Principles of Communications -- Michaelmas Term 2016....week 3 (to Oct 21)

Done centralised/hybrid routing/fibbing -- as someone pointed out, forwarding continues if a central controler caches - depends on timeout in openflow added state/fib entries - with fibbing, the timeout will be whatever OSPF Or equiv does - so a comparison is potentially a bit more subtle than as presented.
Also, SDN/Openflow lets you add entries based on 5-tuple, whereas fibbing lets you add by destination only.....so potentially more fine grain choices in SDN, even if at the cost of more state - so the "prefix hijack" in fibbing is neat, but not the last word in adding custom routes...(e.g. if you wanted by source, needs more state than can be added by fake Link State Advert - as far as I can see)

rest of week was on BGP - why, what, how, where, when, and why not!

Principles of Communications -- Michaelmas Term 2016....

Finishing up end of week 2 (lecture 4) with Compact routing
having done background graphs & reminder of routing basics.

See the  slides page for lecture material + links to papers with more detail if you want (where not covered in books -

I've also added some more pointers to background book like reading on the course materials page for people that want to read more around the area, as there's no specific single book that covers all the course materials.

ttfn

fairness, machine learning, versus optimal stopping and cognitive bias

There's a bunch of work in making sure that machine learning systems are, in some carefully defined sense, fair - see for example the MPI work by Krishna Gummadi, in removing biases in various ML use cases (e.g. gender as an explicit or implicit discriminator).

For me there's a really subtle problem here which links between this work and other problems of Optimal Stopping and Cognitive Biases, and how one choose to define fairness in ML and the feedback loop between this and human society and the views we take on each other.

So lets take two simple use cases:

1. Admissions to University and Gender

Imagine a Computer Science department has 100 applicants a month, over 3 months for 50 places and wants to pick the best 50 people. Naive use of Optimal stopping would say wait til you have 37% of the applicants (111 people), then pick. What if the population is drawn differently by gender - e.g. out of every 100 applicants, only 1 is female. Lets say this is because applicants are self selecting based on the position in the ability of their own sub-population.. You have about a 1/2 chance of having 0 women in the admissions. The feedback to the population in society is you have to be in the top 1% of female applicants, but in the top 18% of men. Assuming their isn't actually a gender basis for ability distribution. You've just built a system that re-enforces it. TO get out of this, you have to run a two-factor optimal stopping scheme. If you want to do this for other groups in society, it will get more complex too...

2. Stop&Search and Race

It may be the case that you stop and search people in safeguarding society by profiling individuals based on past cases of stopping and successfully apprehending miscreants. Lets say this leads to a higher probability of stopping people who "look middle eastern". Again there's a feedback loop between your "correct" but naive selection scheme, and how people behave - in this case, various cognitive biases in how society will regard the group you target, may lead to the group being marginalised, out of proportion to even your allegedly accurate statistical model. e.g. anchorism....or many others, will lead to over-weighting by society, especially since humans are risk averse.

sigcomm 2016 #2 - what worked well

a number of things about Sigcomm 2016 were really smooth, and i''d like to say what those were and why, for future reference

1/ a large number of volunteers did a meet/greet/arrange transport from the airport to the conference venue & hotels site - this was great - even delayed planes had a person with local knowledge 9of language/culture/taxi/etc) and so many panic moments were averted-  for example there were two flights from north america which were disrupted but people still got met - also
several people were severely mis-advised by airlines that their checked bags would go through from the international to the regional flight (this isn't the case in any country in the world that I know of, but united and tam managed to tell people this, despite that security demands passengers and bags are reconciled per flight) - nevertheless, with some local help, bags were retrieved within a day....

2/ the conference venue has a LOT of rooms and is very conveniently laid out so that almost instant access to coffee/lunch areas, and between rooms was very very easy. - the space is pleasant, acoustics are good, audio/visual (mikes/PA/speakers) worked well (including for remote speakers and for Q&A) - there are 6 main rooms next to the catering area, plus the large auditoriam area up one floor, with large bathroom area next to both, too - the groundfloor rooms can be reconfigured to 3 larger rooms - this is necessary as the 5 days of Sigcomm these days include
multiple tutorials and workshops on the monday & friday, plus multiple other events like the student research, the topic preview sessions, mentoriing meetings, and various committtee (sigcomm exec, next year handover)....all rooms were used most the time...

