Just finished Grisham's "A Painted House", which is supposed to be semi-autobiographical. The 7-year old boy who narrates the story is the child of cotton farmers in Arkansas, with the story taking place during harvest in 1952. It's good, evoking the time and place, but not a thriller in his usual mode.
Turns out that Grisham is actually 50, so he's 10 years younger than the hero. That may explain the math errors in the book, which only a crazed bureaucrat would pick up on. Supposedly the family (3 generations) is farming 80 rented acres. The situation is that the crop is good, but pickers are needed to harvest the cotton. The pickers are a family of "hill people" and a set of 10 Mexicans (no blacks in the story, which was a surprise). Grisham gets a variety of characters and plot points out of the intermixture of locals and pickers.
Unfortunately, he says the cotton is 500 pounds per acre (sounds about right), so they have 40,000 pounds of cotton to pick. Given the workforce (10 Mexicans, 6 hill people, father, grandfather) and an average 400 lb per person, the cotton could have been picked in a week or 10 days. The book spreads the picking over a month or so, then a flood ruins a third of the crop, so the family heads to Flint to work in the car factories.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Summers and Idiocy
Only a total idiot would comment on the Dr. Summers controversy, so here it goes:
His first cause for the low number of women in science was the need for near total commitment to the profession/job, the need to work 80 hours a week to make one's mark. He called for consideration of: "Is our society right to have familial arrangements in which women are asked to make that choice and asked more to make that choice than men?"
One thing I don't understand is why scientists would be more apt to work long hours than other occupations, whether it's law, social scientists, business, moviemakers, or whatever. Even bureaucrats have been known to work long hours at times. I'm not sure Summers has data for this assertion, but it seems to have been skipped over in all the controversy over his other statements.
Added on Feb. 23
says, some women will always
I can understand why people work 80 hours--the desire to perform is addictive. But as Anne Applebaum says here some women will always choose to devote energy to children. That must mean that, unless women are on average smarter than men (quite possible), we won't ever have equality in the outcomes. Summers was speaking universally, but, except for Israeli kibbutzes, using American data. I wonder whether other cultures achieve excellence with a 50 hour week? I would if it's possible for us to become less competitive? (It's been a while since I read "The Winner-Take-All Society" but it might be relevant.)
Added evening of Feb. 23
According to an article in the New York Review of Books reviewing The Fly in the Cathedral (on splitting the atom by Lord Rutherford's in a race with Lawrence), in Rutherford's physics lab the rule was everyone out by 6 pm and 4 times a year the lab was closed for 2 week vacations. The lab won several Nobels.
His first cause for the low number of women in science was the need for near total commitment to the profession/job, the need to work 80 hours a week to make one's mark. He called for consideration of: "Is our society right to have familial arrangements in which women are asked to make that choice and asked more to make that choice than men?"
One thing I don't understand is why scientists would be more apt to work long hours than other occupations, whether it's law, social scientists, business, moviemakers, or whatever. Even bureaucrats have been known to work long hours at times. I'm not sure Summers has data for this assertion, but it seems to have been skipped over in all the controversy over his other statements.
Added on Feb. 23
says, some women will always
I can understand why people work 80 hours--the desire to perform is addictive. But as Anne Applebaum says here some women will always choose to devote energy to children. That must mean that, unless women are on average smarter than men (quite possible), we won't ever have equality in the outcomes. Summers was speaking universally, but, except for Israeli kibbutzes, using American data. I wonder whether other cultures achieve excellence with a 50 hour week? I would if it's possible for us to become less competitive? (It's been a while since I read "The Winner-Take-All Society" but it might be relevant.)
Added evening of Feb. 23
According to an article in the New York Review of Books reviewing The Fly in the Cathedral (on splitting the atom by Lord Rutherford's in a race with Lawrence), in Rutherford's physics lab the rule was everyone out by 6 pm and 4 times a year the lab was closed for 2 week vacations. The lab won several Nobels.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Buggy Wheels, Automobiles, Bill Gates and Bernstein
Fair Warning: I'm about to violate the first commandment of blogging: Thou shalt only write what you know.
