August 2015 - Members - lists.sigcis.org

Innovators Assemble: Ada Lovelace, Walter Isaacson, and the Superheroines of Computing
by Thomas Haigh 04 Sep '15

04 Sep '15

Hello SIGCIS, Following our recent discussion, it's fitting that my new article with Mark Priestley puts a toe into matters cultural. "Innovators Assemble" mashes up Isaacson's The Innovators and Marvel's Avengers Assemble (as the first movie is known in the UK) to explore the reliance of popular history on superhero narratives and the damage that does to responsible history. Among other things, we critique his posturing as a rescuer of forgotten women, open up some black boxes to argue that Ada Lovelace's famous table wasn't actually a program, reposition the "women of ENIAC" as hands-on operators rather than programmers, and dive into some accounting records to reveal that (contrary to the myth that men built hardware and women programmed it) that ENIAC was built by forgotten blue collar women. So it's an odd mix of perspectives from cultural history, labor history, and technical history. It's in Communications of the ACM, so I'll be interested to see how the computer science community takes it. We're grateful to the SIGCIS community, including comments made by Janet Abbate during our discussion of Isaacson's book last year and private exchanges with Brian Randell, Doron Swade, and Laine Nooney. Open access, HTML at http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2015/9/191176-innovators-assemble/fulltext (missing some figures) Proper PDF from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2817191.2804228 <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2817191.2804228&coll=portal&dl=ACM> &coll=portal&dl=ACM. Best wishes, Tom

4 3

Unix Racism: Winner vs. McPherson, et al
by Sharon Traweek 01 Sep '15

01 Sep '15

Hi SIGCIS members are likely to be familiar with how these four groups read the putative successes/failures of each others' interpretive/methodological strategies: historians of sci/tech, philosophers of sci/tech, STSers, and practitioners of sci/tech. It appears from the discussion of the past week that this group is less familiar with the field of cultural studies of sci/tech which is about 35 years old, or how its practitioners read/evaluate the work in related fields. Generally, cultural studies scholars focus on the workings of language/discourse and definitely do not regard its various forms (vocabulary/grammar/oral/written/et al) as a neutral tool or transparent window for representing the world. That field also has a practice of circulating exploratory essays as a way of launching new topics of investigation. It is useful for my work to learn from the strengths/weaknesses of each approach; demarcating territories or engaging in border control is not. Cordially, Sharon Sharon Traweek ________________________________________ From: Members [members-bounces(a)lists.sigcis.org] on behalf of Willard McCarty [willard.mccarty(a)mccarty.org.uk] Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 11:28 PM To: members(a)lists.sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Unix Racism: Winner vs. McPherson Dear colleagues, I'm merely a fellow traveller of the primary audience of SIGCIS, though I am much indebted to STS and its closely related disciplinary communities. But this particular discussion moves me from lurker to participant. It seems to me that Tom's argument should find wide acceptance in many disciplines. The problem I see with McPherson's and similar stories is a terribly naive, undereducated historiography that comes from the imperious politicization of academic research. To question the connection between the prejudices of a time and place and the work done then and there is very important indeed. We need to understand this connection. But to assert a simple and necessary causality between the one and the other is thoughtless and at best damaging. So basic is history to the disciplines of the humanities that striving to get it right and succeeding as well as one can should earn very wide respect indeed. If it doesn't then we really do have a problem. Yours, W On 25/08/2015 07:05, Thomas Haigh wrote: > Thanks Hansen, > > You are exactly right regarding my argumentative intent. I am sure that > design choices within Unix do exert certain kinds of political influence > on the world. My point is simply that _/within McPherson’s story/_ no > effort is made to demonstrate that influence. Thus she does not depict > Unix as something Winner would recognize as an artifact that “has > politics,” merely as something socially (or more accurately culturally) > constructed. > > I share your instinctive reaction that McPherson is trying to make a > generic STS-like social construction of technology (SCOT) argument and > failing egregiously. However, as per my earlier post, I must concede > that this reading only holds from within our disciplinary community. To > readers in other disciplines it presumably looks as if she’s making a > novel argument supported by exciting critical theory and succeeding. > This is perhaps a sign that STS has not been successful in demarcating > its turf, to the extent that even humanities scholars issuing manifestos > to explore the mutual shaping of code, culture, and politics feel no > need to familiarize themselves with our methods, cite our literature, or > take seriously our objections. There are many more comp lit and media > studies programs than STS programs, and our view of the world is not as > widely shared as we would like it to be. > > Tom > > *From:*Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] *On Behalf Of > *Hansen Hsu > *Sent:* Monday, August 24, 2015 6:22 PM > *To:* Joris van Zundert <joris.van.zundert(a)huygens.knaw.nl> > *Cc:* thaigh(a)computer.org; members(a)sigcis.org > *Subject:* Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Unix Racism: Winner vs. McPherson > > My take on Tom’s remarks is not necessarily that he meant to say that > "Unix has no politics" per se. I think in STS it’s pretty much been > shown that political and cultural context shapes design choices. That > design choices can have political effects in the large is also not > controversial, though whether specific design choices /necessarily /or > /inevitably/ leads to certain effects, or even highly disposes society > to lean in certain political directions, as Winner’s nuclear power > argument goes, is still up for debate, and as Joris has pointed out, > intention does not straightforwardly lead to outcome, especially when > user appropriation comes into play. > > But I think what Tom is saying is that McPherson neither makes this > argument nor has the evidence to support it. Even if Unix’s modular > design was somehow influenced by pervasive societal racism (which she > hasn’t convincingly shown), does that modular design then have racist > political consequences for society? She doesn’t make that argument nor > provides any evidence to support such an argument. Tom’s point is that > Winner’s argument about how artifacts have politics is about their > political effects, in an almost soft-determinist way, whereas McPherson > wants to make a social constructivist argument about opening the black > box of Unix to show how racial politics shaped its construction, though > she isn’t successful in doing so. Winner is not a social constructivist > of technology along the lines of Trevor Pinch or Wiebe Bijker, and in > his paper “Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding It Empty” Winner > outlines his disagreements with Pinch and Bijker and the SCOT school. So > my interpretation of Tom is that when he’s saying “Unix has no > politics,” he’s really saying (and he’s free to disagree with my reading > of him) that McPherson doesn’t argue that Unix has politics in Winner’s > sense, that a particular technical design has social effects either > through its materiality or its strong compatibility with particular > institutional or political structures. McPherson wants to make a SCOT > argument, but is going about it more like Foucault and painting a fairly > broad brush, whereas STS/SCOT scholars really get much deeper into the > socio-technical detail, which involves more than just a discourse > analysis of marketing materials, technical writing or code but extensive > archival research, interviews with the designers, or ethnographic > observation of design work. I’m all for McPherson’s larger project, we > need to investigate the role race plays in the design and effects of > technology, and we need to do it by opening up the black box of things > like Unix and showing how technical decisions are not purely technical > but also social, cultural, political, ideological. > > My problem with McPherson’s piece is that it’s not good STS; she doesn’t > succeed in opening the black box as she doesn’t have the empirical > evidence to show compelling linkages between modular design and the > racial politics of the civil rights era, other than simply waving her > hands and saying that we’d be naive to think that it isn’t mere > coincidence that the two happened at the same time. Anyone can make any > similar (or even contradictory) claim, as Tom pointed out in his > original post, and such broad assertions are practically impossible to > disprove. Perhaps it’s not fair to apply STS standards of evidence on a > scholar from another discipline, but she is trying to reach outside her > own discipline to make an STS argument without doing any STS work, and > to me that makes it fair game to critique from the standards of STS and > social science more broadly. From that perspective she appears as a > scholar who has imposed some preconceived theory onto the empirical data > and goes through some theoretical contortions to make her evidence > support her argument, something that historians and anthropologists are > careful to avoid. So although her provocation to scholars to do more to > study the imbrication of race and technology is welcome and necessary, > unfortunately because her evidence is so poor, it severely damages her > credibility and makes it much more difficult for not only engineers and > students but other scholars who might otherwise support her larger > political project to take her work seriously. > > It’s for these reasons and the many others Tom has explicated that > Winner’s piece is a better pedagogical tool than McPherson’s. > > On Aug 24, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Joris van Zundert > <joris.van.zundert(a)huygens.knaw.nl > <mailto:joris.van.zundert@huygens.knaw.nl>> wrote: > > My quibble remains with "Unix has no politics" as a generalized > statement. I readily assume that Tom Haigh does not intend > absolutism with his remark that "the technology here is shaped by > culture, but it does not have politics". Nevertheless, I think this > is an important point to challenge, to draw out the politics that is > inherent in Unix and any other technology. > > Even if Winner's 'Moses' Bridges' and McPherson's articles are more > effective as rhetoric than powerful as proof, they serve to show > that technologies arise in some cultural context (McPherson) and/or > some context of authorization (Winner). These contexts are in any > case highly politicized. Certainly the IT engineering contexts I > have witnessed had/have all the office politics going on that you > would expect. Design choices are influenced by that, even decided on > basis of these politics, both consciously as tacitly. That is not to > say UNIX must be racist, just that design choices in part are > politically informed. Thus I would argue that office politics, > institutional politics, and bigger ideologies do shape IT design and > technology in general. > > Of course Tom's statement foremost considers the intent and agency > of technology, not its context of development. So I take this to > mean that Unix is not an agent of the possible politics that > influenced its development. Indeed the politicized context that > gives rise to a technology needs not result in a technology > imprinting those particular ideas onto society. They certainly can > be intended as such however: Linux (a descendant of UNIX) is > explicitly political, or at least ideological. Of course, whether > intended influence and actual effect match is an entirely different > matter, with 'results vary' as a probable answer. > > In any case neither at the design end, nor at the business end of > technology do I see a possibility that technology is without > politics. If there are politics at play in the design phase, then > how probable is it that there would not be—even be they > unintended—politics as a result at the business end? > > > > _______________________________________________ > This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org > -- Willard McCarty (www.mccarty.org.uk/) Professor, Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London, and Digital Humanities Research Group, University of Western Sydney _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

