Credibility on the web

There are a finite number of sources from which anyone receives information. The most prominent among them are media houses (incl. newspapers, news channels, radio stations, etc.) and scientific journals (at least w.r.t. the subjects I work with).

Seen one way, these establishments generate the information that we receive. Without them, stories would remain localized, centralized, away from the ears that could accord them gravity.

Seen another way, these establishments are also motors: sans their motive force, information wouldn't move around as it does, although this is assuming that they don't mess with the information itself.

With more such "motors" in the media mix, the second perspective is becoming the norm of things. Even if information isn't picked up by one house, it could be set sailing through a blog or a CJ initiative. The means through which we learn something, or stumble upon it for that matter, are growing to be more overlapped, lines crossing each others' paths more often.

Veritably, it's a maze. In such a labyrinthine setup, the entity that stands to lose the most is faith of a reader/viewer/consumer in the credibility of the information received.

In many cases, with a more interconnected web - the largest "supermotor" - the credibility of one bit of information is checked in one location, by one entity. Then, as it moves around, all following entities inherit that credibility-check.

For instance, on Wikipedia, credibility is established by citing news websites, newspaper/magazine articles, journals, etc. Jimmy Wales' enterprise doesn't have its own process of verification in place. Sure, there are volunteers who almost constantly police its millions of pages, but all they can do is check if the citation is valid, and if there are any contrarious reports, too, to the claims being staked.

One way or another, if a statement has appeared in a publication, it can be used to have the reader infer a fact.

In this case, Wikipedia has inherited the credibility established by another entity. If the verification process had failed in the first place, the error would've been perpetrated by different motors, each borrowing from the credibility of the first.

Moreover, the more strata that the information percolates through, the harder it will be to establish a chain of accountability.

*

My largest sources of information are:

1. Wikipedia


2. Journals


3. Newspapers


4. Blogs

(The social media is just a popular aggregator of news from these sources.)

Wikipedia cites news reports and journal articles.

News reports are compiled with the combined efforts of reporters and editors. Reporters verify the information they receive by checking if it's repeated by different sources under (if possible) different circumstances. Editors proofread the copy and are (or must remain) sensitive to factual inconsistencies.

Journals have the notorious peer-reviewing mechanism. Each paper is subject to a thorough verification process intended to wean out all mistakes, errors, information "created" by lapses in the scientific method, and statistical manipulations and misinterpretations.

Blogs borrow from such sources and others.

Notice: Even in describing the passage of information through these ducts, I've vouched for reporters, editors, and peer-reviews. What if they fail me? How would I find out?

*

The point of this post was to illustrate

1. The onerous yet mandatory responsibility that verifiers of information must assume,


2. That there aren't enough of them, and


3. That there isn't a mechanism in place that periodically verifies the credibility of some information across its lifetime.

How would you ensure the credibility of all the information you receive?

The Markovian Mind

In many ways, human engagement with information happens in such a manner that, with the accumulation of information over time, the dataset constructed out of the latest volume of information has the strongest relationship of any kind with the consecutively next dataset – a Markovian trait.

At any point of time, the future state of the dataset is determined solely by its present one. In other words, with a discrete understanding, its n^th state is dependant solely on its (n – i)^th state, where ‘i’ is a cardinal index. Upon a failure to quantify its (n + i)^th state, there is no certain state that we know the dataset will intend to assume.

At the same time, given its limited historic dependency, the past’s bearing on the state of the dataset is continuous but constantly depreciating (asymptotically tending to zero): the correlation index between the (n + i)^th state for increasing i with the (n – k)^th decreases for increasing k (for all k = i).*

Over time, if the information-dataset could be quantized through a set of state variables, S, then there will be a characteristic function, φ(n), which would describe the slope of the correlation index’s curve at (i, k). Essentially, the evolution of S will be as a Markov chain whereas φ(n) will be continuous, rendering (i, k) random and memoryless.

(*For k = i, (n - k) = (n - i). However, for a given set of state variables S, which evolve as a Markov chain, the devolution that k tracks and the evolution that i tracks will be asymmetric, necessitating two different indices to describe the two degrees of freedom.)

Consummation of the adversarial

The Vibrant Data Project attempts to make data more engaging, penetrative, and influential. As a first step toward achieving this goal, it has a definition of the modern press that is hinged on the role it played during the recent Arab Spring:

... disruptive flows of data, tools for analysis and visualization, and vehicles of communication and collaboration that have the potential to overthrow corrupt regimes, spread powerful new ideas, broaden economic opportunity, bust open corporate transparency, improve health and well being, and empower the protection of civil and political rights.

Even before the revolutions sprang up, the media's confrontational role was growing, broadening in terms of the issues it addressed and the kind of people it became relevant to. The Arab Spring was just the consummation of the adversarial.

The reason I'm going to have an eye out for this project (apart from contributing in any way I can) is that they're addressing the issue of information-penetration in just a way I would have: by democratizing data, assuring a routine delivery of value, and, most importantly, looking at data itself in terms of what it does rather than in terms of how it is generated.

A world of information

Everyday, people invent more and more ways to see the world differently. They create new relationships between various bits of information to invent newer perspectives. Because there's so many different ways to see the world, there will come a point when just reading about it won't do: there will need to be visualization.

In a visualization, data is removed from its static, one-dimensional existence and placed in a space that is many-dimensional and dynamic. In such an environment, the data's virtual position also has meaning, like an electron's position around a nucleus tells us something about its energy.

This ability to add more meaning to information based on how we perceive it makes all the difference because this brings numbers closer to reality and lets us engage with them more directly. Instead of requiring mathematics and statistics to mediate between us and what the data mean, visualizations let us use our eyes and eyes to decipher the real meaning.

My search for a good tool with which to create visualizations has led me to discover a lot of options. At the same time, understanding how a visualization has been created tells me something about how its creator was perceiving the data. Sometimes, there are no omnipresent creators: a software need only be built that, in turn, can be used to create other visualizations, and voila! We're suddenly using machines to seek out curious patterns that haven't yet hit upon.

Here's a list of some of the tools I use to visualize the statistical information I access. Mostly, I use them to illustrate a point - in class or in my posts. However good writing is praised, creating dimensionality is tedious with pen and paper. At the cost of discouraging long didactic essays, I'd say use tech. to make your point. After all, each one is centered on good and purposeful communication.

Google Ngram Viewer

Ngram Viewer is one of the more popular services of Google, at least amongst the ones that weren't widely publicised. An n-gram, in computational linguistics, is a contiguous sequence of 'n' items. For instance, a one-gram is one word, a two-gram is two words that are counted as one phrase, a ten-gram is a set of ten words taken together, and so on. Using the millions of books that Google has parsed through to create its database - or corpus - Ngram Viewer plots the frequency with which an n-gram appears in all books over time. The idea is that the more an n-gram appears in books, the more widely it was spoken about in those years.