Professor Bernstein at Volokh.com has problems with this article on liability law and the introduction of cars. I am sure his criticisms of the literature are well founded, but my take differs from his and Prof. Clarke. I'm influenced by the writings of Profs. Henry Petroski, on the evolution of technology, and Clayton Christianson, notably "The Innovator's Dilemma". From them I take the lesson that technologies rest within a network of values, organizations, related technologies, etc. Innovations may evolve from experience and learning within a given environment, or break the context. Big innovations don't automatically represent progress, but a different package of costs, benefits and values than the dominant technology. And from Petroski, failure is necessary to learn.
The horse and buggy represented the dominant technology, with roads, watering troughs, oat fields, barns, manure removal, etc. all in place. The design of the buggy had evolved, and represented a compromise of materials for strength, lightness, cheapness, etc.
Comes the automobile and the roads are too bumpy, the gas pumps are missing, the oats are unneeded. Speeding along at higher speeds put new stresses on wheels and axles so that designs that worked for buggies wouldn't work for cars. Instead of being supported on four strong legs, the motive power is put in the carriage, increasing the load on the suspension and wheels.
Clarke states that: "Corporations thus faced a choice between acquiring the knowledge needed to design a safe product and exercising power in the market to impose the costs of defects on consumers...." and argues that they opted to impose the costs on consumers.
From the Petroski perspective, there was no realistic choice--in order to learn, the car manufacturers had to try and fail. In a theoretical world, they could have spent 20 years in the lab, testing the strength of materials. But in the real world, they relied on the early adopters to pioneer the systems needed for the car culture, the gas pumps, the better roads, the parts and service (remember the Jeff Bridges character in Seabiscuit). (Maybe, to males, the possibility of failure and accidents is an incentive?)
As I skimmed Clarke, there seemed a parallel to the world of PC's in 1975-95: lots of experimentation, lots of bugs, "never buy version 1.0 of anything", Bill Gates and his untested software. Just read your software licenses to see what rights you have as a consumer. What we end up with represents a compromise.
Professor Bernstein at Volokh.com has problems with this article on liability law and the introduction of cars. I am sure his criticisms of the literature are well founded, but my take differs from his and Prof. Clarke. I'm influenced by the writings of Profs. Henry Petroski, on the evolution of technology, and Clayton Christianson, notably "The Innovator's Dilemma". From them I take the lesson that technologies rest within a network of values, organizations, related technologies, etc. Innovations may evolve from experience and learning within a given environment, or break the context. Big innovations don't automatically represent progress, but a different package of costs, benefits and values than the dominant technology. And from Petroski, failure is necessary to learn.
The horse and buggy represented the dominant technology, with roads, watering troughs, oat fields, barns, manure removal, etc. all in place. The design of the buggy had evolved, and represented a compromise of materials for strength, lightness, cheapness, etc.
Comes the automobile and the roads are too bumpy, the gas pumps are missing, the oats are unneeded. Speeding along at higher speeds put new stresses on wheels and axles so that designs that worked for buggies wouldn't work for cars. Instead of being supported on four strong legs, the motive power is put in the carriage, increasing the load on the suspension and wheels.
Clarke states that: "Corporations thus faced a choice between acquiring the knowledge needed to design a safe product and exercising power in the market to impose the costs of defects on consumers...." and argues that they opted to impose the costs on consumers.
From the Petroski perspective, there was no realistic choice--in order to learn, the car manufacturers had to try and fail. In a theoretical world, they could have spent 20 years in the lab, testing the strength of materials. But in the real world, they relied on the early adopters to pioneer the systems needed for the car culture, the gas pumps, the better roads, the parts and service (remember the Jeff Bridges character in Seabiscuit). (Maybe, to males, the possibility of failure and accidents is an incentive?)
As I skimmed Clarke, there seemed a parallel to the world of PC's in 1975-95: lots of experimentation, lots of bugs, "never buy version 1.0 of anything", Bill Gates and his untested software. Just read your software licenses to see what rights you have as a consumer. What we end up with represents a compromise.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
City Dwellers Plow Money Into Farmland
According to the LA Times outside investors are buying farmland, hiring professional farm managers to manage the land, who in turn hire "farmers" to do the work. The "farmers" don't call the shots nor take the risk.
It's part of a larger trend, first seen in hybrid seed production (not sure when it started) for the risk to move away from the person getting his/her hands dirty. The seed companies had to prescribe very tight conditions to the growers to get quality seed, so in turn they assumed much of the risk. Poultry (beginning in the 50's) and now hogs are part of vertical integration, where a company contracts with a grower for x number of (birds/eggs/hogs). Part of this is reducing the number of decision makers in an industry so there's less of a free market and less volatility, therefore less risk. It's the rationalization of an industry, perhaps much like old John D. Rockefeller did with oil in the original Standard Oil trust.