3 2

New book on Michael A. Jackson
by Edgar Daylight 31 Aug '15

31 Aug '15

Dear fellow historians, Just appeared: a conversation with Michael A. Jackson. title: Formalism and Intuition in Software Development. Excerpt from the preface: "It is in the field of data processing that Jackson began his computing career, encountering a computer for the first time in 1961. After starting his company Michael Jackson Systems Ltd. in 1971, he developed the Jackson structured programming design method and later elaborated that into Jackson system development (JSD). During these years, he began to realize that ..." entire preface available here: www.dijkstrascry.com/node/132 The book can be purchased from Aamazon. best wishes, Edgar Daylight

1 0

[SHOT} accomodations
by Akera, Atsushi 31 Aug '15

31 Aug '15

Hi All, Is anyone still looking for housing at SHOT? Normally I wouldn't circulate conference housing queries to the list, but it looks like housing may be an issue this year because of the international balloon festival. - Sam Smiley, who teaches in the Boston area, is looking for housing, and is willing to look for Air BnB options for a group to share, unless someone's still looking for a female roommate. - I /believe/ I have a double booked at the conference hotel ($159+tx; staying Wed-Sun). (It was so long ago; I now have to check to make sure!) So if anyone is still looking to share a room, feel free to let me know. Best wishes! - Atsushi _________________________________________________________ Atsushi Akera Associate Professor, Department of Science and Technology Studies Rensselaer Polytechnic institute 110 8th Street Troy, NY 12180 USA cel: 518.300.0613/fx:518.276-2659/e:akeraa@rpi.edu /w: http://www.rpi.edu/~akeraa -----Original Message----- From: rocketscience [mailto:rocketscience@astrodime.org] Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 10:07 AM To: Akera, Atsushi Subject: STS and SHOT accommodations Hi Akira! I'm looking for room mates for both STS and SHOT to save money. For STS, I have a room already booked, so said room mate would basically split with me, which is reasonable, I reserved two queen beds. I can find out the exact amount, it's the STS hotel. If I'm sharing with one person, and the person is random, I prefer a female room mate. For SHOT, it's a harder thing for me to figure out. The hotel is booked and extremely expensive. Jane just emailed me and said there' s no grad student option.. So I'm thinking of doing Air B and B. Best case is to find a few people to share. if I have my own room, I don't care what gender room mates are, mostly I just want to be in relative proximity of the conference. I hope you are well! -sam smiley http://astrodime.org

