—John Child and Rita Gunther McGrath, “Organizations Unfettered: Organizational Form in an Information-Intensive Economy,” 2001
“When a society’s organizations thrust a large number of its citizens into a condition of permanent survival-oriented tension, it would be remarkable indeed if the effects were benign….The responsibility of leading firms and other bodies with concern for the social consequences of the organizational developments they initiate is a major issue of our times.” Jan 1, 2014
LaTeX Letterhead for Quinnipiac University Dec 4, 2013
I’ve been finding myself spending ever more time in Emacs of late, working on various projects. As ever, you can do an immense amount of work and play from within this single program, from coding to browsing the web to checking email to reading news to perusing Twitter. It’s addictive.
I’ve also been doing a lot more writing in Emacs, getting more and more comfortable with LaTeX. And as the season approached for writing letters of recommendation, I realized that I had no version of Quinnipiac’s official letterhead that would work in LaTeX. I finally spent the time to create one, and as is my rule with yak-shaving tasks like this one, I figured I’d share it and hopefully help out the next person.
The letterhead conforms to the rules in the Quinnipiac University Graphics Standards Manual, as it was last revised in 2003. The LaTeX is based on a similar University of Wisconsin-Madison letterhead by Sam Stechman, which was an excellent and greatly appreciated start.
That said, I’m far from a LaTeX expert, but I can still tell that Stechman’s original letterhead is mostly a personal project. The markup is more than fine for individual use, but doesn’t have quite the elegance of widely adopted solutions like those available at Cornell, Stanford, or MIT. I’ve cleaned up Stechman’s template slightly, and plan to continue to do so as my own knowledge of LaTeX improves. I also welcome improvements by others and will happily link to them or post them here.
Without further ado, however, here’s the link to download the QU Letterhead LaTeX template:
Please use it only in accordance with the Quinnipiac University Graphics Standards Manual. The package includes:
- qu-footer-generic.eps // A graphic containing the footer information in the university’s official font and Pantone color scheme.
- qu-footer-generic.psd // A PSD file of this footer, which can be edited to include an individual’s personal phone number, campus address, etc.
- qu-logo.eps // A graphic of the university logo.
- qu-ltr.tex // The actual LaTeX letterhead template, which incorporates all these other elements.
- signature.png // A graphic containing a generic handwritten signature, which can be replaced with a scan of an individual’s own signature.
Happy letter writing!
“[Late night] shows are promotional vehicles for the industry. They’re not talk shows, per se. … [They're] pretty cheap, too, so until it becomes an unworkable business model, I don’t think you’ll see change. Same as the movie business. Until this thing implodes from within, which feels like it’s not too far off.” Aug 24, 2013
Kevin Spacey on Television Distribution Aug 24, 2013
Interesting comments from Kevin Spacey on House of Cards, Netflix, and the future of television distribution.
Communication, Culture & Critique Article Aug 20, 2013
I’m pleased that my paper on online television distribution has now been published in the ICA journal, Communication, Culture & Critique. The paper attempts to outline conceptual tools for studying the distribution of television and other media online. Better than anything I’ve published previously, I believe it captures my outlook and (hopefully) the value of my methodological strategy of tracing distribution paths from producers to end users.
Among other things, the paper gives a history of Boxee, a tech startup that prominently challenged traditional ways of distributing television and resisted domestication by content providers for a surprising period of time. As a post-script to the story told in the paper, I should note that Boxee was sold to Samsung, pretty much the day after I approved the final proofs for this article. Isn’t that the way it always goes? Thankfully, this turn of events fits fairly neatly into the framework and narrative I delineate in the article, but it still would have been a nice dénouement to have included.
The citation info for the paper is as follows:
Braun, J. A. (2013). Going over the top: Online television distribution as sociotechnical system. Communication, Culture & Critique, 6(3), 432-458.
And for those without library access, a preprint of this article also appeared a while back on Culture Digitally.
Casey O’Donnell’s recent post at Culture Digitally reminded me of a conversation I had not long ago with another researcher, in which we realized that, although both of us were speaking about “the cloud,” each of us were talking about slightly different things. That conversation grew into an email thread that I’ll adapt here, in which I tried to “disambiguate” (oh, lovely Wikipedia word) the various meanings that have grown up around “cloud computing.”