The investment in land also reminds me of the land boom in the 1970's. As they said then, God isn't making any more land. But it's also true that the boom went bust in the 1980's with lots of heart ache for many people. It doesn't sound as if it's gotten to the bubble stage yet, but the professoriate does say that one of the effects of farm programs is to increase land value--land owners capitalize the programs I think is their terminology. It would be ironic if Bush in the next farm bill and the WTO negotiations achieves cuts that also trigger a severe drop in land prices.
It's part of a larger trend, first seen in hybrid seed production (not sure when it started) for the risk to move away from the person getting his/her hands dirty. The seed companies had to prescribe very tight conditions to the growers to get quality seed, so in turn they assumed much of the risk. Poultry (beginning in the 50's) and now hogs are part of vertical integration, where a company contracts with a grower for x number of (birds/eggs/hogs). Part of this is reducing the number of decision makers in an industry so there's less of a free market and less volatility, therefore less risk. It's the rationalization of an industry, perhaps much like old John D. Rockefeller did with oil in the original Standard Oil trust.
The investment in land also reminds me of the land boom in the 1970's. As they said then, God isn't making any more land. But it's also true that the boom went bust in the 1980's with lots of heart ache for many people. It doesn't sound as if it's gotten to the bubble stage yet, but the professoriate does say that one of the effects of farm programs is to increase land value--land owners capitalize the programs I think is their terminology. It would be ironic if Bush in the next farm bill and the WTO negotiations achieves cuts that also trigger a severe drop in land prices.
Friday, February 18, 2005
Cotton versus Grapes, NYTimes Farm Subsidy
Michael Egan has an interesting article including this:
It's a good article, comparing cotton and grape producers, and pointing out the possibility that, if subsidies were ended, land now devoted to cotton might be used for other crops.
But, there's always a but. Historically (i.e., New Deal) crops subject to the farm programs were those with large acreages, broadly distributed (hence able to attract broad political support) and storable. Grains and fibers, tobacco, peanuts are all storable. Fruits and vegetables are not. The basic economics of agriculture (which include the inelastic demand curve and the large number of farmers compared to the small number of buyers, which makes prices volatile and leads in a free market to surpluses) work particularly when the commodity is storable. A surplus one year gets stored, which means prices are likely to be lower next year, which means that farmers will expand their production to get the same return, and the expanded production further increase the storage. Fruits and vegetables are not stable, just look at the price of grapefruit last fall after the hurricanes. Some of their economics are the same as for the staple crops (inelastic demand, price taking instead of price making) but it depends on the crop--annuals versus perennials in particular. The New Deal adopted different measures for different crops, Section 32 support for potatoes, marketing agreements for many fruits, etc.
The threat of the cotton producer to invade the fruit and vegetable market is half real. The fine print of the Freedom to Farm Act of 1996, which supposedly freed grain and cotton producers to produce anything, included a provision to protect fruit and vegetable growers. So the growers fear the threat. It's only half real because land, equipment, markets and expertise aren't fully interchangeable.
As for the subsidies that grape growers don't get, it all depends on the meaning of the word "subsidy". If it means a government check, that's one thing. Although I remember our making disaster payments to raisin growers in the mid 80's. (If if rains on grapes drying in the sun, is that a natural disaster? Bureaucrats worry about such things.) Grape growers do profit from "indirect subsidies", such as Federally subsidized crop insurance, and research on grape varieties and diseases (592 hits on the Agricultural Research Service site.) Typically the NYTimes, particularly its editorial page, includes indirect subsidies when they attack world spending on agriculture.
"most other farmers here [California--Central Valley] in the nation's leading agriculture state who grow fruits, nuts and vegetables - nearly half of all American crops - generally get little or nothing from the government, because they have been viewed as self-sustaining.
But growers of wheat, corn, cotton, rice, soybeans - the big commodity crops in the world market - received the bulk of more than $130 billion given to farmers in the last nine years, a record. The rationale for the payments has been to keep domestic agriculture, or at least one segment of it, stable and competitive."
It's a good article, comparing cotton and grape producers, and pointing out the possibility that, if subsidies were ended, land now devoted to cotton might be used for other crops.