1 0

ENIAC and the Cold War
by Daniel Ferrell 28 Aug '15

28 Aug '15

SIGCIS members: I have an inquiry into ENIAC. I understand that one of its purposes was to track and calculate artillery trajectories. I am looking for resources that emphasize the development of ENIAC against the backdrop of the Cold War era, including the role ENIAC had in analyzing the hydrogen bomb. Are there any suggestions? -Daniel Ferrell Home Acceptance Corporation (NMLS #1151715). 65 S. Outer Rd. P.O. Box 72 Benton, MO 63736

6 5

Amiga 30th Anniversary Event - History from Below
by Dag Spicer 26 Aug '15

26 Aug '15

Hello friends, If any of you are exploring microcomputers, computer graphics or the rise of personal computing in your work and would like see a unique world-class collation of (mostly functioning) Amiga and other microcomputers, please consider attending this upcoming CHM event. Former Amiga, Apple, and Atari employees in attendance make this a great ‘guerrilla oral history’ opportunity too! Dag --------- The Amiga 30th anniversary event at the Computer History Museum will be the ultimate tribute to the Amiga Computer. Consisting of a two day exhibit hall complete with massive historical display, game zone, presentation area, and exhibitors such as A-Eon, Friend Software Labs, CastAR from Technical illusions, Amiga Forever, Individual Computers, Jim Drew of CBMStuff, and others. In addition to the Amiga systems present, the show will also have a collection of Atari, Apple, Commodore, and other retro computer systems. The creators of the Amiga have been involved in some of gaming and computing's most notable projects like Defender, Atari 2600, Macintosh, Atari Lynx, 3D0, and more. Come join us for a weekend of Amiga and retro computing fun! Starting on July 25th, the event features 2 days of exhibit hall and a banquet Saturday evening with panel discussion. Tickets and more details are available on www.amiga30.com<http://www.amiga30.com>. ----------- -- Dag Spicer Senior Curator Computer History Museum Editorial Board, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 1401 North Shoreline Boulevard Mountain View, CA 94043-1311 Tel: +1 650 810 1035 Fax: +1 650 810 1055

2 2

New in Platform Studies
by Ian Bogost 26 Aug '15

26 Aug '15

Hi all, Just a note to say that we have published two new books in the MIT Press Platform Studies series, which I edit with Nick Montfort. Peripheral Vision: Bell Labs, the S-C 4020, and the Origins of Computer Art, by Zabet Patterson, is about the Stromberg-Carlson 4020 and its use at Bell Labs in the 1960s. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/peripheral-vision I Am Error: The Nintendo Family Computer / Entertainment System Platform, by Nathan Altice, is about Nintendo’s Famicom/NES. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/i-am-error These books join our previous titles on Flash, the Amiga, the Nintendo Wii, and the Atari Video Computer System. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/series/platform-studies As always, we welcome inquiries and pitches for books in the series. We’re especially interested in early general-purpose microcomputer platforms (Apple II, etc.), software platforms (Java, etc.), and current/recent platforms at risk of undocumented losses to history (Facebook Platform, etc.). But any computing system that could be construed as a platform is welcome. Ian Ian Bogost, Ph.D. Ivan Allen College Distinguished Chair in Media Studies Professor of Interactive Computing Professor, Scheller School of Business Georgia Institute of Technology Contributing Editor, The Atlantic

3 2

teaching question: what to pair Winner's piece with?
by Luke Fernandez 26 Aug '15

26 Aug '15

As long as we are on Winner's piece I'm wondering what complimentary articles instructors assign when they teach "Do Artifacts Have Politics?" In past years I've paired Winner's soft determinist account with Boas' "Weaving The Authoritarian Web" ( http://people.bu.edu/tboas/authoritarianweb.pdf) which presents a much less "inherently political" picture of technology. ( I excerpt the most relevant "technology as a tool" lines of Boas in the P.S.) What do others typically pair Winner with? Sincerely, Luke Fernandez lfernandez.org PS: "China and Saudi Arabia’s experiences with the control of public Internet use offer a common lesson about the Internet in authoritarian regimes. Ultimately, the Internet is a tool, a medium of communication much like any other; it has no inherent political logic, no “built-in incompatibility [with] non-democratic rule” (Taubman 1998: 256). As a tool, its political impacts will depend largely on who controls the medium and in what manner they seek to use it. The Internet was initially considered an inherently control-frustrating form of communication because of features incorporated into the network by its designers. However, nothing in the technological architecture of the Internet ensured that it would remain difficult to control as it spread around the world." PSS: Other years I've assigned excerpts from Leo Marx's _Does Technology Drive History?_ And this year I'm considering some excerpts from Fischer's _America Calling_ particularly the end of chapter 8 in which he says about the telephone: "Our theme would be more dramatic if we could implicate the telephone in the emergence of some aspect of psychological modernity -- rationality, angst, anxiety, dehumanization, whatever. The available facts, which indicate that Americans absorbed the telephone into mundane life, seem deflating. But there is something yet more profound in seeing people as active participants, assimilating a major material transformation into their lives. Those lives were not left unaltered to be sure, but the alterations were largely the conscious product of people employing things, not of things controlling people."

