first time i heard about tukey was by reading the papers of shannon, who gave him credits for the word bit.

The choice of a logarithmic base corresponds to the choice of a unit for measuring information. If the base 2 is used the resulting units may be called binary digits, or more briefly bits, a word suggested by J. W. Tukey. A device with two stable positions, such as a relay or a flip-flop circuit, can store one bit of information.(a mathematical theory of communication)

others say, that these bits actually don't mean the same thing

But the Tukey bit and the Shannon bit are not the same thing. The popular notion of a bit is simply a unit of storage, with a 0 or 1, and Tukey coined this as short for binary digit. The Shannon bit is a unit of information, and a storage bit contains at most one bit of information, but quite often a lot less. (shannon documentary)

anyhow, the guy has not just an interesting biography, but also some lines that too often are ignored. he worked togther with shannon and richard feynman, with whom he discovered that things like counting is different for different people. they played around with things like: is it easier to keep track of time simultaneously while speaking or while reading; and it seems they had fun with things alike ...

notice that the question comes first and the probability models last. (how davies's data sets might reasonable be approached)

davies has gone a long way toward procedure orientation. her discussion at the top ... is summarized by the sentence:" in other words models are chosen to produce [as properties of the procedures they 'prescribe'] desireable operational characteristics."

this is a long step forward, models are now valued for their (formal) consequences, rather than for their truth. This is good, but does not go far enough.

Since the formal consequences are consequences of the truth of the model, once we have ceasd to give a model's truth a special role, we cannot allow it to 'prescribe' a procedure ... in short, we need to change for assumption-orientation to procedure-orientation. (issues relevant to an honest account of data-based inference)

three articles by j.w.tukey

if you look about the role of time in datacommunication you feel the human touch of computers. one of the few lines that i can't find something compareable for are: 'my time is my own' and 'to slow down time for a time', something human forgot and machine can do if they realize they are too fast. the bus guardian doesn't seem to be a bad idea. he keeps track about who can "say" something for how long but you also can say he provides the possibility that everyone gets heard; without interruption. reminds me of the use of the hourglass for restricting speakers time. imho.

¿living without time? keep playing with your slide rule.

lev manovich is writing on his new book information aesthetics. he tries to find out what kind of interfaces artist, designers, "can be scientists", are creating to interact with information. just some thoughts to think over out of the talk:

society is still driven by as he calls it "industrial modernism"

there are strategies in terms of how to organise our space, how to make our objects, how to organise text, right? sometimes people use the term modernism for these, but i find it much too broad then it covers everything from 1860 to 1960: everything from say manet to pop art; and i think what people developed - let's say between 1915 and 1929 - is something more specific. therefore i am playing with the term industrial modernism - but i am still not sure if this is a good term.

the bottom line: if you go to any space today, if you just wake up and switch on tv you realise - at least in certain countries, that we have moved into a new type of society: the information society. this is going on since the 50s but still, the kind of aesthetics we use is very much connected what was already solidified by 1929. look at this table, look at the chairs, we are sitting in a room without ornaments. if i look at the typography of this book, it is basically 1920 aesthetics, it is neither the aesthetic from 1980 nor 1988

the answer can't be found by sticking by modernism. - vale, but than i don't know why i should be interested to read about modernism over and over again. but well i am not writing this book ... and i stick with topic maps, holography and quantum physics. things, if i am lucky, will understand a little better one day.

modernism was very much about the conceptual, a try to deal with the scantiness of resources: bandwidth was limited ... you had to build a mathematical theory of communication so you can measure how much stuff you can send through a channel. the same idea occured in modernist design, in the design of the 1890s. the idea by then was: what is the minimum amount of ink we can put on a page to have the maximum impact on the viewer.

you can see that the whole culture of modernism was very much influenced by the idea of efficiency, but today we are no longer limited by scantiness of resources. you can put everything on a hard disc, etc, etc. that means new cultural strategies will emerge ... the definition of information from 1945 is still important, but just for engineers who have to put optical cable somewhere. culturally it is not as important anymore. what we need are in fact some other ways of thinking about information.

"capitalism needs inefficiency" - i like this one.

... of course it is not just about capitalism. we live in a so called democratic society, driven by the question: how can i separate myself from you? i can separate myself from you by my style. we create symbolic and social separations; there are always symbolic, social, psychological reasons why we can define chances.

"¿given that people spend so much money and intelligence on websites, why are most websites so bad?"

i keep saying that for me industrial modernism was about efficiency, but it is also a part of capitalism. and what is interesting on capitalism is that capitalism needs inefficiency. if you want to buy new headphones i give you a map, saying go here! but i also want you to get lost and to buy 500 other things ... it is not just capitalism, think about the failure of the communist countries in 20th century. what those countries did was basically to try to take modernism and to apply it to a social order. the idea was to have something like a master plan: everything totally efficient. well, it didn't work. of course, from the point of information theory you can say: we didn't have feedback, but it also means that for some reasons human beings and human minds like inefficiency, we like a certain kind of mess, we like multiple channels ...

it is part of a larger phenomena which means that if i am designing a website in 2003 i am driven by two very contradictory logic's. one logic is i want to you to find what you are looking for as fast as possible. on the other hand i want traps on my website, i want you to get lost so that you end up with something new. i think this is not a new phenomena, but i think this phenomena is much more obvious in 2003 than in 1920 ...

a lot of ideas can be found in his phd from 1993 the engineering of vision from constructivism to computer. nice text and nice chapter: "the enginering of vision from inkhuk to mir" which includes a lot historical facts on information theory.

info-aesthetic (¡12mb!) with lev manovich, paul pangaro and special guest heinz von foerster. (and if someone wonders, i couldn't find a correct "a" to correct the mis-pronounced word in this spoken version. didn't want to cut it either.)