But, there's always a but. Historically (i.e., New Deal) crops subject to the farm programs were those with large acreages, broadly distributed (hence able to attract broad political support) and storable. Grains and fibers, tobacco, peanuts are all storable. Fruits and vegetables are not. The basic economics of agriculture (which include the inelastic demand curve and the large number of farmers compared to the small number of buyers, which makes prices volatile and leads in a free market to surpluses) work particularly when the commodity is storable. A surplus one year gets stored, which means prices are likely to be lower next year, which means that farmers will expand their production to get the same return, and the expanded production further increase the storage. Fruits and vegetables are not stable, just look at the price of grapefruit last fall after the hurricanes. Some of their economics are the same as for the staple crops (inelastic demand, price taking instead of price making) but it depends on the crop--annuals versus perennials in particular. The New Deal adopted different measures for different crops, Section 32 support for potatoes, marketing agreements for many fruits, etc.
The threat of the cotton producer to invade the fruit and vegetable market is half real. The fine print of the Freedom to Farm Act of 1996, which supposedly freed grain and cotton producers to produce anything, included a provision to protect fruit and vegetable growers. So the growers fear the threat. It's only half real because land, equipment, markets and expertise aren't fully interchangeable.
As for the subsidies that grape growers don't get, it all depends on the meaning of the word "subsidy". If it means a government check, that's one thing. Although I remember our making disaster payments to raisin growers in the mid 80's. (If if rains on grapes drying in the sun, is that a natural disaster? Bureaucrats worry about such things.) Grape growers do profit from "indirect subsidies", such as Federally subsidized crop insurance, and research on grape varieties and diseases (592 hits on the Agricultural Research Service site.) Typically the NYTimes, particularly its editorial page, includes indirect subsidies when they attack world spending on agriculture.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
African -American Museum on Mall--Proposal
I've a modest proposal--take over the USDA Administration Building at the corner of 14th and Independence. The location is the best of any, being higher than the 14th and Constitution. I'm no architectural critic, but the Administration building is IMHO more impressive than the Arts and Industries building. Agriculture is the only department to have offices between Constitution and Independence. It would have a symbolic message as well, given both the historic connection of agriculture and blacks and more specifically the extensive litigation between black farmers and USDA. We could view it as symbolic reparations. As for any problems with USDA, the department is currently renovating the South Building on the south side of Independence, so plans could be changed to provide suitable space for the Secretary. (The northwest corner of the 6th floor has a great view of the White House and Mall, so the Secretary would still have prime real estate.)
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Second Thoughts about Working the Dark Side
Right after 9/11, Vice President Cheney talked about having to "work the dark side", to collaborate with unsavory characters in order to combat Al Qaeda. Given the temper of the times, he had no critics that were heard. We Americans were all in the heat of revenge, ready to commit to anything.
Today's New York Times carries an article suggesting that the CIA now feels a lack of support for long term retention of detainees and for interrogation practices that may border on torture.
This is a classic case of how bureaucracies work, which is how humans work: A flush of emotion and the politicians create a new initiative. (Actually, in this case, the CIA may have reverted back to the derringdo days of William Casey or Allen Dulles.) The cautions that may have been offered by bureaucrats and lawyers in the CIA who remembered the pain of past Congressional investigations were overriden. Compare this to the flush of a new love, which may override the cautions of conscience or counselors.
But as time goes by, the people involved in the effort are subject to other influences. Practical concerns that may have been ignored initially (what do you do with a terrorist after you've gotten all his information?) come to the fore, values that were forgotten and self-images that are precious (Americans are humane, not torturers, we give to tsunami victims, we don't waterboard) revive. The media that once egged on the initiative (consider what would have happened if our Vice President on September 20, 2001 had said it's more important to follow the rule of law than to get bin Laden) now find stories in the faults of the initiative. Compare this to the remorse suffered by someone who couldn't cope with the results of the initial decision.
Bureaucrats are sometimes the voice of reason, but they're sometimes the dead hand of the past.
Today's New York Times carries an article suggesting that the CIA now feels a lack of support for long term retention of detainees and for interrogation practices that may border on torture.
This is a classic case of how bureaucracies work, which is how humans work: A flush of emotion and the politicians create a new initiative. (Actually, in this case, the CIA may have reverted back to the derringdo days of William Casey or Allen Dulles.) The cautions that may have been offered by bureaucrats and lawyers in the CIA who remembered the pain of past Congressional investigations were overriden. Compare this to the flush of a new love, which may override the cautions of conscience or counselors.