2 1

Bridges & Empty Black Boxes
by Thomas Haigh 25 Aug '15

25 Aug '15

Thanks James, I had a memory of also seeing the actual bus timetable published, but I could be wrong about that. Maybe I read their suggestion of publishing it as a stand-alone rebuttal and misremembered this as actually occurring. I'm personally inclined to believe that Caro was initially right, but that over time buses got lower and that the old-timey parkways had lower bridges than the newfangled Long Island Expressway. To quote the Wikipedia article on the NY Parkway system "Finally, because most use low, decorative stone-arch overpasses that would trap trucks, commercial vehicles, trucks and tractor trailers are banned from parkways." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkways_in_New_York Note that the LIE, now upgraded to interstate along its full length, does not appear on the list of parkways. (Translation for British readers: "parkway" --> "scenic dual carriage way" while "interstate"--> "motorway"). I did find an online timetable: http://www.nicebus.com/maps-schedules/jones-beach-summer-service.aspx. More broadly, I have noticed people increasingly citing Winner's paper in support of a general interest in "opening the black box" or as a short hand for social construction. As the Woolgar and Cooper article reminds us (at http://www.sts-biu.org/images/file/COURSE%20READINGS/27-815%20SCIENCE,%20TEC HNOLOGY%20&%20SOCIETY/Woolgar%20&%20Cooper,%20Do%20Artefacts%20Have%20Ambiva lence-%20Moses%20Bridges,%20Winners%20Bridges%20and%20Other%20Urban%20Legend s%20in%20S&TS.pdf for those without JSTOR), this is sloppy as Winner takes a strong position of old-school political engagement and is skeptical of discourse-oriented approaches. So I'd like to point anyone interested in citing Winner towards his 1993 paper, "Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding it Empty" (http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/papers/openingblackbox.pdf) which observes that "the most obvious lack in social constructionist writing is an almost total disregard for the social consequences of technical choice. One tries to show why it is that particular devices, designs, and social constituencies are the ones that prevail within the range of alternatives available at a given time. But the consequences of prevailing are seldom a focus of study." For all her determination to bring politics into code studies, I'd say that this critique has considerable power when applied to McPherson's article. Best wishes, Tom -----Original Message----- From: Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] On Behalf Of James Sumner Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 3:59 AM To: members(a)lists.sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Unix Racism: Winner vs. McPherson (Matthew Kirschenbaum) Dear all Joerges' article appeared alongside a counter-response which challenges and complicates its finding (I think this is the "bus timetable" paper mentioned by Tom): Steve Woolgar and Geoff Cooper, "Do Artefacts Have Ambivalence? Moses' Bridges, Winner's Bridges and Other Urban Legends in S&TS", Social Studies of Science 29:3 (1999), 433-449. <www.jstor.org/stable/285412> -- which some have taken as a more-relativist-than-thou abandonment of the researcher's duty to either resolve the research question or keep quiet, and others as a useful clarification of the scarcity of true "smoking guns" and the practical limitations of real-life scholarship. Possibly edging off topic, but what interests me is the way most of us in the STS/HoT community -- particularly those who teach -- tend to treat Winner's "Do Artefacts Have Politics?" as "the Moses bridge paper." It contains only three paragraphs on Moses's bridges, all derived directly from Robert A Caro's work, in the course of a wide-ranging survey which addresses David Noble, Alfred Chandler Jr, and various other obvious hooks for introducing big HoT themes. I've always thought that the argument about nuclear power needing a central government capable of authoritarian policing (for which Winner draws on Jerry Mander) is stronger than the bridge case as a knock-down affirmative answer to the title question. Why, then, have my class discussions of this paper always ended up focusing on the bridge case? The exposition is particularly clear and student-friendly, as Tom points out, but the rest of the paper is not notably harder. Perhaps I'm just repeating a familiar pattern. But I suspect -- and this is relevant to the UNIX/racism debate, after all -- that the appeal of the case lies mainly in the fact that it looks contentious. "There are racist bridges" is an abnormal statement to newcomers to the field, and taking up a position on it is an expression of identity. (Most students fairly quickly go on to see that the abnormality is only superficial. I suspect that, having been introduced to the principle via the bridge case, many of us go on to notice enough evident examples of the reinforcement effect going on around us that we'd remain convinced even if the bridge case itself *were* disproved.) Best James On 24/08/2015 08:51, Taylor-Smith, Ella wrote: > hi everyone > > Tom -I got the impression that the story about the Long Island bridges was potentially a myth.. > See > Joerges, B. (1999). Do Politics Have Artefacts? Social Studies of Science. 29 (3). Pp. 411-431. > http://www.jstor.org/stable/285411?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents > > "In social studies of technology, as in many other scientific disciplines, highly persuasive similes are at work: pious stories, seemingly reaped from research, suggesting certain general theoretical insights. Variously adapted, they are handed down: in the process, they acquire almost doctrinal unassailability. One such parable, which has been retold in technology and urban studies for a long time, is the story of Robert Moses' low bridges, preventing the poor and the black of New York from gaining access to Long Island resorts and beaches. The story turns out to be counterfactual, but even if a small myth is disenchanted, it serves a purpose: to resituate positions in the old debate about the control of social processes via buildings and other technical artefacts - or, more generally, about material form and social content." > > best wishes > -Ella > > Ella Taylor-Smith > > Institute for Informatics and Digital Innovation Edinburgh Napier > University > 10 Colinton Road > Edinburgh, EH10 5DT > > Email: e.taylor-smith(a)napier.ac.uk > > http://www.iidi.napier.ac.uk/e.taylor-smith > http://about.me/EllaTaylorSmith > @EllaTasm > This message and its attachment(s) are intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, copied, disclosed, forwarded or relied upon by any person other than the intended addressee(s) without the permission of the sender. If you are not the intended addressee you must not take any action based on this message and its attachment(s) nor must you copy or show them to anyone. Please respond to the sender and ensure that this message and its attachment(s) are deleted. > > It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and its attachment(s) are scanned for viruses or other defects. Edinburgh Napier University does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this message or its attachment(s), or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Emails entering Edinburgh Napier University's system are subject to routine monitoring and filtering by Edinburgh Napier University. > > Edinburgh Napier University is a registered Scottish charity. > Registration number SC018373 > > _______________________________________________ > This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion > list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member > posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list > archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ > and you can change your subscription options at > http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