I feel like clarification, however small, is important because, as Tarleton Gillespie has pointed out with his example of the “politics of platforms,” when you see a good deal of equivocation around a particular word, it’s often an indicator that people are using it strategically in ways that are important to grasp for social critics and social scientists, alike.
And people certainly equivocate over what they mean by “cloud computing.” I count at least three related, but distinct meanings for “cloud computing” in popular use these days, one having to do with technical infrastructure, another to do with user experience, and a third with business model.
Below, I try and pick apart these meanings. Note that I’m intending this post for those without an extensive technical background, but readers with technical expertise should feel free to chime in with critiques, clarifications, and other comments. Those interested in a more extensive discussion should check out the excellent Wikipedia article on cloud computing which does a superb job of breaking down the various uses of the term and the history of the technologies that surround it.
First there’s the technical component. While cloud computing has a long and storied history, for the sake of convenience I’m going to sketch its technical underpinnings here in terms of relatively recent and simple developments and examples.
Interactive websites, like blogs, social networks, e-commerce sites, etc. are commonly referred to as “web applications.” And, as a point of reference, many web applications are called “three-tiered” applications, in that different parts of their code are run in three different environments. One of these “tiers” is the database management system, which stores and, upon request, coughs up all the data used in the web application. If your web application is something relatively simple, like a blog, the database management system is storing and handling a database full of things like blog posts, comments, user login information, and so forth. The database management tier runs on a server, but it is compartmentalized such that it can run on an entirely different server from the rest of the server-side software described in the next tier.
The second tier of the web application is the server-side software, which is just what it sounds like: software that’s running on the web server. This part of a web application is responsible for responding to requests from users, sending their information to the database, and using information returned by the database to deliver contextually specific webpages for the user (e.g., showing you a Facebook page populated with your friends’ information, or a page of search results for the keywords you entered.).
Note that of the three tiers I’ve described, only one (the browser tier) actually runs on your own computer or device. The other two run on the server, and this means that sophisticated and/or well-trafficked websites, while they may not use up many resources on your own computer, can end up putting quite a lot of strain, in terms of storage and memory, on the server running the site. To overcome these challenges, particularly high-traffic sites like Amazon and Google that also run sophisticated web applications housing lots of data, spent a lot of time and money figuring out ways to distribute the data storage and processing tasks of the first and second tiers across numerous computers, rather than assigning them to a single beleaguered server.
This is an oversimplified, but hopefully reasonably accurate, description of what cloud computing means from a technical perspective. There are, of course, some caveats. First, in addition to companies like Google and Amazon, there were, of course, other less consumer-oriented companies, like IBM and Oracle, who did a lot of pioneering in these areas, and the development of the technologies behind cloud computing long predates the emergence of the term. Second, many web applications use APIs, RSS, etc. to also provide data to software other than browsers (e.g., native mobile and desktop apps, etc.). And third, cloud computing can involve the creation of distributed computing resources for applications entirely unrelated to the web.
With regard to the second meaning of “the cloud,” user experience, many users have found web applications supplanting functionality they traditionally associated with desktop applications and a local hard drive. The ostensible advantages for end users are clear enough. If you use a web application like Google Drive to work on and store your documents, you can save hard drive space on your own computer, you don’t have to pay for software like Microsoft Office, you can access your data from anywhere using any operating system that will run a full-featured web browser, and—since much of the computing horsepower behind the web application comes from the server, rather than your local machine, you can get away with purchasing less expensive hardware.
In many cases, this sort of user experience is underpinned by a distributed computing infrastructure that fits the technical description of cloud computing as I’ve defined it above. However, regardless of whether the actual server infrastructure underlying a particular application is distributed or not, the notion of using online services to store data or get work done has been popularized/marketed to users as keeping one’s information “in the cloud.”
The third sense in which I hear “cloud computing” tossed around is as a business model. The neat technical trick described above, of distributing server-side software and database functionality across a large number of computers, has turned out to be salable in that lots of developers want to be able to write and host their web applications without worrying about how system resources like storage space and memory will scale as they take on more users and page views. So companies like Amazon (via Amazon Web Services, “AWS” for short) and Google (via App Engine) began selling their distributed computing power to developers—much like an ordinary web hosting service—but instead of simply leasing space on a server you instead leased access to the company’s distributed—a.k.a. “cloud”—computing resources for storing your data and server-side code.