But as time goes by, the people involved in the effort are subject to other influences. Practical concerns that may have been ignored initially (what do you do with a terrorist after you've gotten all his information?) come to the fore, values that were forgotten and self-images that are precious (Americans are humane, not torturers, we give to tsunami victims, we don't waterboard) revive. The media that once egged on the initiative (consider what would have happened if our Vice President on September 20, 2001 had said it's more important to follow the rule of law than to get bin Laden) now find stories in the faults of the initiative. Compare this to the remorse suffered by someone who couldn't cope with the results of the initial decision.
Bureaucrats are sometimes the voice of reason, but they're sometimes the dead hand of the past.
Monday, February 14, 2005
The Sieve of Love
Three interesting articles on love Sunday and Monday, all of which touch on the fact that people are marrying later and later.
1 Here in the Post magazine a Washington Post editor describes the "Rules of Engagement" imposed in the very businesslike marriage counseling sessions in the suburban church she and her fiance belong to. Very realistic, very strict (almost like Bob Jones University rules for dating) and very different from the 1 day session my wife and I had in the Catholic Church 20+ years ago. The church appears to be one of the growing nondenominational evangelical churches that seem so common these days.
2 Here in the NY Times magazine is an article on three different modern matchmakers, two doing it for money. All seem to be working in the professional classes, professors, lawyers, stockbrokers and such. (One charges $20K for her services.!) They seem to function as screeners, winnowing out the unsuitable, nudging along the process, convincing people to be realistic and not unrealistically choosy.
3 Finally, William Raspberry, a columnist I like very much, in today's Post discusses the decline of romance on the Duke campus, where he's teaching. Dating is out, "hooking up" is in. I thought the key was in this quote: "Several young women said -- sadly, I thought -- that they don't really expect to find their future husbands in such encounters [hooking up]. They see it, they told me, as a college thing, a phase. Grad school is soon enough to start taking relationships seriously."
I think that's the key, with the emphasis on degrees and success, people don't plan to find their spouse in college, but after college. That means they have the world to choose from, but narrowing down the choices is hard, there's no convenient way to sieve the grain from the chaff. (See the Paradox of Choice, a book I mean to read, for discussion of problems resulting from having too many choices.) Some may do it by joining churches, others may invest in dating services, or if they have lots of money, a matchmaker.
1 Here in the Post magazine a Washington Post editor describes the "Rules of Engagement" imposed in the very businesslike marriage counseling sessions in the suburban church she and her fiance belong to. Very realistic, very strict (almost like Bob Jones University rules for dating) and very different from the 1 day session my wife and I had in the Catholic Church 20+ years ago. The church appears to be one of the growing nondenominational evangelical churches that seem so common these days.
2 Here in the NY Times magazine is an article on three different modern matchmakers, two doing it for money. All seem to be working in the professional classes, professors, lawyers, stockbrokers and such. (One charges $20K for her services.!) They seem to function as screeners, winnowing out the unsuitable, nudging along the process, convincing people to be realistic and not unrealistically choosy.
3 Finally, William Raspberry, a columnist I like very much, in today's Post discusses the decline of romance on the Duke campus, where he's teaching. Dating is out, "hooking up" is in. I thought the key was in this quote: "Several young women said -- sadly, I thought -- that they don't really expect to find their future husbands in such encounters [hooking up]. They see it, they told me, as a college thing, a phase. Grad school is soon enough to start taking relationships seriously."
I think that's the key, with the emphasis on degrees and success, people don't plan to find their spouse in college, but after college. That means they have the world to choose from, but narrowing down the choices is hard, there's no convenient way to sieve the grain from the chaff. (See the Paradox of Choice, a book I mean to read, for discussion of problems resulting from having too many choices.) Some may do it by joining churches, others may invest in dating services, or if they have lots of money, a matchmaker.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
A Question of Type
To a bureaucrat, Richard Clarke's Jan. 25, 2001 Memo to Condi: is interesting on a couple of points.
First is evidence of scrambling to get the ear of the new administration, using any opening available. That's standard. It fits one picture of Clarke, as someone sharp, with sharp elbows, who pushes his position and himself. It's not clear from the press reports, nor from the fast read I gave his book, whether he's the stereotypical staff person, skilled in holding meetings and coordination, or someone who can get something done. (Note my biases--I view myself as the latter, not the former, though I held a hell of a lot of coordination meetings. The problem with coordination is that you end up dealing with human inertia, which leads to the second point.)