5 4

Unix Racism: Winner vs. McPherson
by Thomas Haigh 25 Aug '15

25 Aug '15

Responding to two points/questions from Luke Fernandez. > Pace Haigh's claim that it's a polemic I read it more as an invitation Hey, it’s not my claim. McPherson writes “To push my polemic to its furthest dimensions, I would argue that to study image, narrative, and visuality will never be enough if we do not engage as well the nonvisual dimensions of code and their organization of the world. Yet to trouble my own polemic…” > Third, I'm left with a question. Is it really true that an essay like McPherson's is impractical to teach to engineers as Haigh and Ceruzzi seem to feel? I would think that like say Winner's essay "Do Artifacts Have Politics?" it poses an important set of questions that are worth raising if we want to understand the relationship between politics and code. To that end I'd be interested in knowing how Haigh (and others) teach this essay in the classroom. What questions do they pose to the class? And how have engineering majors responded to it? Well, my teaching consists almost entirely of undergraduate systems analysis and project management courses with no STS content to students in the BS “information science and technology” program. The students are by no stretch of the imagination engineers, being attracted to our particular program in large part by the lack of programming and other challenging technical courses. That’s not a bad thing in itself – most IT jobs aren’t about programming – but it does mean they probably never heard of the UNIX pipe capability and are not particularly interested in coding. However I do occasionally get to teach a seminar on “Information Technology and Organizations” ( <http://www.tomandmaria.com/675> www.tomandmaria.com/675) That attracts a mixture of library science students (mostly from Korea and China) interested to know a little about technical work and undergraduate students interested in a smattering of social issues. The focus is on the relationship of culture to IT, though this is conceptualized more in terms of occupational and organizational cultures than cultural studies. Last time I taught the course I assigned a short essay by Leon Wieseltier from the New York Times, on the relevance of humanities thinking in the digital media age, and tried to fill in the backstory of what happened to the New Republic. They found is very hard to read and relate to. So on a pragmatic level I think my students would struggle with McPherson’s language – things like the “leticular vision.” Not relating to the humanities, they’d struggle with the relevance of the DH framing. They would find the references to post colonialism etc. confusing. The paper assumes grounding in some areas of knowledge and ways of thinking that most people don’t share. So basically I’m not the best person to ask about teaching. However, let’s assume that students have no trouble understanding the paper. Here’s where I see it as fundamentally different to Winner’s classic paper “Do Artifacts have Politics.” In particular the anecdote Luke brought up: Anyone who has traveled the highways of America and has become used to the normal height of overpasses may well find something a little odd about some of the bridges over the parkways on Long Island, New York. Many of the overpasses are extraordinarily low, having as little as nine feet of clearance at the curb. Even those who happened to notice this structural peculiarity would not be inclined to attach any special meaning to it. In our accustomed way of looking at things like roads and bridges we see the details of form as innocuous, and seldom give them a second thought. It turns out, however, that the two hundred or so low-hanging overpasses on Long Island were deliberately designed to achieve a particular social effect. Robert Moses, the master builder of roads, parks, bridges, and other public works from the 1920s to the 1970s in New York, had these overpasses built to specifications that would discourage the presence of buses on his parkways. According to evidence provided by Robert A. Caro in his biography of Moses, the reasons reflect Moses's social-class bias and racial prejudice. Automobile owning whites of "upper" and "comfortable middle" classes, as he called them, would be free to use the parkways for recreation and commuting. Poor people and blacks, who normally used public transit, were kept off the roads because the twelve-foot tall buses could not get through the overpasses. One consequence was to limit access of racial minorities and low-income groups to Jones Beach, Moses's widely acclaimed public park. Moses made doubly sure of this result by vetoing a proposed extension of the Long Island Railroad to JonesBeach.8 As a story in recent American political history, Robert Moses's life is fascinating. His dealings with mayors, governors, and presidents, and his careful manipulation of legislatures, banks, labor unions, the press, and public opinion are all matters that political scientists could study for years. But the most important and enduring results of his work are his technologies, the vast engineering projects that give New York much of its present form. For generations after Moses has gone and the alliances he forged have fallen apart, his public works, especially the highways and bridges he built to favor the use of the automobile over the development of mass transit, will continue to shape that city. Many of his monumental structures of concrete and steel embody a systematic social inequality, a way of engineering relationships among people that, after a time, becomes just another part of the landscape. As planner Lee Koppleman told Caro about the low bridges on Wantagh Parkway, "The old son-of-a-gun had made sure that buses would never be able to use his goddamned parkways."9 So first you’ll see that Winner’s argument is far more accessibly presented. I’ve previously used a less well known piece of his in class, “Mythinformation,” and can confirm that students with no exposure to critical theory had no trouble understanding his argument. Second, it’s supported with a different kind of evidence. Winner is citing Caro’s conclusions, and Caro spent years researching his landmark biography. The evidence and quotes appear to point to racist intent. One could do research to dispute or verify aspects of the conclusion. Maybe Winner is misrepresenting Caro. Maybe Moses didn’t actually veto the LIRR extension, or did so for another reason. Maybe Koppelman had a personal grudge against Moses. Maybe most buses were actually only 10 feet tall and got through just fine, or the overpasses in question were actually at or above national average height. (A few years ago, T&C published a bus timetable to Jones Beach, which suggests at the very least that modern buses have been reshaped to get under the overpasses). Maybe Jones Beach actually attracted plenty of minorities and lower income people during the period in question. Whereas McPherson’s conclusion relies on nothing more than the general prevalence of segregation in US society. Her “representations” and “layerings” and “it is not too much of a stretch”es are not vulnerable to the same kind of challenges. I think Winner’s style of argument is more likely to resonate with students outside the humanities. Third, the evidence is evidence of deliberate, conscious use of a technology to achieve a social goal in a way that’s hidden in plain sight and outlives its instigator. So it’s a powerful way of introducing the idea of structural racism hidden in standards. Also of introducing the basic STS idea of mutual shaping – the bridge is shaped