3/ many sponsors attended and several had desks for info for possible employment etc, out in the large catering area...

4/ the conference banquet (tue) and student dinners (wed) were both fantastic events - the former was 8 minutes walk from the conference venue, so people could get bak to hotels at their own leisure - the latter was a bus ride away - coaches whisked us there and back in about a half hour, and that was probably rhe best meal I have ever had at a sigcomm conference. The reception on monday (in the main conference auditorium) was good.

5/ there were a couple of pretty good local restaurants at the venue for people looking for socialising on the other days (including award winners dinner, N2women dinner +  for people arriving early, plus on the thursday nite)

6/ there was fairly seamless interaction between webmasters, and a/v team, so slides, papers, other access (e.g. to printers for boarding passes, for travel info/asking for taxis back to restaurants/airport etc) was all pretty painless

we had a day of wireless outage, which appeared to be on part of the internet not inside the conference venue site, but an engineer did come and fix it that day - this disrupted the live streaming (although we hope the recordings will still have worked and will soon be available via the ACM digital library links)

7/ the remote presentations were remarkably successful - this was because
a) the actual talk was a pre-recorded video, pre-shipped to us, so didn't depend on the net working well in realtime
b) most presenters had prepared lively talks with a super-imposed video of the full standing figure of the speaker, alongside the slide show
c) the talks all had a live Q&A (relying on skype/telephone call out as a backup of the internet was down) so there was little difference in terms of presentation between the remote presentation and local presentations in terms of human experience - indeed, several people commented that almost all the remote presentations were technically higher quality that most of the local ones....

8/ the size of the conference (approx 400 attendees) combined with the local relaxed culture was perhaps responsible for a very friendly atmosphere- I think this meant that it was a really fantastic experience for the (large number of) student attendees, giving many opportunities for mentoring moments and general exchange of ideas....a larger event might need slightly more formally organised mechanisms (certainly, last year's sigcomm in London with 700 attendees was a bit more of a "zoo").

9/ there was a lot of behind the scenes tech used to track all the organisation of things....this is available from the general chairs and other members of the organising committee (OC) on request

10/ the OC all carried out their tasks with incredible efficiency and timeliness. This matters as many of those tasks have dependencies  (e.g. travel grant, visa letters, or tutorial/registration/registration, or PC paper shepherding/web site program) - there are a couple of race conditions, but we had fixes....which requires everyone to be responsive (i.e. very day) and responsible....

thats all for now, folks...

sigcomm 2016 - so long & thanks for all the fishy behaviour

Sigcomm 2016 for me

As general chair, I felt I'd have to attend Sigcomm in Brazil, even though I 
had a co-chair who is local, in fact not least to give moral support for him.

However, for me, August involves my family holiday typically, and this year was no different.
So we'd booked a large villa in southwest france for 2 weeks for up to 20 people, so that the extended family (from
UK, Ireland, North America & Kenya and anyone else who wanted to drop in on their travels) could all be there.

So one week in, I had to head for the conference, taking a couple of the family with to get 1 to Berlin, 1 back to
london, (another couple were heading the other way from London to France at the same time...

Montpelier->Floreanopolis took about 30 hours (with a very good flight from LATAM for 830$ connecting in Sao Paolo
with only a 3 hour connection). I met a couple of people on the last 1 hour flight who had come from Beijing (one
poster & one paper author), who's journey was also about 30 hours, plus a couple of Europeans who had a journey of
about 15 hours - like mine would have been had I not been on annual vacation.


So while the conference, as a social event, and a technical piece of my day job, is really excellent (much
gratitude to the superb Brazilian hosts!), I missed a whole week of seeing my extended family, including some of them who 
I only see then, but won't til next year now.