Second is that the memo is monospaced type, not proportional space. This is an obsession of mine. The tipoff that Rathergate's documents were forged was the fact that they were proportional spaced, rather than the monospacing typical of typewriters and most early word processors. It took the laser printer to make proportional spacing really feasible. So it's been 15 years or so--why is Clarke still using monospacing? (Proportional spacing not only looks better, it's more efficient, readers comprehend text in well designed fonts faster and better.) Answer: inertia. And the lack of competition to trigger a change.
First is evidence of scrambling to get the ear of the new administration, using any opening available. That's standard. It fits one picture of Clarke, as someone sharp, with sharp elbows, who pushes his position and himself. It's not clear from the press reports, nor from the fast read I gave his book, whether he's the stereotypical staff person, skilled in holding meetings and coordination, or someone who can get something done. (Note my biases--I view myself as the latter, not the former, though I held a hell of a lot of coordination meetings. The problem with coordination is that you end up dealing with human inertia, which leads to the second point.)
Second is that the memo is monospaced type, not proportional space. This is an obsession of mine. The tipoff that Rathergate's documents were forged was the fact that they were proportional spaced, rather than the monospacing typical of typewriters and most early word processors. It took the laser printer to make proportional spacing really feasible. So it's been 15 years or so--why is Clarke still using monospacing? (Proportional spacing not only looks better, it's more efficient, readers comprehend text in well designed fonts faster and better.) Answer: inertia. And the lack of competition to trigger a change.
The Burden of the Past
USAID in 1999 was still using all caps and Courier 10 according to this excerpt from their on-line instruction manual:
OFDA Cable Course: "
All caps dates back to the days of the teletype. A Teletype model 33 could just handle all caps, using a 64 character sub set of ASCII. (That was the printer used for the first PC's, back before they were PC's.) Going to lower case doubled your memory requirement. As a result, some think that God spoke in all caps. Courier and Elite were the two popular mono-spaced type faces used on all typewriters before the advent of the IBM Selectric with its golf ball font element. With all the characters on the ball, you could change type faces easily, though they still had to be monospaced. Monospacing was also key to easy OCR (by the mid-60's, we had OCR that worked with special type faces. From the excerpt, it sounds as if State used OCR on their incoming cables. Of course, between 1965 and 1999 there's been 34 years of advance in OCR, so there's no excuse to using Courier 10 these days.
Why does it matter? Tests have proved that typeface design makes a significant difference in reader comprehension and the visual appeal of the printed copy. Maybe if Dean Rusk and McNamara hadn't been forced to read Courier 10, we never would have made the commitments in Vietnam that we did.
OFDA Cable Course: "
What are all the fields at the top of the cable? Why are all-caps used when writing a cable?
The cable is composed of two general areas: the 'header' and the 'content' areas. The header contains all the addressing information (for action and information), as well as information about who generated the cable, who authorized the cable to be sent, who was included on the cable's distribution, when and from where it was sent. Because of the relative antiquity of the cabling system, all-caps are used as a convention- the cable processing system is programmed to recognize these characters. For the same reason, cables must be written using Courier 10 font only. The State Department is working on a more updated system of cable generation and transmission, though this is still some time distant."
All caps dates back to the days of the teletype. A Teletype model 33 could just handle all caps, using a 64 character sub set of ASCII. (That was the printer used for the first PC's, back before they were PC's.) Going to lower case doubled your memory requirement. As a result, some think that God spoke in all caps. Courier and Elite were the two popular mono-spaced type faces used on all typewriters before the advent of the IBM Selectric with its golf ball font element. With all the characters on the ball, you could change type faces easily, though they still had to be monospaced. Monospacing was also key to easy OCR (by the mid-60's, we had OCR that worked with special type faces. From the excerpt, it sounds as if State used OCR on their incoming cables. Of course, between 1965 and 1999 there's been 34 years of advance in OCR, so there's no excuse to using Courier 10 these days.
Why does it matter? Tests have proved that typeface design makes a significant difference in reader comprehension and the visual appeal of the printed copy. Maybe if Dean Rusk and McNamara hadn't been forced to read Courier 10, we never would have made the commitments in Vietnam that we did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)