by racism but subsequently enforces racism. Jones Beach stays white, which enforces segregation, which reinforces racist thought. Whereas, and Bjorn Westergard, has made this point at greater length, even if McPherson is right that social segregation is what subconsciously suggest the model of processes and pipes to the designers of UNIX it’s not clear why this matters. It’s not clear whether she believes that this ambient ideology led them to an operating system design that was less effective than the possible alternatives. The strongest argument she could make, and I see no evidence for it, is that we all suffer with inefficient operating systems as a result of mid-century racism. Even if that’s true, we’re all suffering equally. In Winner’s argument, racism reproduced itself via concrete and steel. In McPherson’s argument, racism spawned a school of operating system design. The second, and most powerful, part of Winner’s argument has no analog here. The technology here is shaped by culture, but it does not have politics. It’s a very different payoff. The final difference would be in what a student might aim to do after reading and believing the paper. Winner would have us pay attention to the assumptions embedded in technologies to build bridges and code that is more accessible and promotes values of inclusion and diversity. McPherson wants humanities scholars to approach their work differently. The former would be an easier sell to engineering students. There’s an assumption in much of the humanities that because, in a Focauldian kind of way, discourses permeate every part of culture it follows that writing a piece of cultural analysis that decries neoliberalism and diagnoses racism is in itself a brave and effective form of political intervention. Without wishing to cause offence to my friends in other disciplines, I’ll just observe that engineers are unlikely to share this assumption. Best wishes, Tom From: Luke Fernandez [mailto:luke.fernandez@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 1:51 PM To: thaigh(a)computer.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Is Unix racist? Having finally read Tara McPherson's piece (Why Are the Digital Humanities So White? or Thinking the Histories of Race and Computation) in the wake of reading this very interesting listserv thread I'm left with a couple of reactions // questions. First, I found much of Thomas Haigh's observations helpful. Despite the fact that there are interesting parallels between mid-20th century American segregation and a developing modularity in computer programming there doesn't seem to be much historical evidence that these practices "infected" one another. Second, I also found Matthew Kirschenbaum's email helpful. It may be true that we can't find much evidence of racism in UNIX. But that isn't really ultimately what the essay is about. Pace Haigh's claim that it's a polemic I read it more as an invitation to contextualize the study of institutions within the larger society in which they are situated. As McPherson puts it: We must develop common languages that link the study of code and culture. We must historicize and politicize code studies. And, because digital media were born as much of the civil rights era as of the cold war era (and of course these eras are one and the same), our investigations must incorporate race from the outset, understanding and theorizing its function as a ghost in the digital machine. This does not mean that we should simply add race to our analysis in a modular way, neatly tacking it on or building digital archives of racial material, but that we must understand and theorize the deep imbrications of race and digital technology even when our objects of analysis (say UNIX or search engines) seem not to be about race at all. This doesn't necessarily mean that the triptych of race, class and sex can explain everything. But it does mean that they are important categories of analysis and we shouldn't dismiss them in the study of code. If we take umbrage at that invitation (as some of us have) it's worth recalling McPherson's reference to "patterned isolation" in the university (a term that I believe Veysey coined in his classic text The Emergence of the American University) and that we can't really explain its emergence comprehensively without also referencing the triptych of race, class, and gender politics that grew the university in the 20th century. Contrast for example Veysey's study of the university against Levine's The Opening of the American Mind and the lesson becomes clear: Veysey's institutional history is a classic. But Levine's is a worthy compliment in that it shows how curricular developments weren't just driven by internal bureaucracies or by disciplinary beliefs but were also influenced by the fact that the university began to cater to a much more diverse public. So in the same way Levine enriched the study of the university by looking at it through the lens of race, class and sex, we can potentially do the same thing when we write histories about the development of code. That doesn't mean that we can always give an affirmative answer to a question like "Is ____ racist?" But the question is worth posing nonetheless. Third, I'm left with a question. Is it really true that an essay like McPherson's is impractical to teach to engineers as Haigh and Ceruzzi seem to feel? I would think that like say Winner's essay "Do Artifacts Have Politics?" it poses an important set of questions that are worth raising if we want to understand the relationship between politics and code. To that end I'd be interested in knowing how Haigh (and others) teach this essay in the classroom. What questions do they pose to the class? And how have engineering majors responded to it? Sincerely, Luke Fernandez <http://lfernandez.org> lfernandez.org On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Thomas Haigh < <mailto:thaigh@computer.org> thaigh(a)computer.org> wrote: Hmm. I agree that it’s an interesting discussion, and one that reflects the increasing breadth of the SIGICS community as we have been broadening our participation from Ph.D. historians both into the English/DH crowd and into software developers. So the list is bringing together a cross-section of people who would otherwise be unlikely to be in conversation. The headline “Is UNIX Racist” reminds me of the journalistic maxim that the answer to any question posed in a headline is “no.” Otherwise they’d run it without he question mark. (Although the real question surely is “Is UNIX shaped by racism?”) More seriously, I think Kirschenbaum is right in highlighting the passage he does. However I find it less convincing than he does. That’s probably because I’m trained in history, rather than English or media studies. There’s a difference between the kind of arguments that are allowed in the two fields, specifically with respect to evidence and claims about causation. Scholarship in English tends to be more self-consciously performative, and more concerned with joining up apparently unconnected things in a provocative or original way. I’m reminded of a workshop at Penn where Rob Kohler asked a visiting English professor “How would you know if an argument of this kind had gone off the rails and fallen off the cliff?” His suggestion was that you couldn’t, that the aesthetic standards at work meant that almost any connection of conclusion to evidence would be equally valid. In this case the claim is that UNIX has a compartmentalized architecture and that so was U.S. society at mid-century. According to McPherson, it is “at best naïve” to think that this is a coincidence. Call me