knowledge-cartels2013-04-01T00:00:00-04:002013-04-01T00:00:00-04:00David Parrydave@outsidethetext.com<p>In this <a href="http://www.enculturation.net/knowledge-cartels" title="Knowledge Cartels">article in Enculturation</a> I make the claim that Open Access isn’t merely an issue of economic benefit, but rather one of an ethical imperative to make our scholarship widely available.</p>
<p><a href="/2013/04/knowledge-rights-versus-knowledge-cartels/">Knowledge Rights versus Knowledge Cartels</a> was originally published by David Parry at <a href="">OutsideTheText</a> on April 01, 2013.</p>