So it is disappointing that a number of people who had papers to present (note, I didn't), did not attend. On papers
with an average of 5+ authors, they couldn't find one person to travel and present. The excuse was the Zika
outbreak. There is more Zika in some US locations than in the conference location, but hey, who expects everyone to
be rational. It seems also that many of these authors were connected with papers with Microsoft authors. Microsoft
were not a sponsor of the conference either (they have been in the past), despite having an author on 20% of papers
in the conference, and making a thing of this on social media. It seems that the conference has value as a place to 
get visibility for work of the company or student interns at the company, but not enough to have a presence (not 
even a recruiting desk at an event where there are around 200 junior researchers in networking, one assumes many 
of who are looking for interesting paces of employment next).

So for the first time we've allowed some remote presentations
at SIGCOMM - we had one live one in at the NetPL on day 1 because a 
speaker was held up by a plane failure and so managed to Skype in, 
but we had two on day 2 in the main conference paper sessions, which were
planned. Authors unable to attend ahead of time, sent in a canned video of 
their talk, then we skyped them in after for Q&A

The biggest problem with this is non-technical - its to do with the loss of community 
building opportunities based in hallway conversations triggered by the talk or other 
things th speaker/authors may have done that are of interest to attendees - this loss
is small for a small number of remote presentations, and in the case the remote
presenter is a student, probably worse for them than for conference physical attendees.
The loss is larger for the conference if the remote speaker is an experienced person
who might act as a mentor or offer useful feedback on other presentations,
live, in the other Q&A, or in hallways etc, if only they could have attended.
one simple example - the authors of the 2nd paper on the 1st main paper session day
differential provenance could interwork with authors of a paper on "light in the middle of the
tunnel" in hottmiddlebox on friday.

There's no advatnage to the primary author giving the remote presentation (rather than either anyone
else, or anyone else coming to present it in person) because no-one at the conference gets to
meet them anyhow, so they don't enhance theoir career any more than writing a Tech Report or putting a paper on 
ArXiv with a video.

There was some care taken (at extra cost to the conference organising committees) to get
decent videos and have them present (and esp. attention to audio both for speaker and for 
Q&A with the remote virtual attendee).

However, 3 semi-technical problems became obvious in the first 2 talks
1/ the speaker is canned - they can't adapt to audience attention, they can't re-pace
based on level of engagement, they can't change their presentation to account for other people's talks
or reference another talk where there's common ideas or differences - the speaker can't interact with the slides,
even pointing at axes to explain scales, or interesting features of a curve/anomalies, outliers etc....
2/ there's no obvious way in this model, to ask a speaker to "go back to slide 5" in the Q&A
3/ having a human figure in the projection who is larger than life (as would appear on stage) is an elementary
HCI fail.

On the 2nd&3rd day of the main conference we had quite a few more remote presentations. While they continued to be
well prepared, and the illusion of having the speaker in the room continued to be maintained by having a Skype
capability for Q&A at the end of each canned talk, the number was really stretching the credulity and patience of
many of us that out of 30+ distinct authors across that set of papers, 0 could get here. This continued on to
trying to have a handover meeting where the only people from 2017 able to be physically here on the lunchtime of
the last day of the main conference were people who were involved in the 2016 conference anyhow.

The event was no more difficult to get to than many past conferences, nor are there more real (rather than
perceived) risks about the location than many past locations.
[In fact, I attended last year in london to go to the handover meeting to learn the tasks required of us, so I
mssed vacation then too]

A lot of people went out of their way to make this a successful event, despite the lack of full engagement by many
people who obviously assume Sigcomm is worth submitting papers to for their career or their employers visibility,
but don't buy into the community idea. That's sadly shortsighted of them. They will be perceived as places less
interesting to go work for compared to those places that had a presence. Sad, because it has been incredible fun here and the local community showed up massively supportive, in huge numbers, and got a huge amount out of things. More loss for those who didn't make it here from north of the equator.

For those of us who took time out from valuable family life, took a lot of care about re-locating the conference to
deal with the public health issues with the original venue, it is doubly disappointing that there are people in our
profession who don't share our view of what the nature of the event should be. It is very unlikely that I shall 
bother attending again, or consider being on the PC if asked. I dont care to work for people who don't care.

unikernels & production

A recent blog called into question the fitness of unikernels for production. The title was a bit misleading as there are several unikernel  systems out there. some of which are actually in production - one of our faves is the NEC/Bucharest Uni work on ClickOS, for example, which is used for NFV on switches and is clearly a class act.