Google Fusion Tables

Fusion Tables is a service by Google that interpretes numbers in different ways. The user has to upload a database - which might comprise one table or hundreds - and then pick one of many visualization options. For instance, I could upload a table that contains information on where how much pollution is. Next, if I select the option to plot the table on a map, Fusion Tables immediately does so. The service is useful in generating newer perspectives as Ngram Viewer, too, can and also to make a point crisply, efficiently.

Wolfram Mathematica

Wolfram Mathematica is a computation engine, i.e. it performs a wide variety of computations - mathematical, statistical and logical - and then chooses the best way to display the information. This clear understanding of how many dimensions information has is what makes this possible, and I suspect it's the heartless mathematical treatment at its core that's responsible. WM is not for people who don't know what they're looking for. It's for those who know their way around, but are just looking for the best ways to express what they're saying.

Microsoft Robotics Developer Studio

OK, I discovered the visualizing potential of MRDS by accident. Because it uses a visual programming language with flow charts and discrete processes to simulate robotic behaviour, it becomes easier to understand what's going on inside an automaton's programmatic head. Using the same principles, an interactive visualization can be simulated, with the user controlling the robot that's being moved around. It's kinda abstract, I know, but making a higher level of interaction possible, we're only making the visualization more engaging, memorable and understandable.

Visualizations are not always about numbers; they're about spatial geometries, too, and when it comes to them, parameters like distance, time and speed are more perceptible than colours, gradients, and shapes. And what makes MRDS more capable in this context is its ability to simulate, which should be exploited.

d3.js

Now, d3.js is a real beauty. Before I say anything, I'll say this: when it comes to programming, I'm the type who gets quite excited about it because I love algorithms, but on the downside, I'm not so good with the syntax. That is, I can get what steps a program takes to accomplish something but I can't get how really goes about doing it. On that note: d3.js is really intuitive semantically and demands only a few hours' practice to make sense syntactially, too. And because it's a library focused on linking documents with Document Object Models (DOM), it's the ideal place to begin for people wanting to create their visualization up from scratch.

Taking tech. to the common man the Gandhian way

A lot has been said about technology shrinking the world, bringing its peoples closer and making all information more accessible. However, there are two problems concerning the deployment of technology.

1. Devices that use technological innovation are often functionally inaccessible to certain groups of users. Also, it is often that these are the users who need it the most. For example, when it comes to making life easier, the elderly become the most eager consumers of developments. At the same time, those developments are rendered meaningless if they aren’t user-friendly. This is the “Type 1” problem.


2. Often, the services born of technology come at a price that is unaffordable for those whose productivity can be increased by using them. Tools like computers, the internet, progressive communication systems and mobile telephony can boost our farmers’ crop output as well as keep them up-to-date on the latest developments in the agricultural sciences and government schemes. This is the “Type 2” problem.

On that note, it is heartening to know about the M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation’s (MSSRF) Village Development Program (VDP) that currently covers over 300 villages, mostly in Puducherry and some in Maharashtra. The foundation, by employing a community-ownership model that increases villagers’ participation, has set up an information distribution network together with the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) and other partners, such as Microsoft and Intel, who also provide some of the funds.

[caption id="attachment_20444" align="aligncenter" width="355" caption="The partners of MSSRF for the VDP"][/caption]

The MSSRF offices in Taramani, Chennai, function as a node for a national level hub that connects various technical, agricultural and veterinary universities across India, apart from NGOs and government offices in the vicinity of the villages. The knowledge these universities wish to share is uploaded into the hub’s content management system, which in turn is monitored by the foundation. The next step is to use the ISRO’s uplinking and downlinking capabilities, provided with the help of some of their satellites, which facilitate data-transfer to and from the node.

The final tier can be divided into two:

1. VRC – The Village Resource Centre (VRC) operates at the mandal level and usually addresses the distribution of information into a cluster of villages. The VRC is operated by local communities. Because of the encouragement of community-ownership, members of the community are involved in maintaining the centre while the partners of the programme provide the infrastructure.


2. VKC – The Village Knowledge Centre (VKC) operates just like the VRC except in that it addresses the needs of one village at a time. In other words, it functions as a sub-node that disseminates local, specific and demand-driven information. The communication between the VRC and the VKC happens through a local area network (LAN).

[caption id="attachment_20445" align="alignleft" width="148" caption="At Thankachimadam"][/caption]

Using this three-tier system (node-VKC-VRC) and by actively engaging with the villagers, the program conclusively addresses the Type 1 and Type 2 problems. By maintaining and running the nodes and data centres, the villagers are acclimatized to technology and technological innovation in a way that directly impacts their livelihood. By teaming up with partners eager to bring technology to the common man, MSSRF has brought the best in the world to the villages of Puducherry and Maharashtra, apart from freeing up their knowledge pool to be accessed by those who need it the most. This goes to demonstrate the importance of efficient and effective deployment of technology in order to make it useful.

The content generated by the universities, agencies and government offices can become overwhelming. Therefore, the effectiveness of the VDP is determined by how quickly and efficiently it is able to get that content to the right people. It must be noted that there is also a content generation process in place at a much more local, and more significant, level. Frequent debates between experts and the farming/fishing/animal-rearing communities are organized, and the questions and answers raised therein are integrated with the existing databases.

Also, apart from the VRCs, a mobile network is in place that delivers five relevant audio messages daily to subscribers of certain networks, including Airtel, Qualcomm and Tata. The advantage of employing mobile telephony is the ability to gather feedback statistics such as usage rates, response rates, etc., which can be used to improve the quality of the services provided. A help-desk has been set up at MSSRF’s Chennai office to address complaints that any users of the mobile communication networks might have.

What about inter-village communication? That has been addressed, and quite thoroughly to note, by a public announcement system (PAS) that incorporates both loudspeaker arrangements as well as a web-based notice-boarding system. In order to facilitate audio-conferencing, a multiple closed-user groups have been created such that calls to other people within the same group are free of cost. Finally, an INCOIS public display board has been installed that can be used with a GPRS device.

At the heart of all of this lies the need-assessment system, a single glance at which summarizes the entire VDP, its principal participants and its goals. While the VRCs are demand-driven and therefore reflective of the villagers’ needs, the villagers do have to be trained and made aware enough to know their rights, what they can and can’t demand, and what their options are. In order to empower them, the MSSRF enables them to interact with stakeholders of the entire program and familiarizes them with the principal tools. At the same time, a farmers’ database is compiled that is shared responsibly with government agencies, local banks and NGOs that have products and services of value on offer.



