Mitch Altman Parts Ways With Maker Fair Over DARPA Grant 169
SWroclawski writes "Well known hacker and hackerspace advocate Mitch Altman has decided to temporarily part ways with Maker Faire over their involvement with DARPA (as reported on Twitter and Facebook). This public parting of ways raises the question of what role government, especially the military, should play in working alongside hackers and educators."
People should be free, but only on your terms? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the problem with most activists. They're all for freedom, just as long as people only use that freedom to agree with them. He wants Maker Faire to accept sponsors, of course, but only those that fit into *his* ideals.
And I bet this guy would go ballistic if someone dared try to tell him what he can and can't build or invent. But now that he's confronted with the possibility of people using *their* freedom to build stuff that *he* doesn't like (for a sponsor that doesn't fit in with *his* vision), suddenly he wants to take his ball and go home.
Also, last time I checked, Maker Faire wasn't forcing anyone to build anything. If you don't want to build stuff with military applications, then you know what--JUST DON'T!
Re:People should be free, but only on your terms? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Stupid activists. It's almost like this guy thinks he's also free to do what he chooses. How dare he leave based on his principles!
OK, fine. If he's really principled, he can go straight home and unplug his Internet (ahem, "ARPAnet") connection.
While he's at it, since he seems to disapprove of anything with military involvement or as a result of military research, he needs to shut his computer down for good, as computing as we know it came from military research in mechanical computing for the Army. Oh, and anything with an integrated circuit (also a result of military research... by Wehrmacht and RAF scientists, to boot) needs to go t
Re:People should be free, but only on your terms? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and don't forgot that America wouldn't exist if not for its military, so he should pack his bags and move to the arctic.
Hey look, I can create logical fallacies too!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:People should be free, but only on your terms? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
isn't that exactly what Mitch Altman has decided to do?
Well, that and throw a public hissy-fit and abandon the organization that's doing more to encourage invention and hackerspaces than any other group out there. It's not like anyone was stopping him from speaking his mind and encouraging people to build stuff more inline with his ideals. Instead, he elected to storm off like a petulant Eric Cartman crying "If you're not going to do it *MY* way, then screw you guys!"
Re: (Score:2)
Further, to throw his public hissy-fit over the internet, which was the first invented and funded by DARPA [wikipedia.org] seems rather ironic. Why didn't he take out an ad in the New York Times.
An amazing number of DARPA projects [wikipedia.org] end up as a wash for the military, but have wide applicability to civilian use, from TOR, to Driverless cars.
Re: (Score:3)
What form of expression would be acceptable to tell people that you're not working with somebody, and for what reason? Or is it important to keep this information confidential?
Or in other words, he has done pretty much exactly what you have done: expressed an opinion online. Why is what you are saying now not some sort of "hissy fit" about how somebody you don't even know disagrees with what you think? You certainly seem to be using stronger, more strongly opinonated language than Mitch Altman.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like he has to do anything with the grant money.
Also, one of the responses on Twitter made an excellent point - without DARPA, there would likely not be an Internet, without the Internet, DIYers and "independent" innovators wouldn't be where they are today.
I say "independent" because without the sharing of information on the Internet, many of today's innovators would be nowhere compared to where they are now.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the US Army is the Great Satan. If only they handn't been around for WWII - the world would be such a better place, don't you think?
Besides the nitwit hatred of the US military, the more general problem is refusing to further *shared values* with people who have other values that conflict with yours. We can all join cults of 10 people and refuse to deal with anyone whose values contradict our own, not matter how much we both might benefit. That's sure to make the world a better place too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This guy is the inventor of the TV-B-Gone, which is a surprisingly Fascist device for turning off TVs in public space. Were you watching that? Oh, sorry, I won't let you. Even though it's not my TV.
Jeez, what an asshole. It's a hissy-fit turned into technology.
(I don't own a TV, and hate TVs in public spaces, but forcing other people in public to abide by my arbitrary opinions is a dick move.)
Re:People should be free, but only on your terms? (Score:5, Insightful)
an organization who's sole purpose is the destruction of life.
That is not, and has never been, even a *primary* purpose of DARPA, much less its sole purpose.
See, it's that kind of hyperbole and silly absolutism that seems to ruin every decent goddamned movement. The Occupy movement was a great example. Started out as a perfectly reasonable movement with legitimate complaints with potentially broad appeal. But five minutes later, here come the assholes in Che Guevara t-shirts calling for the overthrow of capitalism, and BAM--it turns into yet another go-nowhere fringe movement almost overnight. And that's a real shame.