However, I think the article is also missing some of the main motives behind MirageOS (see e.g. Jitsu or the asplos paper) which was based in experiences with managing a lot of Xen based cloud systems - sure, Unikernels are specialised, and don't possess a lot of the micro-management/debugging tools (yet, although a lot are on the way) that you have for kernel debugging or system tracing of linux etc etc. But that's because OCaml real world experience in production was that you have faster system creation, and way faster debugging times. However, that's still not the whole story- the story is that the whole toolchain for managing source, building a unikernel, deploying it and tracing it is much more homogeneous - so a whole system of unikernels is easier to manage (as per previous experience).

Crucially, we are also able to verify some components of the MirageOS (e.g. Peter Sewell's group in cambridge did this (for some definition of "this") a while back for the TCP/IP stack, plus confidence about David and Hannes TLS implementation can be quite a bit higher than the "industry standard" that had 65 vulnerabilities in one year alone.

But all this is missing yet another key factor - unikernels don't replace xen/linux or containers - they play side-by-side with them, so you can have flexibility and familiarity, while affording better protection - that's in the Jitsu paper btw, and I thought was fairly clear.

Sure there's some way to go - there always is -there was when Xen first shipped too. But the computer science behind this is not that bleeding edge (nor were VMs back in Xensource's day either:-), but the science is 15 years further on, and we should all benefit from that, in my opinion. Indeed, it took a day to add profiling


xkcd has us in there thrice

readings in computer science found in a time capsule

recently, I was re-reading the classic old article on Smashing the stack for fun and profit in phrack, and wondering where the positive alternative lesson might be. Quite a while ago, I did a port of the SR(Synchronized Resources) programming language out of Arizona, to the newly minted RS6000 system out of IBM. The language is an elegant system for teaching principles of concurrency in lots of nice ways - at the time we didnt have a single agreed way to do it (e.g. wrong like in C11, or possibly ok in Java), so there was a need for a pedagogic approach and SR together with a nice book was very cool. However, we'd just bought a bunch of new IBM AIX systems with the new POWER PC RISC processor, which had a whole new instruction set - lets leave aside the amising idea of a "reduced" or "regular" instruction set that includes "floating point multiple and add" in its portfolio. However, in terms of registers, its a pretty nice system.

So why is porting SR to the Power CPU reminiscent of stack smashing, I hear you cry?
Because, you need to implement the threads system it uses to emulate real multi-core, I hear myself answer. And what does it take to do that, you continue? well you need to save the current context (like all the registers and thread state (i.e. PC, stack) move to a different thread/stack by calling the scheduler with a pointer to that context. To do this involves becoming familiar with the stack format used for most programming languages.as well as all the important (i.e. all) registers etc. So basically, slightly more than the Phrack folks....basically, writing stuff that moves to another exection context, but can get back again correctly, is harder:-)
You can see some nice examples of the context switch stuff for a variety of processors in the (not supported) SR archive

Meanwhile, I was also reading about the integrity check used for DNSSEC caches. so that will be reported elsewhere, but the interesting thing is that its a weak version of the IP header (and TCP) checksum algorithm. Again this is something that excercises computer science #101 - you need to add up all the 16 bit fields in the buffer (imagine you have a n byte buffer, then if n is odd, add a zero value byte and sum it as a vector of 16 bit values using "end round carry" (or ones-complement) artithmentic - basically, you have a 32 bit accumulator, and loop over the buffer. when you are done, you do one more thing - in the checksum case: check any bits above the 16 least sig are set, and fold them in (add again) and then do one more add in case that overflows too. In the integrity check case, just 0 any bits in the more significant 16 bits (i.e. && accumulator with 0x0ffff). For the ARM IP cksum case, see this
code with inline asm - the crucial bit's lines 78&79 after the bne loop.

amusing, back in the early days, i remember someone loop unrolling asm code for hte M68000 (that's not a 68020 or 68010, but 68000 - that was sold as a "Codata" computer in the uk, but was a Sun-1, i think, never sold by Sun) - the code went slower as the loop was now to big to fit in the miniscule instruction cache of said CPU...