Essentially, the VDP is a stellar example that neither bargains with nor purchases profits at the cost of technology but engages with it directly to remove socio-economic barriers. It is clear that India’s sustainable development is uniquely tied in with the prosperity of its farmers, at least for now, and these farmers continue to face such barriers. By bringing the farming, fishing and animal-rearing communities together, the foundation has only spotlighted how much we stand to lose if we don’t divert our technologies away from gain.

Taking tech. to the common man the Gandhian way

A lot has been said about technology shrinking the world, bringing its peoples closer and making all information more accessible. However, there are two problems concerning the deployment of technology.

1. Devices that use technological innovation are often functionally inaccessible to certain groups of users. Also, it is often that these are the users who need it the most. For example, when it comes to making life easier, the elderly become the most eager consumers of developments. At the same time, those developments are rendered meaningless if they aren’t user-friendly. This is the “Type 1” problem.


2. Often, the services born of technology come at a price that is unaffordable for those whose productivity can be increased by using them. Tools like computers, the internet, progressive communication systems and mobile telephony can boost our farmers’ crop output as well as keep them up-to-date on the latest developments in the agricultural sciences and government schemes. This is the “Type 2” problem.

On that note, it is heartening to know about the M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation’s (MSSRF) Village Development Program (VDP) that currently covers over 300 villages, mostly in Puducherry and some in Maharashtra. The foundation, by employing a community-ownership model that increases villagers’ participation, has set up an information distribution network together with the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) and other partners, such as Microsoft and Intel, who also provide some of the funds.

[caption id="attachment_20444" align="aligncenter" width="355" caption="The partners of MSSRF for the VDP"][/caption]

The MSSRF offices in Taramani, Chennai, function as a node for a national level hub that connects various technical, agricultural and veterinary universities across India, apart from NGOs and government offices in the vicinity of the villages. The knowledge these universities wish to share is uploaded into the hub’s content management system, which in turn is monitored by the foundation. The next step is to use the ISRO’s uplinking and downlinking capabilities, provided with the help of some of their satellites, which facilitate data-transfer to and from the node.

The final tier can be divided into two:

1. VRC – The Village Resource Centre (VRC) operates at the mandal level and usually addresses the distribution of information into a cluster of villages. The VRC is operated by local communities. Because of the encouragement of community-ownership, members of the community are involved in maintaining the centre while the partners of the programme provide the infrastructure.


2. VKC – The Village Knowledge Centre (VKC) operates just like the VRC except in that it addresses the needs of one village at a time. In other words, it functions as a sub-node that disseminates local, specific and demand-driven information. The communication between the VRC and the VKC happens through a local area network (LAN).

[caption id="attachment_20445" align="alignleft" width="148" caption="At Thankachimadam"][/caption]

Using this three-tier system (node-VKC-VRC) and by actively engaging with the villagers, the program conclusively addresses the Type 1 and Type 2 problems. By maintaining and running the nodes and data centres, the villagers are acclimatized to technology and technological innovation in a way that directly impacts their livelihood. By teaming up with partners eager to bring technology to the common man, MSSRF has brought the best in the world to the villages of Puducherry and Maharashtra, apart from freeing up their knowledge pool to be accessed by those who need it the most. This goes to demonstrate the importance of efficient and effective deployment of technology in order to make it useful.

The content generated by the universities, agencies and government offices can become overwhelming. Therefore, the effectiveness of the VDP is determined by how quickly and efficiently it is able to get that content to the right people. It must be noted that there is also a content generation process in place at a much more local, and more significant, level. Frequent debates between experts and the farming/fishing/animal-rearing communities are organized, and the questions and answers raised therein are integrated with the existing databases.

Also, apart from the VRCs, a mobile network is in place that delivers five relevant audio messages daily to subscribers of certain networks, including Airtel, Qualcomm and Tata. The advantage of employing mobile telephony is the ability to gather feedback statistics such as usage rates, response rates, etc., which can be used to improve the quality of the services provided. A help-desk has been set up at MSSRF’s Chennai office to address complaints that any users of the mobile communication networks might have.

What about inter-village communication? That has been addressed, and quite thoroughly to note, by a public announcement system (PAS) that incorporates both loudspeaker arrangements as well as a web-based notice-boarding system. In order to facilitate audio-conferencing, a multiple closed-user groups have been created such that calls to other people within the same group are free of cost. Finally, an INCOIS public display board has been installed that can be used with a GPRS device.

At the heart of all of this lies the need-assessment system, a single glance at which summarizes the entire VDP, its principal participants and its goals. While the VRCs are demand-driven and therefore reflective of the villagers’ needs, the villagers do have to be trained and made aware enough to know their rights, what they can and can’t demand, and what their options are. In order to empower them, the MSSRF enables them to interact with stakeholders of the entire program and familiarizes them with the principal tools. At the same time, a farmers’ database is compiled that is shared responsibly with government agencies, local banks and NGOs that have products and services of value on offer.



Essentially, the VDP is a stellar example that neither bargains with nor purchases profits at the cost of technology but engages with it directly to remove socio-economic barriers. It is clear that India’s sustainable development is uniquely tied in with the prosperity of its farmers, at least for now, and these farmers continue to face such barriers. By bringing the farming, fishing and animal-rearing communities together, the foundation has only spotlighted how much we stand to lose if we don’t divert our technologies away from gain.

My kingdom for a neutrino

In 1982, when the construction for CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiment was given the go-ahead, physics entered a very exciting period. It promised them the answers to their biggest questions and, in the event that that didn’t happen, it promised them ample evidence to come to a conclusion of their own.

Two decades later, with the device in full operation, results are emerging, some more improbable than the rest. The project was put in place to attempt to create the conditions of the Big Bang so physicists could detect the Higgs boson. However, nobody anticipated such a thing as evidence of super-luminary travel by neutrinos.

The existence of neutrinos was first proposed by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli in 1930 to account for the excess mass and energy left behind after a neutron disintegrated into a proton and an electron. The first direct observation was to be made only in the 1970s, more than 40 years later. The neutrino is one of the many indivisible particles of this Universe, and is of neutral charge and very little mass. In fact, amongst all the particles that have any mass, a neutrino is the lightest. This means that according to Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, the mass of the particle will hit infinity only when it travels at speeds terribly close to that of light. And by terribly close, I’m talking 99.9999% close.

Such neutrinos were generated by the LHC over the course of some of its experiments and sent to the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy for study. Located 730 km south of the LHC and almost a kilometre under Mt. Gran Sasso, the laboratory receives the particles in a massive tank of ultra-pure water.