Re: (Score:2)
Try being a patent attorney and coming to slashdot every now and then. ;-P
Re: (Score:2)
You damn well know the technology is meant to facilitate military activities primarily.
I did not know that.
We should all go back to before we picked up and threw rocks.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Says the AC on the DARPA created internet...
Re:People should be free, but only on your terms? (Score:5, Insightful)
"His way" is to not help support an organization who's sole purpose is the destruction of life. An organization who is controlled by sociopaths bent on economic domination.
I think the pathetic thing here is the level of paranoia and mistrust towards DARPA, the military, and the government in general.
After all, "sole purpose is the destruction of life" != "The overarching objective of MENTOR is to develop and motivate a next generation cadre of system designers and manufacturing innovators by exposing them to the principles of foundry-style digital manufacturing through modern prize-based design challenges."
DARPA sponsors some great stuff. They're supplying a big chunk of much needed research funding in these difficult years. A lot of it, like this specific grant, is NOT specifically tailored towards a military application. They're trying to encourage young people to become interested in engineering... justifying it as in our national interest (which it undoubtedly is).
I don't see the military going off and doing crap on their own for their own purposes. They're still quite controlled by civilian authority. It was Bush's biases and prejudgements that led us into Iraq. While I'm sure there's a significant level of defense industry lobbying on our government leaders, they're hardly controlled by it.
The vast majority of the people that make up the military are really good people. Step outside your echo chamber sometime, it's not quite as dark outside as you think it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree on the budgetary fault thing. In a better world, basic research would stand on it's own merits and be funded appropriately.
However, we appear to live in a world of ignorant perceptions. The perception is that NASA is up to 20% of the federal budget, and a sadly common thought is "why spend on rockets when there are staving people here on Earth?"
As you say, it is quite hard for most politicians to cut the military... although they have and will actually cut it from time to time. It appears to be cy
Re: (Score:2)
Congress is getting VERY stingy.
I think less generous is a better term when the budget is still best measured in parts of trillions.
As someone who has had to say goodbye to numerous friends due to the fact that the only major employers of engineers in my area are defense contractors . . .
Dude, I trust they're not dead right, you mean to say fired yes? Otherwise, we may be focused on the wrong story. :D
-GiH
Re:People should be free, but only on your terms? (Score:5, Insightful)
*cough*ARPANET*cough*
Re: (Score:2)
Oh where are the mod points today...
Re: (Score:3)
What a pathetic analysis.
"His way" is to not help support an organization who's sole purpose is the destruction of life. An organization who is controlled by sociopaths bent on economic domination.
I wish Smedley Butler rose from his grave to kick your sycophantic ass.
And yet, you seem quite happy to use the Internet. Please make sure stop using GPS to show your displeasure for DARPA's missions and all outcomes thereof.
Re: (Score:2)
Your analysis is hardly better. What he has really done is to abandon Maker Faire -- a neat thing and definitely not dedicated to destruction of life -- which accepted money from DARPA whose sole purpose is also actually not the destruction of life -- unless you think perhaps they plan to travel space to kill life forms elsewhere [talkingpointsmemo.com]. And actually, he is still supporting DARPA because his tax dollars go there.
His outrage, however nobly intended, does nothing to hurt DARPA at all and instead is a blow to Maker
Re: (Score:3)
The existance of civilian technologies based on military ones does not factor in. DARPA is first and foremost about giving our military the greatest military edge that it can.
An idealist scientist could invent a brilliant AI that could fly a plane by itself with 99.99999% safety. DARPA would take that AI and put it in a missile. The fact that it could (and is) used for something good does not in any way take away from the fact that it's primary purpose is to exert force over others and kill whomever we deem
Re: (Score:2)
The existance of civilian technologies based on military ones does not factor in.
Go ahead and pick your arbitrary philosophical cutoff point and keep living your blind existence. What you fail to realize is that technology almost always flows the other way. People who are fat and happy and peaceful have little motivation to create ground-breaking technologies. You're like someone who eats meat and, denying that meat comes from animals, calls oneself a vegetarian.
Re:People should be free, but only on your terms? (Score:4, Insightful)
He should also boycott the internet because of its association with DARPA project.