hum...........what could possibly go oddly wrong with the allegedly simpler (by 1 instruction) integrity check algorithm? I leave that as an exercise for the coder

counciling the UK research councils

The UK research councils are unique in the way proposals are reviewed in several ways (in my experience)

firstly, unlike almost any other research funding agency (unlike DARPA, NSF in USA, CNRS in france, DFG in germany, the Japanese, scandinavian, and just about any other national funding agency I have dine reviewing for, which is a lot), the officers are not seconded experts so the assignment of reviewers depends on the reviewers self description - notoriously inaccurate. Unlike a journal (where the editor is an expert) there's not really a _peer_ review assignment process

secondly, the reviews can be rebutted by the proposer, but since the reviewers don't see each others reviews, they can't be calibrated against each other (unlike a conference or journal)

thirdly, the panel are not the reviewers and are not allowed to re-review the proposal, even if they are experts and only in exceptional circumstances will they discount an obviously incompetent or inappropriate review.

As a recipient of significant funding from the research councils, I am not expressing this through some sour grapes emotion, but more on behalf of my bewildered junior colleagues, who frequently receive inexplicably odd reviews and panel decisions. This is not good for community trust in the system - it may be ok at the obvious top 5-10% of proposals, but it results effectively in random decisions quite shortly after the very top (all 6s) ranked research. This is not good for confidence.

I can't give examples as that would be a breach of confidentiality, but everyone I know can tell a tale.

Maybe the new system after the recent review will involve people who have an answer to why the EPSRC and other councils should have a unique, and uniquely odd system. I have never heard an evidence based response to the comments above, which I have made several times to officials from the research councils. of course, since they themselves are not seconded from the community, how would they know, in any case. However, they could try talking to colleagues in other countries a bit more and see what works (or not) to persuade us that this is not just some random "we do it this way because we always have done"...

Part II Principles of Communications, 2015, to Dec 2

Wrapped up Traffic Management, including
idea of signaling protocols, and
space/time scales of different techniques;
and review of the course contents.

Planning to do revision classes next term.
Supervision notes will be linked to course web page after end of term.

[systems structures lecture moved to background]

some notes/problems from supervisions added
now

Part II Principles of Communications, 2015, to Nov 27

This week is

• Shared Media
• Mesh Network Capacity
• Coding and Multihop Radio (Cope)

Two useful network coding primer and coded storage articles...
and just what is a shim?

Part II Principles of Communications, 2015, to Nov 20

this week, covered scheduling, work conservation, max/min fairness, and PGPS approximations + queue jump!

Part II Principles of Communications, 2015, to Nov 13

Optimization (Nov 9) - background paper:-

from Princeton group

TCP in the wild - Optical Carrier Speed
table + Reminder about R-squared

Schedulers&Rounds....up to WFQ.

Part II Principles of Communications, 2015, to Nov 6

Flow Control, Congestion Control,
open and closed loop systems

Control Theory -
time domain model
transform to frequency domain
recipies for laplace transforms
stability & efficiency
proportional, integral and differential (and PID) controllers.

Online slides (PPT and PDF) are ok -
apologies for symbol/font problem in some of the printed pages!

Part II Principles of Communications, 2015, to Oct 30

Previously, Compact routing, Central routing (fibbing to link state),&path vector

This week covered
interdomain routing, including AS paths and deadlocks,
for which see interdomain revision notes/slides
+
multicast,
+
random routing

Just started on error and flow control.
[As usual, wikipedia is great on gaussian elimination ]

Pretty much as per schedule

Part II Principles of Communications, 2015, to Oct 23

This week has been about inter-domain routing, and BGP.
Covered background business relationships (peering, customer/provider etc), the protocol, the attributes/selection, SPP, and discussed scaling, convergence, and problems (like bad gadgets, wedgies) - as always, data is out of date, but Geoff Huston to the rescue...