Once a neutrino comes in contact with a proton of a water molecule, they react to form a neutron and a positron. The positron collides with an electron, its anti-particle, to annihilate each other, releasing two gamma rays. The neutron is captured by another nucleus to release a third gamma ray. Therefore, the signature of a neutrino capture is the release of three gamma rays.

[caption id="attachment_20371" align="aligncenter" width="439" caption="The Super-KamiokaNDE experiment in Japan contains a tank of 50,000 litres of water, fit with an array of tens of thousands of photo-multiplier tubes (as above) to detect the release of energy in case of a neutrino capture. The cylindrical container has other systems in place to detect the position of a capture, too."][/caption]

At the laboratory, as scientists waited for the neutrinos to arrive and set off the reactions, they were hardly prepared when the release of the gamma rays was detected precisely 60 nanoseconds before it was due. While such a small difference might seem trivial, the implication is that the neutrinos arrived before any other kind of electromagnetic radiation did. Since electromagnetic radiations possess the fastest speed attainable in this Universe according to Einstein, the speeding neutrinos have possibly defied the greatest physicist of the last century.

Where does that leave the world of physics?

Centuries of hypothesizing and experimenting by scientists have ingrained the importance of reasoned scepticism in their minds. While the Gran Sasso National Laboratory has claimed that 16,000 such instances have been recorded and documented, they haven’t ruled out any errors. For now, physicists the world over await similar conclusions, and so confirmations, from the two other colliders capable of replicating such conditions.

One of them is the J-PARC in Japan. Located along the coast of the Tohoku prefecture, the device was damaged and unable to operate for the next 12 months, at least, by the earthquake in March 2011 in nearby Fukushima. The other collider is the Fermilab Tevatron, an atom-smasher of considerable reputation, in the USA. After close to three decades of operation, the facility is scheduled to shut down permanently on September 30, 2011.

Collaboration rather than competition seems to be the emerging mantra. The shadow of CERN is beginning to loom large on most particle physics labs, and they’re finding it difficult to compete with CERN and its flagship project. Further, in these days of ballooning fiscal deficits and bond rating downgrades in the US, funding is hard to come by for such "creamy" projects.

Unsurprisingly, physicists are prepared to wait. Why won’t they when the speed of light – a form of electromagnetic radiation – has been the definitive cornerstone of some of the most important foundations of our understanding of this Universe? By defying that limit, neutrinos have brought upon them the scrutiny of the entire scientific community.

For one, by being faster than light, neutrinos speeding toward Earth from distant stars get here before the image of the star does, making it possible for astrophysicists to peek farther back into history. Second, the particle that carries electromagnetic energy, the photon, was thought to be massless so it wouldn’t violate the theory of relativity. However, the neutrino has mass, and that means all of Einstein’s works will have to be disrobed and studied. The larger consequence of this is that almost all high-energy installations on this planet, ranging from nuclear power plants (NPPs) that power cities to radio-telescopes searching for extra-terrestrial life, become available for changes as much as at the design level.

(In an NPP, the flow of single-phase coolants in pressurized water reactors is assumed to flow not faster than the speed of light. Even if the fluid dynamics of single-phase coolants has already been modelled on luminary principles, how could there be any changes at the design level?

If the speed of the coolants can be increased even higher, then the critical discharge, i.e., the maximum flow rate permissible, will also go higher. This translates into enhanced cooling, and this obviously means that fuel rods can be made even thicker and more power could be generated.*)

Similarly, the way the world works also is not going to change since the neutrino has always been working the same way for billions of years irrespective of how we thought it worked. But what is going to change is the way we understand electromagnetic concepts. The Standard Model of particle physics, the Big Daddy of all the theories of physics, won’t have to be tweaked so much as twisted around to accommodate this yet-unsubstantiated phenomenon.

Physicists will wait, and while they wait, they’ll debate. They’ll conduct more experiments, record more data, hypothesize more, refute more, argue more, all the while hoping that the Tevatron will be fired up for one last battle, that the J-PARC will be resuscitated for a one-of-a-kind challenge. In my opinion, no overbearing modifications will have to be made to the pool of knowledge we possess regarding physics as such. Even if the neutrinos did travel at super-luminary speeds - which I highly doubt and attribute to minute measurement errors adding up to cause the spike - it won't be long before the concept of the phenomenon is quickly subsumed by the search for other even greater truths. Yes, our perspectives are going to change, but more than anything, the discovery's original role as a tool with which to discover more about nature will not.

Let's not get carried away, though. After all, disproving the greatest minds of physics in history requires a future of its own.

*On the other hand, for example, the speed at which the gravitational force acts on any body is limited to the speed of electromagnetic radiations, but that doesn't mean discovery of a higher speed in this Universe is going to change anything. It's only a role reversal at the most (although the massiveness of the neutrino is going to make a difference) because the practically achievable velocity is going to remain the same.

My kingdom for a neutrino

In 1982, when the construction for CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiment was given the go-ahead, physics entered a very exciting period. It promised them the answers to their biggest questions and, in the event that that didn’t happen, it promised them ample evidence to come to a conclusion of their own.

Two decades later, with the device in full operation, results are emerging, some more improbable than the rest. The project was put in place to attempt to create the conditions of the Big Bang so physicists could detect the Higgs boson. However, nobody anticipated such a thing as evidence of super-luminary travel by neutrinos.

The existence of neutrinos was first proposed by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli in 1930 to account for the excess mass and energy left behind after a neutron disintegrated into a proton and an electron. The first direct observation was to be made only in the 1970s, more than 40 years later. The neutrino is one of the many indivisible particles of this Universe, and is of neutral charge and very little mass. In fact, amongst all the particles that have any mass, a neutrino is the lightest. This means that according to Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, the mass of the particle will hit infinity only when it travels at speeds terribly close to that of light. And by terribly close, I’m talking 99.9999% close.

Such neutrinos were generated by the LHC over the course of some of its experiments and sent to the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy for study. Located 730 km south of the LHC and almost a kilometre under Mt. Gran Sasso, the laboratory receives the particles in a massive tank of ultra-pure water.

Once a neutrino comes in contact with a proton of a water molecule, they react to form a neutron and a positron. The positron collides with an electron, its anti-particle, to annihilate each other, releasing two gamma rays. The neutron is captured by another nucleus to release a third gamma ray. Therefore, the signature of a neutrino capture is the release of three gamma rays.