Re: (Score:2)
If he wants to maintain his distance from the military to the point where he can't be involved with an organization that the military is also involved with, then he is doing what is right for him.
It doesn't raise any questions that haven't been asked and answered a million times before, however.
Re: (Score:2)
So tell him to get off the Internet, stop using GPS, Microwave ovens, and just about everything else that makes life easy.
He is not standing up for his principals At least not in most other areas of his life. He is really just throwing a fit and going home.
So he can have fun sitting at home and bitching about DARPA while using tons of stuff that we only have because of them..
Re: (Score:2)
No.
He gets to decide where his line is, you and I have no standing to do so.
If that makes you uncomfortable, then that's your problem, not his.
Re: (Score:2)
His line is that the very fact that DARPA gives any money to the organization that they must be abandoned.
Hackerspace is doing nothing wrong. His problem is that there is some funding from DARPA coming in.
If that is his line then he needs to get off the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
His participation, his choice.
If he wanted to walk out from Maker Faire because they chose a blue logo but he wanted green it would be just as valid.
He may be a hypocrite for singling out his interaction with DARPA in one area only, but that is his right also.
The fact is that most people only act on their principles when it is convenient for them, which is why the ones who actually go out of their way to consistently act on their principles are so noteworthy.
His action, and his hypocrisy, are not particular
Re:People should be free, but only on your terms? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the government offers you money to do what you were going to do anyway, you should take it.
If you don't, they'll surely spend it on something you really are opposed to.
Re: (Score:2)
You: Uh, thanks.
DARPA: Here have some money.
You: Cool!
Two Weeks Later:
DARPA: Say about that marble shooter, do you think you could set that up so that instead of marbles it shoots 1/2" steel ball bearings and up the velocity to 1800 m/s and a rate of 700 bearings per minute?
You: Umm hmm.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, it's crazy for them to dislike something they find unacceptable. They even have the nerve to leave institutions that do stuff they don't like!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah! He should also boycott the Internet which is based on research by DARPA! Nothing good comes from defense research!
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that OP doesn't find acceptable that he left because they allowed a sponsor linked to Defense and the Military. I said it's hardly reprehensible that he exercises his good conscience and choose to step aside if he doesn't agree with the money source. You said that they are not so bad because DARPA kickstarted the Internet, but it's irrelevant since they still do research with military applications. After all, DARPA had Project AGILE [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
It's true that the Altman deserves props for sticking to his principles. And technically speaking, I did not say that 'DARPA is not so bad'. What I did mean to do is point out that Altman and you and I all benefit from the fruits of defense research and must own and live with this fact -- or boycott the Internet (and all those other goodies) too. Why stop at the maker faire? Why not boycott everything that has come from war spending? As long as we are stick to principles, we might as well go whole-hog!
I'
Re: (Score:3)
The point is that OP doesn't find acceptable that he left because they allowed a sponsor linked to Defense and the Military. I said it's hardly reprehensible that he exercises his good conscience and choose to step aside if he doesn't agree with the money source. You said that they are not so bad because DARPA kickstarted the Internet, but it's irrelevant since they still do research with military applications. After all, DARPA had Project AGILE [wikipedia.org].
It is also reprehensible to walk away from a project that has the potential to kindle kids's interest in science simply because DARPA chose to fund it. Is he also going to stop having any relationship with breast cancer research (should he had one) because DARPA funds said research (which it does)? Furthermore, where is the moral moral objection of using the Internet and GPS, DARPA inventions that facilitates military operations as well as civilian ones? If DARPA decides to fund research for a new Malaria v
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In summary, you can't claim to dissasociate yourself completely from DARPA while being more than willing to use DARPA's technology to proclaim such dissasociation, not unless you are ok with hypocrisy.
Ah. Absolutes. So religious. Much like the furor over someone exercising their right to not be involved. The individualists here let you do what you please, as long as you do as they do.
So basically you replied with a slogan rather than actually provide a counterargument to the statement in bold above. Bravo. No one is telling you or anyone to not exercise your freedom of speech and association rights. But the exercise of said rights does not provide immunity of hypocrisy (or stupidity) to the exercise of said rights. You have the right to be a hypocrite or an idiot. Nobody is going to stop you from doing so, but so do people have a right to call you a hypocrite or an idiot when you choose
a brief tour of freedom in the 20th century (Score:3)
1. electricity becomes widespread, generators invented, hydropower, lights, medical devices, car batteries, etc.