Part II Principles of Communications, 2015

This week (to Dec 16) I should have covered the graph material (random graphs + alpha&beta models of small world/clustered graphs), and
Compact and Centralised routing - viz
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/1516/PrincComm/slides/schedule-2015.html

On graphs and networks there's a new really nice book by Jon Kleinberg


There's some lack of precision about the terms "small world" but basically, (wikipedia is your friend) a scale-free network refers to the power law degree distribution, and consequential small diameter (and some clustering), which leads to the small world property. Not all small world networks are scale free, but scale free networks are small world...

The Smell of Memory

scientists in cambridge have recently figured out how to code the smell of memory, not just a smell of one thing that evokes a particular memory, but the underlying phenomenon that is memory itself. It turns out that it is not so abstract, and that there are only really 7 key parameters (somewhat like taste, which is, of course, related to smell in any case). Working backwards from the examples of smells that evoke memories, using a statistical technique called PCA, scientists can now code the entire space that is memory - so not only evoking a particular memory, but replaying everything at once.

Of course, there are severe dangers of synaesthesia with this technique, so it will only be allowed in key, socially beneficial situations, such as court cases, or TV interviews with politicians.

And it must be noted that there will inevitably be people who have an innate fear of smell - loosely related to the smell of fear, but far more disabling in this context, except where you'd like the right to be forgotten - de-oderant amnesia.

Re-use ill-considered (twitter and hypothermia)

I've been reading a lot about ethics recently for a forthcoming workshop in Oxford on the topic.
It seems that a lot of the book keeping elements of ethics have been defined (I guess, perhaps, in reaction to the lamentably long list of unethical things that are done by all and sundry in online media commercial appropriation of the essence of you, and dodgy medical research re-owning folk knowledge on drugs from rainforest eco-systems, or testing stuff on people who have no political or economic choices...

So there's a long list of stuff we (as researchers) have to go through.....

but it seems to me that quite near the top of the list ought to be something about re-use

In computing (and in general in engineering), re-use of stuff (re-cycling harware, and re-cycling good ideas, or software) is regarded as a good thing - rep-purposing too - the internet came out of dual-use (re-purposing a survivable defense network, as a cheap extnesive global communications utility for the public)...

but the real elephant in the room for me is re-use of stuff in a new context without ethical consideration.

Let me give two examples (from the title of this post)

1/ someone (NOT ill-advisedly) tweets that, unless the snow in an airport is cleared soon, he will blow it up. This is a daft joke which maybe to his friends is funny coz he's that sort of a guy.
That's not the problem. THe problem is that it got re-tweeted or forward to the police - whoever did that, did they stop to consider the original intent. Or was this thoughtless? or possibly even malicious? why did the police not regard this as potentially a "crank call"? were they not wasting police time

2/ research on hypothermia received a boost from the Nazi doctors trying stuff out on people in concentration camps. The research actually turned out to be useful. Should we deny ourselves the benefit, despite the awful provenance of the results?

Some of this can be reduced (in a classic reductionist manner) by looking at cost-benefit tradeoffs. What are the risks the tweet really is a bad guy? what are the chances that if we use the nazi medical results, someone will start a land war with russia, to aid in their drug discovery programme?
How much extra work do we have to do to make deciding the right way about the incentives, or the re-use of results?

Why do I care?

Well, its clear that many open, public-minded people constrain themselves from doing potentially valuable research by setting barriers before working out the cost-benefit/incentive balance, whilst at the same time, a lot of industry just goes ahead and does it, and fixes things up after the event.
Is there a middle ground?

I'm suggesting that considering re-use and the safeguards one should put in place for that, might give a way to evaluate whether something is ethically acceptable or no.

It could also serve by offering "re-use cases" which might be easier to explain to people as part of the "informed consent" steps of any ethical experimental design.

As more pressure is put on us to do work with larger and larger data sets (whether the GCHQ surveillance data, or police crime/geo-loc data, or NHS care.data) we need to figure this out soonest.

Intellectual Property and Production - workshop in Law, 24.1.2015

at Wolfson College, 25 Jan 2015
Organised by Center for Intellectual Property and Information Law

Jennifer Davies introduced the workshop (6th in a series run by CIPIL ) and reminded attendees this was about production (and place!)