[caption id="attachment_20371" align="aligncenter" width="439" caption="The Super-KamiokaNDE experiment in Japan contains a tank of 50,000 litres of water, fit with an array of tens of thousands of photo-multiplier tubes (as above) to detect the release of energy in case of a neutrino capture. The cylindrical container has other systems in place to detect the position of a capture, too."][/caption]

At the laboratory, as scientists waited for the neutrinos to arrive and set off the reactions, they were hardly prepared when the release of the gamma rays was detected precisely 60 nanoseconds before it was due. While such a small difference might seem trivial, the implication is that the neutrinos arrived before any other kind of electromagnetic radiation did. Since electromagnetic radiations possess the fastest speed attainable in this Universe according to Einstein, the speeding neutrinos have possibly defied the greatest physicist of the last century.

Where does that leave the world of physics?

Centuries of hypothesizing and experimenting by scientists have ingrained the importance of reasoned scepticism in their minds. While the Gran Sasso National Laboratory has claimed that 16,000 such instances have been recorded and documented, they haven’t ruled out any errors. For now, physicists the world over await similar conclusions, and so confirmations, from the two other colliders capable of replicating such conditions.

One of them is the J-PARC in Japan. Located along the coast of the Tohoku prefecture, the device was damaged and unable to operate for the next 12 months, at least, by the earthquake in March 2011 in nearby Fukushima. The other collider is the Fermilab Tevatron, an atom-smasher of considerable reputation, in the USA. After close to three decades of operation, the facility is scheduled to shut down permanently on September 30, 2011.

Collaboration rather than competition seems to be the emerging mantra. The shadow of CERN is beginning to loom large on most particle physics labs, and they’re finding it difficult to compete with CERN and its flagship project. Further, in these days of ballooning fiscal deficits and bond rating downgrades in the US, funding is hard to come by for such "creamy" projects.

Unsurprisingly, physicists are prepared to wait. Why won’t they when the speed of light – a form of electromagnetic radiation – has been the definitive cornerstone of some of the most important foundations of our understanding of this Universe? By defying that limit, neutrinos have brought upon them the scrutiny of the entire scientific community.

For one, by being faster than light, neutrinos speeding toward Earth from distant stars get here before the image of the star does, making it possible for astrophysicists to peek farther back into history. Second, the particle that carries electromagnetic energy, the photon, was thought to be massless so it wouldn’t violate the theory of relativity. However, the neutrino has mass, and that means all of Einstein’s works will have to be disrobed and studied. The larger consequence of this is that almost all high-energy installations on this planet, ranging from nuclear power plants (NPPs) that power cities to radio-telescopes searching for extra-terrestrial life, become available for changes as much as at the design level.

(In an NPP, the flow of single-phase coolants in pressurized water reactors is assumed to flow not faster than the speed of light. Even if the fluid dynamics of single-phase coolants has already been modelled on luminary principles, how could there be any changes at the design level?

If the speed of the coolants can be increased even higher, then the critical discharge, i.e., the maximum flow rate permissible, will also go higher. This translates into enhanced cooling, and this obviously means that fuel rods can be made even thicker and more power could be generated.*)

Similarly, the way the world works also is not going to change since the neutrino has always been working the same way for billions of years irrespective of how we thought it worked. But what is going to change is the way we understand electromagnetic concepts. The Standard Model of particle physics, the Big Daddy of all the theories of physics, won’t have to be tweaked so much as twisted around to accommodate this yet-unsubstantiated phenomenon.

Physicists will wait, and while they wait, they’ll debate. They’ll conduct more experiments, record more data, hypothesize more, refute more, argue more, all the while hoping that the Tevatron will be fired up for one last battle, that the J-PARC will be resuscitated for a one-of-a-kind challenge. In my opinion, no overbearing modifications will have to be made to the pool of knowledge we possess regarding physics as such. Even if the neutrinos did travel at super-luminary speeds - which I highly doubt and attribute to minute measurement errors adding up to cause the spike - it won't be long before the concept of the phenomenon is quickly subsumed by the search for other even greater truths. Yes, our perspectives are going to change, but more than anything, the discovery's original role as a tool with which to discover more about nature will not.

Let's not get carried away, though. After all, disproving the greatest minds of physics in history requires a future of its own.

*On the other hand, for example, the speed at which the gravitational force acts on any body is limited to the speed of electromagnetic radiations, but that doesn't mean discovery of a higher speed in this Universe is going to change anything. It's only a role reversal at the most (although the massiveness of the neutrino is going to make a difference) because the practically achievable velocity is going to remain the same.

Why journalism?

At what point does being a good journalist include the act of being a good writer as well? Because that's all I have. Two weeks into journalism school and I've been intimidated on a daily basis by the sheer number of people who seem to be better informed and more outspoken than I am. Agreed, I'm not outspoken at all, but I'm always afraid that when I do say something, I'm going to come off stupid. Before I came here, I was of the assumption that I was one of the most erudite and smart people around - at least, my friends seem to suggest so. I thought that I'd be able to sail through these courses with only the regular addition of physical work to my already existing "intellectual capabilities". Now, all that I'm hoping for is to make it out of this place without feeling like a moron and letting the intellect marinate in its new-found stellar company.

For quite some time now, I've been really interested in letting my scientific and journalistic interests converge, and that would mean taking a few leaves out of the notebooks of Feynman and Sagan, perhaps even Dawkins - but I hate Dawkins. Four years' engineering education can leave even the most repressive engineering student with a scientific curiosity and an addiction to the scientific method. Before 2006, I didn't care for the future of semiconductor technology. Now, in 2011, it's the point from which I branch out to get my daily dose of tech. news. And when it comes to tech. news, there's two ways of looking at it.

The first would essentially be a study of where technology is "taking" us, a techno-social approach that focuses on technology's interaction with people and its ability to define our lifestyles. Such a focus would (or should?) also include a coverage of the policy perspectives that the government must assume in order to let tech. develop, in order for tech. to find its rightful place in the society, and in order for tech. to assist with governance.

The second way to look at tech. news would be to ensure that any developments find their way into all corners of the geeksphere, i.e., to cater solely to the community that works closely with technology on a daily basis. Ars Technica and Mashable are good examples of this sort of writing, where the focus is not on the people itself as it is on the products of technology that cater to the people.

I'm interested in a combination of the two, and that doesn't mean pursuing both simultaneously. In simple words, it's being a geek with a sense of social responsibility - rather, a deliberated sense of social responsibility (I'm not saying geeks aren't social responsible - I'm saying the moniker "geek" does not imply an obligation to be socially responsible). For example, consider the following few posts I read recently on AT.