naïve, or worse, but I think it’s a coincidence. Say UNIX was not modular but highly integrated and centralized. Well, that clearly would reflect the hegemonic power of late-capitalist ideology and the domination of white elites. If UNIX used a system of rings and permissions for processes, rather than the simpler model that it adopted. Clearly that would reflect rigid racial and class hierarchies in mid-century society. So whatever architecture UNIX had adopted, one could make an equally plausible case that it was shaped be ambient racism. Without having at least a counter factual sketch of what an OS not shaped by a racist society would look like I find any of these arguments unconvincing. McPherson appears to starts out with the assumption that a racial answer will give the deepest and best explanation and works hard to hold onto this faith wherever else the evidence may lead: “we must understand and theorize the deep imbrications of race and digital technology even when our objects of analysis (say UNIX or search engines) seem not to be about race at all. That will not be easy. In writing this essay, the logic of modularity continually threatened to take hold, leading me into detailed explorations of pipe structures or departmental structures in the university, taking me far from the contours of race at midcentury.” Maybe UNIX is compartmentalized because of the addressing scheme of the process it was developed for. Maybe UNIX is compartmentalized because of the need for portability, which was unusual in operating systems of the period. Maybe UNIX is compartmentalized because this reduced the need for managerial coordination of the loosely coupled team working on it in the quasi-academic world of Bell Labs where it was to a large extent a volunteer project. Maybe UNIX is compartmentalized because that let a small team get more done more quickly. Remember, Unix is explicitly an alternative to MULTICs and the problems the project ran into with a different design philosophy. Maybe, if we follow McPherson into big-picture cultural explanations, UNIX is compartmentalized because of the lingering influence of “separate spheres” gender ideology and the mid-century exclusion for women from the workforce during the 1950s. One can also connect it to the well-publicized travails of OS/360, and the interest in this period in developing software engineering techniques that would work better than the “human wave” approach chronicled by Brooks. (MULTICS fans: I know it did many wonderful things and has a rich technical legacy). So where I find McPherson unconvincing is in implicitly dismissing such explanations, to convict those who might give them credit of naivety “or worse.” In this respect I think the article undercuts its own agenda – a call to “historicize and politicize code studies” with which I very much agree. She wants to convince us that technical innards matter, and that we need to do the hard work to map social and political factors onto the internals of the black box – which many on this list would recognize as a classic STS move (though she reaches for Gramschi rather than Winner or MacKenzie). But she doesn’t do that. She picks one technical feature, doesn’t explore it in depth, and jumps straight past all the possible social explanations to the giant, fuzzy fact of racism in society. It’s an explanation that doesn’t explain, at least by the personal aesthetic standards I apply to scholarly arguments, which are shaped more by social history than cultural history or cultural studies. Ken Stauss’s reaction was not politely phrased, and we do need to keep discourse on this list civil. However, McPherson does describe her aim as polemical, and the polemicist writes with the expectation of causing offense. The style and content of the article are calculated to appeal to faculty and grad students in the humanities, and beyond that community it does not translate well. To be fair, any scholarly work is framed within the norms of a particular disciplinary community and tacitly excludes those outside it. What I would love to see is a paper on gender in UNIX, particularly masculinity. There’s the name, which surely invokes “eunuchs” (as in an emasculated MULTICS). Commands like “finger.” Or a paper on whether the libertarian philosophy that Raymond has claimed for Linux was really present or articulated in the original design and spread of UNIX. (I’m a little wary to see her quote it as evidence of “the UNIX philosophy.”) Is UNIX sexist? Very probably. Is UNIX homophobic, in the manner of a bromance movie? I’m ready to be convinced. Here’s a title for someone: “Gay Kernel Panic: The Uneasy Masculinities of UNIX.” Best wishes, Tom From: Members [mailto: <mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org> members-bounces(a)lists.sigcis.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Kirschenbaum Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 8:43 AM To: Ceruzzi, Paul < <mailto:CeruzziP@si.edu> CeruzziP(a)si.edu> Cc: <mailto:members@sigcis.org> members(a)sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Is Unix racist? This has developed into an interesting discussion, at least in so far as it exposes some of the disciplinary rifts and boundaries amongst the many different constituencies and communities claiming some purchase in the history of computers and computing. Like the Doubloon nailed to the mast in Moby Dick, here sits Tara McPherson's essay with its provocative title, "Why are the Digital Humanities so White?" under an even more provocative listserv subject line, "Is Unix racist?" Not surprising many of us feel compelled to weigh in. I suspect some are reading the essay through something like the following framework: The author, starting with a bold and perhaps overdetermined thesis, sifts what historical evidence she can find, comes up short, and so stumbles and fumbles her way toward an unsatisfying conclusion. Alas, there is no smoking gun to prove that UNIX developed out of overtly racist motivations after all, but we can still salvage a publication and an English professor qua digital humanist can maybe toss some red meat to students. But that's not what's going on in the essay, I don't think. Instead, I see the decisive passage as this one: "By drawing analogies between shifting racial and political formations and the emerging structures of digital computing in the late 1960s, I am not arguing that the programmers creating UNIX at Bell Labs and in Berkeley were consciously encoding new modes of racism and racial understanding into digital systems. (Indeed, many of these programmers were themselves left-leaning hippies, and the overlaps between the counterculture and early computing culture run deep, as Fred Turner has illustrated.) . . . Nor am I arguing for some exact correspondence between the ways in which encapsulation or modularity work in computation and how they function in the emerging regimes of neoliberalism, governmentality, and post-Fordism. Rather, I am highlighting the ways in which the organization of information and capital in the 1960s powerfully responds—across many registers—to the struggles for racial justice and democracy that so categorized the United States at the time. . . . Computation is a primary delivery method of these new systems, and it seems at best naive to imagine that cultural and computational operating systems don’t mutually infect one another." (149) The core thesis, then, is that cultural and computational constructs influence one another. Indeed, the very division is suspect, precisely the "modularity" of which McPherson speaks. Who here would seriously disagree? Which is to