This business model of setting up a distributed computing infrastructure to sell to application developers has become increasingly common, as has the creation of online applications that depend on cloud computing resources (e.g., Google Drive or Dropbox) and marketing them directly to end users. This business strategy allows companies to sell access to their infrastructure and/or applications for a recurring fee (or to sell ads against them in perpetuity in the case of “free” services). For example, where a university might once have paid a one-time fee to license a copy of Microsoft Outlook and Word, it may now instead pay a recurring premium use Gmail and Google Docs as part of Google’s “Apps for Education” program.
Similarly, beyond the cloud services that we encounter daily as consumers, there are a huge variety of cloud services now being developed for specialized industries, from medical records management to human resources.
Many cloud computing services, like App Engine or AWS act as intermediaries, delivering data and software created by independent developers and content providers. In writing about cases like these, I occasionally use the term “transparent intermediaries,” since part of the promise of services like App Engine is that users will remain unaware of the interventions they provide in the delivery of a client’s branded product.
What’s Interesting Here and Why’s It Important?
With regard to why the cloud, and its various definitions, matter to social critics and communication researchers, Jonathan Zittrain’s book The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It comes to mind. It does a nice job of depicting both the advantages and the pitfalls of centralized computing power for society and end users. When our applications and data are stored in Google or Facebook’s software and infrastructure, we trade a sizable amount of agency for the conveniences they provide. We’re subject to their terms of service, and we also experience a lack of control over the features we have access to. By comparison, until recently, if we didn’t like the changes made to a new version of Adobe Photoshop, we could continue to use the old one for years, whereas we’re immediately and permanently stuck with any change Google makes to Gmail or Google Drive—and, now, any change Adobe makes to its Creative Cloud. Moreover, users who trade down to tablets or lower-powered hardware with the intent of ditching desktop applications in favor of web-based ones are especially vulnerable to issues like these. And Zittrain points out that as our data and our computing resources become increasingly centralized, they also become more vulnerable to regulatory pressures.
Issues of lock-in always loom large with cloud computing, as with any “software-as-a-service” business strategy. In the context of social networks folks like Søren Petersen have done a nice job of pointing out that even the ability to take your data with you when you leave a service doesn’t truly free the user from issues of lock-in, as much of the value that online services add has to do with the context in which your content is used and displayed, rather than the data itself. This is, I imagine, as true for clients of enterprise cloud computing applications as it is for users of Facebook.
More generally, as I mention at the outset of this post, the multiplicity with which companies and individuals use the term “cloud computing” also suggests that the term may be deployed strategically, akin to the way Tarleton Gillespie has documented the manner in which companies and developers advantage themselves by using the term “platform” differently in distinct social and political contexts.
Lastly, the looming presence of Oracle in many areas of cloud computing adds another wrinkle. Tensions between proprietary and open source software development strategies have run high in recent years as various companies have tried new ways of monetizing open source projects that have at times run counter to the spirit of commons-based peer production on which open source has long been predicated. (Tony Liao’s forthcoming work on the Android Developer Challenge contains a nice discussion of some of these issues.)
Oracle has found itself at the center of many of these debates. As a corporation it has a reputation of being somewhat less than friendly in its policies toward open source software communities, but at the same time has taken over administrative oversight of numerous major open source projects in recent years as it has bought out competitors like Sun, which had been heavily involved in open source development. For example, Oracle now oversees MySQL, the open source database management software that underpins a huge a huge portion of the web’s interactive sites, and Solaris, a once largely open-source operating system that had competed nimbly with Linux. And Oracle only recently ceded control of OpenOffice, an open source competitor to Microsoft Office, but not before most of the software’s original developer community had abandoned ship.
Since tensions between open source and proprietary software development strategies are at the center of many debates about the locus of user agency in cloud computing, Oracle’s involvement in various cloud computing tussles may ultimately add some interesting threads to the narratives surrounding the still-dynamic term, “cloud computing.”
“I have to share the credit. I may have invented it, but I think Bill [Gates] made it famous.” Jul 13, 2013
Emacs Keybindings for LibreOffice Jul 9, 2013
As I wrote recently, I’ve had a difficult time finding a Linux word processor that meets my day to day needs and also allows me to easily use Emacs keybindings.
