The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) have begun what may become standard in the future — distributing a DRM-free, full quality version of a TV show (Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister) for all to download and view for free. To make things even better, CBC has chosen to use BitTorrent technology to distribute the file. This allows a large file such as this TV show to be distributed to a large number of people without costing the CBC exorbitant amounts of hosting fees. In essence, you share the file while also downloading it, so the more people who are downloading, the faster it becomes (the exact opposite of what you might expect traditionally).
The CBC is the first North American broadcaster to take this step, though not the first in the world. A Norwegian broadcaster (NRK) took this step earlier this year, with great success. Eirik Solheim, one of the masterminds of the Norwegian project, was interviewed by a German news site, and the interview is very interesting. One major problem with distributing shows using this method is third party contracts, which makes adopting BitTorrent distribution something that only new shows are likely to do.
This is exciting news, and I hope the CBC continues to expand on this. It seems like such a obvious thing for a public broadcaster to distribute shows to their viewers using the cheapest and most convenient method available, but the issue of third party sponsorship will surely cause some difficulty during the initial stages of this concept.
I had the privilege tonight to listen to Stephen Downes present the software that he uses to run his Stephen’s Web site. Stephen has created a fairly complex system in Perl that allows him to grab, read, remix and post information from a variety of sources/feeds.
In the Q&A time, I asked Stephen whether the vey nature of open source requires a hierarchy. The motivation behind the question was simply that I have noticed that for every great piece of software I’ve seen, it has begun with some person scratching their personal itch (ie. solving whatever workflow problem they have). This one person creates a (usually) complex system that allows them to do whatever they need to do. Then, once the software is usable, others begin to become interested in it, and collaboration begins. However, the person who started the project has a higher place on the totem pole, by virtue of the duration of their time with the project, as well as their greater familiarity with the code.
Stephen’s response was, if I understood him correctly (I’ll have to go back and listen to the recording again to be sure), was that heirarchy is not required, since a person can simply fork the code (begin their own version of the software) at any point. While this is true, I am not at all convinced that this removes the heirarchy. Does it not in fact simply create a second one (one in the original project, and one that begins with the new fork)? I am terribly intrigued with the collaborative process of open source software, but it seems to me that it must always begin with a “benevolant dictator” (to quote the Python community in reference to its creator, Guido Rossum).
I don’t think that beginning the collaboative, open source process with an individual makes it any less powerful. I just think it’s important to recognize that all good projects (that I can think of or imagine) must start through an individual, not a collective. Does anyone have a good example of when this has not been the case? I’d love to hear of it if it exists.
I just finished watching Howard Rheingold’s TED talk on collaboration. Rheingold is the author of Smart Mobs, a book that explores the use of internet/mobile communications in organizing social action. In his TED talk, Rheingold says:
This is all about self-interest that adds up to more… around the world, citizens have self-organized political protests… using mobile devices and SMS.
The basic idea is that there is a new currency of wealth that is being created through collaboration, and that we need to continue to study the impact that this can have on our individual and collective lives. It’s worth the 20 minutes. Have a look.
Listening to Clarence Fisher tonight in my ECI 831 class was quite elluminating (private joke). As indicated in the title of this post, the key concept for me was that our classrooms should be “Global Communications Centres”. While I think that I’ve been making some strides in terms of students accessing information from around the world while in my classes, interactive communication with people outside the walls of my class has been extremely limited. I’m brainstorming ways in which I can address this — live Skype calls with former math professors, etc. Anyone have an idea of how to do this in high school level math courses? Any idea is greatfully accepted…
Just in case anyone reads this who is interested in collaborating/creating some interactive format for the students to participate in, I am also really interested in teaching more about social justice in my math classroom.
Since my previous post regarding the importance of students playing in class, I’ve become ever more conscious of making sure that I really do spend time allowing this to happen. As much as possible, I try to work from what they are already interested in.
This past week, a number of my computer science students (geeks in the most positive sense of the word) were telling me about a riddle they had been playing. It’s called Neutral Riddle, and starts off simply enough, only to become devilishly difficult. The goal is to finish all 71 levels by guessing the URL that contains the next clue. These kids are spending hours each night trying to get to the next level. (Warning: If you are a compulsive problem solver, be aware that this could engulf your time. Only 70-ish people in the world have solved this riddle, none of whom are from Canada. One of my students is currently at level 38.)
Today in CS class, we worked on the first 2 of levels in the Neutral Riddle together (for about 5-10 minutes). Then, after they had all figured out the concept of the thing and were addicted (to varying degrees), I suggested we make our own. So, today’s class was spent with each student creating one level of the riddle that we will collaborate on. I got them going by showing them how to find images using flickrCC (making sure they follow the Attribution CC license) and getting them talking to each other about ideas of what their riddle might involve.
This fit in perfectly with what we had been doing. I just finished up teaching a unit on XHTML/CSS (markup languages for the web), and this gives me a great opportunity to stretch out their learning on these topics. Now, as they are having fun creating this riddle, they are also reinforcing their knowledge of XHTML/CSS. Hopefully by tomorrow I’ll be able to provide a link to the start page for our riddle (we didn’t quite get to that today).
As an aside, I also had fun with my Math C30 students today. We played a game with trig functions (taken from the Mathematics Teacher, but I forget the author). Seriously. Just get them into pairs, then see who can get the answers in the time limit, using only their brains and a pencil. They actually really got into it, so I had them create their own variations after we were done. I’ve posted a template up on Google Docs, and the students are going to add in their variations online tomorrow, so I can use them for future classes.