say, I can well imagine specialists in the history of Unix (or the history of American social relations in the 1960s) disputing this or that aspect of her subsequent discussion and analysis. That's called scholarly communication. But the kind of rhetoric some here have deployed, questioning her credentials and the terms of her employment? That's something else entirely. Best, Matt On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Ceruzzi, Paul < <mailto:CeruzziP@si.edu> CeruzziP(a)si.edu> wrote: Well, we know that BASIC was developed at Dartmouth College, which at the time was all-male and quite the macho place. Dartmouth was founded to train Native Americans for the Christian ministry—enough about that. It was also the inspiration for the movie _Animal House_. What this has to do with BASIC I have no idea, but when I think of Dartmouth BASIC, I think of John Belushi in the cafeteria (a scene that was totally ad-libbed by the way). What for me in most interesting about Dartmouth BASIC is that it was designed for a time-shared system, but it was adapted by the PC community for the Altair and other PCs. That was a radical re-definition of the language. For example, you could not have commands like “Peek” and “Poke” in Dartmouth BASIC, if you’re running it on a time-shared mainframe. You’d crash the system. But Peek & Poke were absolutely necessary for the personal computer, given the limitations of memory they had. (Also “usr.”) Kemeney & Kurtz did not approve of the way BASIC was modified, but it had to happen. Who came up with those changes?—it may have been at DEC for the PDP-11. Are the terms “peek” and “poke” sexist? Probably, but we do know that among the computer companies of the 1960s, DEC was one of the most progressive in hiring women. As for the Is UNIX Racist discussion, I am disappointed that some of you use that paper in coursework. But there are so few alternatives, and the topic is sorely in need of further study. I talked about this at the SIG meeting in Dearborn. We need to address the topic in a more fundamental way. I recommend a recent book by a colleague of mine, Richard Paul, _We Could Not Fail_, about African-Americans who worked for NASA in southern NASA Centers, during the hey-day of the Space Race. Around the same time, IBM established a major facility in Atlanta, and the company had to remind the Atlanta political and real-estate establishment that its employees were to be treated fairly. When the Braves moved from Milwaukee to Atlanta, Hank Aaron expressed some concern about the move. The issue was real. What about the effort by Ken Olsen at DEC and William Norriss at CDC to establish plants in inner city neighborhoods, in St. Paul, Boston, and Springfield, Mass.? What became of those plants? As I said, this topic merits serious discussion, but the UNIX paper? Maybe not so much. Paul Ceruzzi From: Members [mailto: <mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org> members-bounces(a)lists.sigcis.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meade McGee Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 8:19 PM To: Nabeel Siddiqui Cc: Sigcis Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Is Unix racist? On a semi-related query, has there been much race-, gender-, or class-related discussion around the cultural logic or social context of the development or reception of BASIC? I could imagine that fitting into a larger conversation on class, institutions, social action, and (possibly) accusations of paternalism given its Sixties-era development and Dartmouth origins. Just curious -- I admittedly know far less than I should about the dissemination of programming languages. Best, Andrew -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Andrew Meade McGee Corcoran Department of History University of Virginia PO Box 400180 - Nau Hall Charlottesville, VA 22904 On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Nabeel Siddiqui < <mailto:nasiddiqui@email.wm.edu> nasiddiqui(a)email.wm.edu> wrote: I assign it in my course to discuss race with students, but it does have its problems, specifically correlation vs causality. While the article doesn't get into it, I think it adds to David Golumbia's Cultural Logic of Computation on how computation provides a set of ideas and metaphors for people to think about the world around them. The Digital Humanities part is actually a part that was tacked on and doesn't really add much to the article. Originally, the article was release as "U.S. Operating System at Mid-Century" in Race After the Internet, edited by Lisa Nakamura and Peter Chow-White. Link to the original article's pdf here: <http://history.msu.edu/hst830/files/2014/01/McPherson_2012.pdf> http://history.msu.edu/hst830/files/2014/01/McPherson_2012.pdf On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Janet Abbate < <mailto:abbate@vt.edu> abbate(a)vt.edu> wrote: Anyone seen this piece by Tara Mcpherson? It starts with some interesting questions, but I found the follow-through to be disappointingly ahistorical. Again and again she argues that there must be a connection between the modularity of Unix and the compartmentalization of race within American culture, but then immediately admits that she has no evidence for any direct connection. As far as I can tell, the only reason she singles out Unix is because it coincides conveniently with the US Civil Rights era. I'm curious to know what others think. "Why Are the Digital Humanities So White? or Thinking the Histories of Race and Computation." <http://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/29> http://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/29 Janet Dr. Janet Abbate Associate Professor, Science & Technology in Society Co-director, National Capital Region STS program Virginia Tech <http://www.sts.vt.edu/ncr> www.sts.vt.edu/ncr <http://www.linkedin.com/groups/STS-Virginia-Tech-4565055> www.linkedin.com/groups/STS-Virginia-Tech-4565055 <http://www.facebook.com/VirginiaTechSTS> www.facebook.com/VirginiaTechSTS _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at <http://sigcis.org> sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at <http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/> http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at <http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org> http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at <http://sigcis.org> sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at <http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/> http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at <http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org> http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at <http://sigcis.org> sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at <http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/> http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at <http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org> http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org -- Matthew Kirschenbaum Associate Professor of English Associate Director, Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities (MITH) University of Maryland <http://mkirschenbaum.net> http://mkirschenbaum.net or @mkirschenbaum on Twitter _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at <http://sigcis.org> sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at <http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/> http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at <http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org> http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

9 12