1. FBI arrests 16 linked with Anonymous' cyberattacks


2. A new fuel that reversibly stores solar energy


3. Developer gets Chrome OS running on Macbook Air

The first one involves the misuse of tech. to antagonize public institutions. The second one is pure tech. but with a significant amount of social repercussions, albeit long-winded repercussions. The third article is all tech. with no pretensions of social responsibility. I'm not interested in the first one. I'm definitely not interested in the third one. The contents of the second article, I love! It's not because I consider ergonomics to be an awesome field of study - I do! - but because it's the closest any subject can come to to reflecting what I think technology's purpose is and what it's responsibilities are.

Yes, social media is a product of technology, too (wouldn't have happened without transistors and Moore's law), but even though it has acquired the ability to effect changes in the public sphere, it's capricious without the human user. High-energy physics, power plant design and cellular automatons, on the other hand, are purely technical assemblages that proffer advantages of their deployment that overwhelm the disadvantages irrespective of human intervention.

That's the idea I want to take up, handle, and be the force behind the dissemination of. That's the sort of science I want to keep clean and understandable. That's the sort of pursuit I want to encourage by highlighting as well as exposing. Yes, there's a long way to go, but I'll find one that fits my desires best. Yes, I could also do with some practical experience to acclimatize myself with the fundamental sensitivities of the subject, but such a consideration is purely logistical, perhaps even purely infrastructural. At the end of the day, I believe I should be able to deconstruct the news, access an audience, retain it, influence attitudes, and do it repeatedly, scalably. That's where I'm heading.

Why journalism? That's why.

Why journalism?

At what point does being a good journalist include the act of being a good writer as well? Because that's all I have. Two weeks into journalism school and I've been intimidated on a daily basis by the sheer number of people who seem to be better informed and more outspoken than I am. Agreed, I'm not outspoken at all, but I'm always afraid that when I do say something, I'm going to come off stupid. Before I came here, I was of the assumption that I was one of the most erudite and smart people around - at least, my friends seem to suggest so. I thought that I'd be able to sail through these courses with only the regular addition of physical work to my already existing "intellectual capabilities". Now, all that I'm hoping for is to make it out of this place without feeling like a moron and letting the intellect marinate in its new-found stellar company.

For quite some time now, I've been really interested in letting my scientific and journalistic interests converge, and that would mean taking a few leaves out of the notebooks of Feynman and Sagan, perhaps even Dawkins - but I hate Dawkins. Four years' engineering education can leave even the most repressive engineering student with a scientific curiosity and an addiction to the scientific method. Before 2006, I didn't care for the future of semiconductor technology. Now, in 2011, it's the point from which I branch out to get my daily dose of tech. news. And when it comes to tech. news, there's two ways of looking at it.

The first would essentially be a study of where technology is "taking" us, a techno-social approach that focuses on technology's interaction with people and its ability to define our lifestyles. Such a focus would (or should?) also include a coverage of the policy perspectives that the government must assume in order to let tech. develop, in order for tech. to find its rightful place in the society, and in order for tech. to assist with governance.

The second way to look at tech. news would be to ensure that any developments find their way into all corners of the geeksphere, i.e., to cater solely to the community that works closely with technology on a daily basis. Ars Technica and Mashable are good examples of this sort of writing, where the focus is not on the people itself as it is on the products of technology that cater to the people.

I'm interested in a combination of the two, and that doesn't mean pursuing both simultaneously. In simple words, it's being a geek with a sense of social responsibility - rather, a deliberated sense of social responsibility (I'm not saying geeks aren't social responsible - I'm saying the moniker "geek" does not imply an obligation to be socially responsible). For example, consider the following few posts I read recently on AT.

1. FBI arrests 16 linked with Anonymous' cyberattacks


2. A new fuel that reversibly stores solar energy


3. Developer gets Chrome OS running on Macbook Air

The first one involves the misuse of tech. to antagonize public institutions. The second one is pure tech. but with a significant amount of social repercussions, albeit long-winded repercussions. The third article is all tech. with no pretensions of social responsibility. I'm not interested in the first one. I'm definitely not interested in the third one. The contents of the second article, I love! It's not because I consider ergonomics to be an awesome field of study - I do! - but because it's the closest any subject can come to to reflecting what I think technology's purpose is and what it's responsibilities are.

Yes, social media is a product of technology, too (wouldn't have happened without transistors and Moore's law), but even though it has acquired the ability to effect changes in the public sphere, it's capricious without the human user. High-energy physics, power plant design and cellular automatons, on the other hand, are purely technical assemblages that proffer advantages of their deployment that overwhelm the disadvantages irrespective of human intervention.

That's the idea I want to take up, handle, and be the force behind the dissemination of. That's the sort of science I want to keep clean and understandable. That's the sort of pursuit I want to encourage by highlighting as well as exposing. Yes, there's a long way to go, but I'll find one that fits my desires best. Yes, I could also do with some practical experience to acclimatize myself with the fundamental sensitivities of the subject, but such a consideration is purely logistical, perhaps even purely infrastructural. At the end of the day, I believe I should be able to deconstruct the news, access an audience, retain it, influence attitudes, and do it repeatedly, scalably. That's where I'm heading.

Why journalism? That's why.

The poor-smart and the rich-foolish

The World Wide Web (3W) is going somewhere.

The amount of history it has backing it up is nowhere close to what it was for any other field that was decidedly going somewhere. Apart from the industrial and technological advancements of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, all that we did we'd been trying to perfect for a long time. The 3W, on the other hand, has been around for just about 2 decades and it has already instituted a smart-foolish gap beside its rich-poor counterpart.

In the future, there is definitely going to come a time when the rich will become poor if they're not smart enough to capitalize on accessibility of the web and the poor will become rich if they're smart enough to capitalize on the quickness of the web.

When information exchange is this quick, some measure of trust and an assurance of quality will accomplish the same amount of work in a second as a brick-and-mortar establishment does in two days. It's just that the handshake is called a "click" these days.

The poor-smart and the rich-foolish

The World Wide Web (3W) is going somewhere.

The amount of history it has backing it up is nowhere close to what it was for any other field that was decidedly going somewhere. Apart from the industrial and technological advancements of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, all that we did we'd been trying to perfect for a long time. The 3W, on the other hand, has been around for just about 2 decades and it has already instituted a smart-foolish gap beside its rich-poor counterpart.

In the future, there is definitely going to come a time when the rich will become poor if they're not smart enough to capitalize on accessibility of the web and the poor will become rich if they're smart enough to capitalize on the quickness of the web.

When information exchange is this quick, some measure of trust and an assurance of quality will accomplish the same amount of work in a second as a brick-and-mortar establishment does in two days. It's just that the handshake is called a "click" these days.

I'm Indian. That means I'm stuck in the 1960s.

I sent this particular letter to a few newspaper editors in Chennai. One of them asked me to "start speaking like a 22-year old".