Session 1: Producing Output, led by Lionel Bently

Tanya Aplin: 'The Impact of Prosumers on Photojournalism' - this talk mapped out how the massive rise of amateur photography and the ubiquitous presence of cameras (especially in phones) had given rise to the de-skilling of the area of photojournalism, starting especially in disasters and emergencies (Katrina, Tsunami, Arab Spring etc), where classical photojournalists might not be on the scene for days in any case, but now supplanting every day coverage of events. The talk then went on to the new businesses that had arisen to "professionalise" the contributions by the public, and new agencies that would find takers for pictures and pay producers (albeit massively less than the famous photojournalists of yore).

Great talk - i think to be fair, the "professionals" always over-stated the skills you need to be a good journalist - many amateurs are massively better than many paparazzi - see my friend tim harris photos - he's a research leader at Oracle labs....this is also true of bloggers - for example my local kentish town blogger produces more timely and better job than the main traditional local newspaper (in my view:)

Alan Durant: ‘Kinds of Work in Copyright: a Semantic Perspective’

This was a foundational take on the triptych "Original Literary Works" unpicking the individual and combined meanings over history and showing how ambiguous the terms sepeaately and together were and still are. THis has important consequences for public and other stakeholders understanding of the relevant law!

Hye-Kyung Lee: ‘Media fans as new cultural intermediaries’

This was about fan contributed works with a new spin - the Manga translators - fandom who take japanese and korean comic art, and produce versions for other markets! Again (as with the first talk in this session) the emergent business models have first been squashed, but then embraced and extended by the original Manga production houses. Fans reactions vary (as you would expect) from approval to "uncool" - also, interestingly, cultural differences mean that Chinese reaction is quite different than other countries in this regards. I asked if anyone has tried personality profiling (c.f. psychometrics facebook app in cambridge) to see what sort of people enjoy these activities - is it mostly about fame, social capital, etc - inclusion - etc or do some really want to make it like their heroes in the original comics? or a mix (changing over time). Was reminded of two related stories. (Anecdotal) - 1/ The Dr Who fan contributed plots and characters were threatened with a lawsuit for copyright reasons, but then it emerged some of the writers of Dr Who had been reading the site, and may have inadvertently used material and fans suggested that they might countersue - so a quid pro quo was reached:) 2/ My cousin was teaching computer science in Brasil and translated US text books by reading then speaking aloud in portuguese, to a dictation/speech to text system (Dragon Dictate) - students bought the original book, so there's no loss to publishers or authors, but were given handouts of the text part in their own language.  Publishers became interested (low cost way to get foreign language editions of books....and discover markets).

This element of fan led A&R seems like an obvious way for producers of new work who live in the "long tail" of the popularity distribution to find their market, and for new fans to find content. Seems like a good thing - for a given area, it may not be a zero sum game  although over all content, I guess the population does have a finite disposable income. However, this new mode may lead to a wider breadth of availability, perhaps at the expense only of the few people at the very tip of the popularity (U2, Beyonce might lose a few percent of their gazillions) - maybe Thomas Pikety will approve!

Session 2: The Means of Production (I) led by: Ian Walden

Jon Crowcroft: ‘Software Tools and Die’
here's my talk which is mostly just about how we write software but also a plea not to do s/w patents (the clever bits are just math) and how copyright is ok, but there's lots of different uses (license models) which can all work (and co-exist)

Catherine Seville: “Controlling the Production of Literary Works: Hard
Then, Impossible Now?

This was a fascinating talk about the ways in which the technologies for production have always seen (mostly failed) attempts to control - from limited access to printing press, to control of rights to publish, through to DRM etc - really interesting...

Simon Eliot: ‘From 'Literary' to 'Commercial' in the Registry Books of
the Stationers' Company

Beautifully read and presented talk about this history and hilariously incompetent antics of rhe Stationers' company (registry for all things trademarkish) esp in the 19th century, which some fabulous graphic examples of Victorial graphic design for a wide range of useful, daft, and sentimental works. Sheer diversity of display is astonishing.

Session 3: The Means of Production (II) led by: Andrew Griffiths

Sean Bottomley: ‘Trade secrecy and production during the late
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.’