After that post, I finally bit the bullet and manually configured at least a few of the more commonly used Emacs keybindings in LibreOffice Writer. As I mentioned previously, this process is made painful by the need to remap numerous conflicting default shortcuts along the way, while avoiding the creation of new conflicts with the application and the desktop environment.
Now that it’s done, though, I figured I share the fruits of my labor. The final solution is far from elegant, but is better than any of my own previous attempts, and I’ve reduced the number of unresolved shortcut conflicts I found in other solutions around the web.
Here’s the saved shortcuts file, which can be imported as-is into LibreOffice, in the event it’s helpful to anyone else. For the sake of posterity, I should note that it was created using LibreOffice v184.108.40.206, and I’m providing it, as usual, with no warranty express or implied:
Note that there’s no need to unzip the file—LibreOffice expects this file format. To import it, download the file, open LibreOffice Writer, go to ‘Tools > Customize > Keyboard’ and click the ‘Load’ button. Select the file, click “Okay,” and you’re done.
Here, specifically, are the Emacs keybindings I implemented, along with where to find them under LibreOffice’s ‘Tools > Customize > Keyboard’ interface if you want to reset them or mess with them yourself:
C-f: forward one character (Navigate > Go Right)
C-b: back one character (Navigate > To Character Left)
C-n: next line (Navigate > To Line Below)
C-p: previous line (Navigate > To Top Line)
M-f: forward one word (Navigate > To Word Right)
M-b: back one word (Navigate > To Word Left)
C-a: beginning of logical line (Navigate > To Paragraph Begin)
C-e: end of logical line (Navigate > To Paragraph End)
C-v: next page (Navigate > Next Page)
M-v: previous page (Navigate > Previous Page)
M-d: kill rest of word (Edit > Delete to End of Word)
C-k: kill rest of logical line (Edit > Delete to End of Paragraph)
C-w: kill selection (Edit > Cut)
M-w: copy selection (Edit > Copy)
C-y: yank clipboard content (Edit > Paste)
Note that I opted for logical lines, not screen lines, when it came to keybindings like C-a, C-e, and C-k. This means that a line goes on until a carriage return, as opposed to ending each time the text wraps. It’s possible, though, to have it either way if you care to futz with the shortcut configurations.
As indicated, implementing the above keybindings meant remapping some of LibreOffice’s default shortcuts. Below are the new keybindings I gave to shortcuts that were overwritten by my new configuration:
Create New Document (Application > New)
Print Document (Documents > Print)
Close Document (Documents > Close)
Center Text (Format > Centered)
Make Text Bold (Format > Bold)
Select All (Edit > Select All)
Redo (Edit > Redo)
Now: C-Shift-Z (Common “redo” shortcut for other applications)
Paste (Edit > Paste)
Now: C-y (Another Emacs keybinding)
There is one still-broken keybinding. ‘M-w’ previously opened the “Window” dropdown menu, but is no longer mapped to this feature. I’m sure this is fixable, but I haven’t yet found the menu option or configuration file for remapping LibreOffice’s menu shortcuts.
Note that, while the above replacement bindings are verbose, making them so prevents a snowball of other shortcut conflicts that would likely end up being worse in the long run. And I tried to be consistent, so as to make the remappings easy to remember.
If, at any time, you want to undo these keybindings and go back to the LibreOffice defaults, you can use the ‘Tools > Customize > Keyboard’ interface in Libreoffice to change them back. This requires a lot of work by hand, however.
The simplest way to get back all the original LibreOffice keybindings is to close LibreOffice. Then, locate and delete the ‘registrymodifications.xcu’ file inside your LibreOffice settings folder (usually ‘~/.libreoffice’ or ‘~/.config/libreoffice’; and make a backup first, for the love of God—don’t just wipe it because I told you to), then restart LibreOffice. ‘registrymodifications.xcu’ houses the tweaks we’ve made, so deleting it gets rid of them instantly, and restarting LibreOffice will regenerate the deleted file with default settings. The downside of this, though, is that it has the potential to simultaneously destroy other customizations you may have made to LibreOffice. If you want to do more precise surgery on registrymodifications.xcu, check out this LibreOffice help forum thread, which gives instructions for excising keybinding modifications from the file.
In any case, please enjoy, and feel free to post your own fixes/improvements/solutions in the comments.