*

Dear Mr. Editor,

I am now a holder of an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering from an esteemed institute in India. I joined it in 2006 after mounting pressure at home; there are many things that contribute to this particular phenomenon — that of persisting in believing that engineering is the ONLY way to go — but a very significant one is that of the obsession with scores.

I'm no longer a student, and whatsoever I say now is not as a result of harassment at home. I say it because it is strange, severely unproductive (if not counter-productive) and, more importantly, it is reinforced year after year by the same establishment that also professes any capacity to put an end to it: the information broadcasting industry.

I don't mean to point fingers at anyone at this point; news is news. However, objectively speaking, I don't see any valid reason for high-scoring students in the state-instituted class XII examinations to merit any prominent mention right on (any of) the first few pages of a newspaper that sells 5+ lakh copies each day. This sort of coverage may have been justified if the examination in question was the UPSC entrance test, which is perhaps more consequential by orders of magnitude.

The Kothari Commission report submitted to the Indian government in 1966 established that India's needs were better met by engineering or medical science degree holders rather than those who had studied the liberal arts and/or the social sciences. However, times have changed significantly. In fact, India has been acknowledged for its scientific output repeatedly in international academic and political circles alike. What more do we want? Is it not quite palpably perceived that we lack the understanding required to bridge the gap between a country struggling under ancestral burdens and a country the greatest resource of which is its burgeoning numbers of youngsters? Is that not a need better met by studying the social sciences?

Why is it not sufficient to only declare the announcement of the results? Why does it seem pertinent to photograph each of the many toppers? Through this process of aggrandizement, scoring high becomes an incentive. I concede the threat presented by over six lakh competitors in each of the examinations, but that fact alone does not validate the celebration of these high-scorers. They have my heartiest of regards, but I think you will agree when I say that their accomplishments are monumentally insignificant when compared to so much as the discovery of an indigenous method to manufacture high-efficiency batteries — something that any engineering graduate will put his mind to if he or she knows any celebration is in the offing.

There is one last question I wish to ask: if there is any celebration at all, why must it stop with the class XII exams? It is popular opinion, and not quite wrong still, that given the voluminous syllabi, most of the students have not learnt anything as much as they have managed to remember it till the D-day. If there is to be any celebration, why not celebrate those exams that have an assuredly formidable practical component? Why not celebrate those achievements the incentivization of which promises tractable good for the nation?

I'm Indian. That means I'm stuck in the 1960s.

I sent this particular letter to a few newspaper editors in Chennai. One of them asked me to "start speaking like a 22-year old".

*

Dear Mr. Editor,

I am now a holder of an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering from an esteemed institute in India. I joined it in 2006 after mounting pressure at home; there are many things that contribute to this particular phenomenon — that of persisting in believing that engineering is the ONLY way to go — but a very significant one is that of the obsession with scores.

I'm no longer a student, and whatsoever I say now is not as a result of harassment at home. I say it because it is strange, severely unproductive (if not counter-productive) and, more importantly, it is reinforced year after year by the same establishment that also professes any capacity to put an end to it: the information broadcasting industry.

I don't mean to point fingers at anyone at this point; news is news. However, objectively speaking, I don't see any valid reason for high-scoring students in the state-instituted class XII examinations to merit any prominent mention right on (any of) the first few pages of a newspaper that sells 5+ lakh copies each day. This sort of coverage may have been justified if the examination in question was the UPSC entrance test, which is perhaps more consequential by orders of magnitude.

The Kothari Commission report submitted to the Indian government in 1966 established that India's needs were better met by engineering or medical science degree holders rather than those who had studied the liberal arts and/or the social sciences. However, times have changed significantly. In fact, India has been acknowledged for its scientific output repeatedly in international academic and political circles alike. What more do we want? Is it not quite palpably perceived that we lack the understanding required to bridge the gap between a country struggling under ancestral burdens and a country the greatest resource of which is its burgeoning numbers of youngsters? Is that not a need better met by studying the social sciences?

Why is it not sufficient to only declare the announcement of the results? Why does it seem pertinent to photograph each of the many toppers? Through this process of aggrandizement, scoring high becomes an incentive. I concede the threat presented by over six lakh competitors in each of the examinations, but that fact alone does not validate the celebration of these high-scorers. They have my heartiest of regards, but I think you will agree when I say that their accomplishments are monumentally insignificant when compared to so much as the discovery of an indigenous method to manufacture high-efficiency batteries — something that any engineering graduate will put his mind to if he or she knows any celebration is in the offing.

There is one last question I wish to ask: if there is any celebration at all, why must it stop with the class XII exams? It is popular opinion, and not quite wrong still, that given the voluminous syllabi, most of the students have not learnt anything as much as they have managed to remember it till the D-day. If there is to be any celebration, why not celebrate those exams that have an assuredly formidable practical component? Why not celebrate those achievements the incentivization of which promises tractable good for the nation?

I'm Indian. That means I'm stuck in the 1960s.

I sent this particular letter to a few newspaper editors in Chennai. One of them asked me to "start speaking like a 22-year old".

*

Dear Mr. Editor,

I am now a holder of an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering from an esteemed institute in India. I joined it in 2006 after mounting pressure at home; there are many things that contribute to this particular phenomenon — that of persisting in believing that engineering is the ONLY way to go — but a very significant one is that of the obsession with scores.

I'm no longer a student, and whatsoever I say now is not as a result of harassment at home. I say it because it is strange, severely unproductive (if not counter-productive) and, more importantly, it is reinforced year after year by the same establishment that also professes any capacity to put an end to it: the information broadcasting industry.

I don't mean to point fingers at anyone at this point; news is news. However, objectively speaking, I don't see any valid reason for high-scoring students in the state-instituted class XII examinations to merit any prominent mention right on (any of) the first few pages of a newspaper that sells 5+ lakh copies each day. This sort of coverage may have been justified if the examination in question was the UPSC entrance test, which is perhaps more consequential by orders of magnitude.

The Kothari Commission report submitted to the Indian government in 1966 established that India's needs were better met by engineering or medical science degree holders rather than those who had studied the liberal arts and/or the social sciences. However, times have changed significantly. In fact, India has been acknowledged for its scientific output repeatedly in international academic and political circles alike. What more do we want? Is it not quite palpably perceived that we lack the understanding required to bridge the gap between a country struggling under ancestral burdens and a country the greatest resource of which is its burgeoning numbers of youngsters? Is that not a need better met by studying the social sciences?