Lovely talk about Worshipful socieiies and their control of their magic pixie dust techniques-  interestingly, the use of sanctions against people for revealing these tricks to "foreigners" (i.e. non guild members) was relatively rare in practice.  It makes you wonder why the Worshipful Company of Information Technologists was set up - What have they got to hide???

Dev Gangjee: ‘Why Wine is Not a Commodity: Geographic Indications,
Place and Process’

Great talk as with all the talks, really well presented and clear) on "terroir, and the way GIs are being used more and more, and yet have very little public recognition yet (outside of the original "Appelation Controle) - I asked the questions a) how "little britain" is all this and b) can you have a GI for "produced near here" for any definition of here (i.e. eco-didn't fly far food) - answer, yes...

Theresa Lopes: ‘Trademarks and Production of Consumer Goods from an
Historical Perspective’

Great econometric analysis of a large body of data from several places showing how IP protection trends track a) innovation b) the economic growth/shrinkage - a lot to take in - hopefully, we get some slides/paper post workshop!


Session 4: Geographical Delineation, led by Session leader: Graeme Dinwoodie

Sun Thathong: ‘A Marxian interpretation of the traditional knowledge
debate: the role of IP in the
coexistence of primitive and capitalist modes of production.’

Fun stuff -not quite as alarming as it sounds - basically, traditional knowledge is folk lore and crafts embedded in simple societies and held in common. It is being ram-raided by developed countries profit led companies (most obviously, plant medicines in rain forests being patented by big Pharma). This is about the moves to try and figure out a range of IP models that will appropriately recompense those "simple" societies (which, if course, are never so simple). Main bug is the hilariously naive Marxian description of primitive communism, which an anthropologist would have a field day with (literally and figuratively), but the model economically is good.

Here I had to leave to go to a memorial Mass for my brother in law, Declan McKeever
so I missed one of the organisers papers, which was a shame as it was

foundational to the main purpose of the workshop:

Jennifer Davis: ‘The End of Trade Marks as an Indicator of Place and

the Implications for Labour’

Graham Dutfield: ‘The compulsory working of patents and developing

countries.’

Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan: ‘From Local Manufacture Rules to Import

Barriers in Global Production Chains’

Science and Policy - Why should they pay attention to us?

Reading the latest CSAP (center for Science and Policy) report on "future Directions for Scientfic Advice in Whitehall" is quite frustrating if you are a geek.

Several behavioural weirdnesses define geeks, and these matter:

1. geeks tend to read about anything whatever their core training is, whether climate science, social media analytics, psychology, behavioural economics, and XKCD
2. notwithstanding Steve Hand's memorable pub rant[1], politics appears to be quite a lot simpler than a physics (Natural Sciences) or computer science or engineering degree, really.
3. they witness many people in political decision making roles who are actually less qualified even in terms of soft (social) sciences (lets not rehearse the PPE pub rant again just yet [2])

So what does this lead to?

1. incredulity when governments do not act on scientific advice (drugs, immigration, climate).
2. frustration when governments offer explanations as to why they cannot act on said advice.
3. strong inclination to walk away from bothering ever again to offer advice/evidence.

Far from this being something scientistcs should apoligise for, given the nature of the public's alienation with current western democratic policies (e.g. economics of austerity), it behoves politicians to rethnk how they react to public advice:

1. scientists have a methodology (atually lots, but lets stick with Popperian classical Object Knowledge for now).
2. Theories are falsifiable - the latest theory is "best of breed", that's all its merit is.
3. We dismiss theories when new ones come along that meet the criteria (better fit, simpler, more elegant -- pick any).
4. We change our minds. 

Indeed, there are honourable occasions (e.g. discovering that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria, or the italians finding that their neutrinos did not go fast than the speed of light, or the cold fusion fail), when this is very public, but it happens every day on a finer granularity

I think the time has come for scientific method to be applied by politicians. Just as Jeanette Wing argued for computational thinking to be part of everyone's intellectual landscape, scientific method has already been embedded in everyone's subconscious for some time (e.g. since the Age of Enlightenment, aka Age of Reason)

Why not? As Oliver Cromwell said to one government (and remember what happened to them 

Think it possible you may be mistaken.