Why is it not sufficient to only declare the announcement of the results? Why does it seem pertinent to photograph each of the many toppers? Through this process of aggrandizement, scoring high becomes an incentive. I concede the threat presented by over six lakh competitors in each of the examinations, but that fact alone does not validate the celebration of these high-scorers. They have my heartiest of regards, but I think you will agree when I say that their accomplishments are monumentally insignificant when compared to so much as the discovery of an indigenous method to manufacture high-efficiency batteries — something that any engineering graduate will put his mind to if he or she knows any celebration is in the offing.

There is one last question I wish to ask: if there is any celebration at all, why must it stop with the class XII exams? It is popular opinion, and not quite wrong still, that given the voluminous syllabi, most of the students have not learnt anything as much as they have managed to remember it till the D-day. If there is to be any celebration, why not celebrate those exams that have an assuredly formidable practical component? Why not celebrate those achievements the incentivization of which promises tractable good for the nation?

Sometimes, To Be Ethical Is To Be A Fool.

If free information distribution is considered to be an ethical practice today, at what point does information retention become unethical?

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="250" caption="Google Labs"][/caption]

A very good example to illustrate this dilemma would be the products of Google, more specifically the services offered under their Labs feature. The first step in increasing worldwide public access to information was the Google Books project. The unevenness of opportunities presented by lack of space or time was nullified by the access to a range of books written in many languages and of many genres (especially of the classics corpora). On that primary level, any competence that involved information as a principal player saw the latter’s transformation into a tradable commodity. It began to be subjected to the same abuse that money faced: hoarding, thriftiness and deficiency. Therefore, he who hoarded, he who was thrifty and he who caused deficiency was inculpated for unethical practices.

Now, with too much information swimming around the cybersphere, data visualization has been resurrected with greater responsibility and, as a matter of an axiom, greater power. In between the two eras, that of data acquisition and perception, there was a period dominated quietly by a backstage hero called data mining: with more information on more things coming out every second, the proverbial gap between the winner and the loser began to narrow down because the two factions were only separated by the knowledge of what information was worthy and what was not. However, when we bit off more than we could chew, it was soon not a matter of what but of how. When we began to find out more than we ought to have known about the past, the future becomes less of a certainty and more of a possibility.

In line with that thought, Google brought in its Ngram Viewer (NV). A simple extension of the Google Books venture, NV brought together simple data mining, graphical data visualization and hundreds of thousands of books written in the last 200 years in 7 languages to leave the user with a new kind of data, ripe for interpretation. Visit the viewer here and see for yourself how the usage of the words “gay” and “homosexual” has varied in frequency over the years, and how it can be understood to show our perception of the words themselves: the more often they were used, the more they featured in discussion, the more they impacted us.

In this secondary level of information distribution – with the world as such tending to greater access limited by vaguer boundaries – could there be such a thing as information hoarding? Definitely. Compare this scenario you’re in to a ladder: you’re on the bottom rung, raw data is on the top-most rung. Before the raw data can reach you, the number of other filters it goes through on the way is increasing. Even though the greater challenge has been to engender new perspectives, there is also the challenge of leaving some information to be interpreted. On the primary level, the access to the information is increased. On the secondary level, it is classified more logically. On the third level, when it reaches you, you retain a responsibility still to decide:

1. How you use it


2. Why you use it, and


3. Whom do you use it with

Therefore, the ethics of this day and age have not been blurred by the repeated refinements but have only been rendered into a finer and finer line, bent this way and that by corporate greed, capitalist agendas and an overriding anarchism performed as an act of rebellion in most cases. The withholding of information does not spell misdemeanour but, more often than not, caution. This is the very nature of capitalism: to address greed by fostering the need to compete in its players. To be completely ethical in such a day and age is to be a fool.

Related Articles

• On The Reawakening Of Dreams (enderanimate.wordpress.com)

On The Reawakening Of Dreams

As I was writing the entrance test that’s part of my application to the Columbia University today, my flow was broken, nay individuated, by the third and last question in the paper: “If given one month to report on a topic, what would the topic be? How would you go about studying and reporting it, and what media would you use to garner the maximum width of audience? Ensure that you don’t exceed 500 words.”

Of course, the last line was a terrible jolt to me; since I wasn’t being allowed to use the word-count companion, I began to type slowly, deliberately, counting each word as I put it down. Looking up at the clock, I saw that I had some 30 minutes remaining before the time would be up. I stopped typing and paused to think.

What would I report on? I had known the answer to that one for some four years, “The Impact Of Languages On Society”, but I could not go beyond thewhat of it all. You see, since the time I had completely structured the dream, per se, for myself, a lot of things had changed – the answers to most, if not all, of thehows had assumed different shapes and, with them, the whys, too. For example, if I were to present any statistical data after sampling and surveying (the methods for which have not changed significantly in a long time), I would have done so with tables with a small write-up accompanying each table. Now, I’ll have the tables, yes, but they wouldn’t be the nadirs of my hypotheses. Now, I have the Google Trendalyzer – more recently, it powered the Google Zeitgeist – together with Hans Rosling‘s Gapminder. With the coming of opportunities in programming and data visualization, the gap between raw data and the intended conclusion may have changed for the better. However, by being allowed to assume multiple perspectives with unchanging ease, the width of the audience that understood the praxis grew because the solution was now compatible with all the different ways in which the problem was being perceived by different people.

 

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Prof. Rosling"][/caption]

 

With that also increased involvement: presenting problems and solutions as seemingly dissociated elements only alienates the target audience because a) they feel excluded, b) they see no valid argument, or c) both. With the coming of Gapminder, which is a sterling example towards illustrating the consequential upgrading of perspectives it heralded (and, subsequently, the Trendalyzer), initiating increased audience participation became a 2-step process. In other words, affordable.

Soon, audience-participation and audience-inclusion was everywhere, eventually but quickly transcending crowd-sourcing into cloud-networking, where proactive attempts at bettering it only made it more intuitive. It was no longer necessary that I had to have all the resources to execute my projects; I could even be so much as a singular contributor – the plurality would be derived from a global network of research groups.

What did this mean for my hows? It meant that the long hours I had vouchsafed for perfect data representation had become short minutes, and I had time now to do so many other things – perhaps even spend them coming up with new ways to garner more meaningful data and chamfering the the conclusions. With more participation easierly (yeah, that’s a made-up word, but you get the semantic drift) available, undertaking standalone projects, or even aspiring to do so, would be foolish. In other words, unaffordable.

I went on to complete my paper so quickly that the examiner was surprised. I am sure I exceeded the word-limit but a few words, but I’m not worried. I’m sure they’ll get the point.

By widening the scope of the problem to include a malleated range of parameters to understand change at one end and widening the compatibility of solutions to address a longer list of issues at the other end, technology and the latitude of human thought have reawakened my dreams to a brighter world.