1.a. governments immediately use electricity to torture and execute prisoners, employ it in the holocaust, etc.
2. nuclear physics pushes back our understanding of reality, and discovering that E=>mc*c
2.a. governments immediately use nuclear weapons to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians, cause countless cases of cancer, and start an arms race that , on several occasions, comes within a fe
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have principals of your own or do you just complain about other people's?
Yeah, and one of them is that, when I'm faced with people who disagree with me or a decision that doesn't go my way, I don't throw a temper tantrum and run home crying.
Where do you Think the Internet CAME FROM! (Score:2, Informative)
The internet was originally called ARPANET! Arpa was the precursor to Darpa. With out government backing the internet would not exist as we know it!
Move on Nothing to see here!
Re:Where do you Think the Internet CAME FROM! (Score:4, Funny)
The internet was originally called ARPANET! Arpa was the precursor to Darpa. With out government backing the internet would not exist as we know it!
Move on Nothing to see here!
No, I'm pretty sure Al Gore invented it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but don't ignore the fact that the Al Gore robot program was originally funded by DARPA.
Hey, talk about a drone! That guy practically invented the concept! (Thank you, I'll be here all week! Try the veal!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the internet came from various places. Yes there was ARPANET that formed the majority of it. The UK formed JANET in parallel. A lot of the packet switched network concepts came from the UK too. Like all of these developments. There's no one source. When something comes of age it comes of age. I suspect if ARPA hadn't been there something else would have arrived and we'd still have the internet. It would just be subtly different.
Take their self righteous ass off the internet too (Score:5, Insightful)
They should take their self righteous ass off of the the Internet too. Darpa has funded many, many things that have gone on to serve the public good.
Re: (Score:3)
Or to put it another way, instead of being self-righteous about DARPA, maybe he should be glad they're joining up with hackers instead of finding new ways to kill impoverished people in 3rd world nations?
Re:Take their self righteous ass off the internet (Score:4, Insightful)
What do you think DARPA is interested in all this stuff for? Shits and giggles?
Re:Take their self righteous ass off the internet (Score:4, Informative)
It's DARPA, quite probably the one sub-branch of the US military which has actually improved the human condition. I could list all the research that DARPA has supported over the years, but I suspect I'd be wasting my breath (or fingers as the case may be).
Re: (Score:2)
The point is he is not shunning those things. Just this one. It is hypocritical.
Re: (Score:2)
DARPA was founded after Sputnik. Their mission is 'creating and preventing strategic surprise'.
Something Sputnik certainly provided.
This particular grant funds makerspaces in high schools. Obviously this is something with broad benefits if you think technology is overall a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then why doesn't DARPA sponsor chilli cook-offs or drag racing? Seems to be mostly this hacking stuff with a big emphasis on object recognition and autonomous/unmanned vehicles...
Re: (Score:2)
Most soldiers I know can quite that refrain from memory, even though we are prohibited from doing anything about it. Even the
Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
"This public parting of ways raises the question of what role government, especially the military, should play in working alongside hackers and educators"
Not a particularly good question, however. The government should play whatever role it can, so long as it's not a hindrance. After all, without DARPA where would we be today?
Re: (Score:1)
it's unfortunate that research funding for CS in the US is only politically justifiable if its attached to a potential military
application.
but thats just the way it is here. moral issues aside I just wish it wasn't so silly to rephrase all your problem statements
in terms of the 'warfighter' and express things in cheesy quad charts with weapons platform clip art on them
Re: (Score:2)
After all, without DARPA where would we be today?
Arguing in the editorials page of the local newspaper?
Re: (Score:2)
'zines man. Millions and millions of 'zines!
Re: (Score:2)
Fairly obvious... (Score:1)
Since the Hackers (or Hacktivists) and Makers are the only serious threat, with the tools and means to challenge established order in case of mass uprising against our society surrendering everything to the Banker-Kings, it is only natural for the military to take "interest" in these communities...
I'm wondering why (Score:2)
I can imagine there might be good and bad reasons to part ways, and I'm wondering if he's explained himself somewhere.
If the DARPA involvement is just to encourage cleverness and the sciences, I don't think he has a leg to stand on (or his principles are WAY different than mine), but if DARPA is having the kids build specific technologies being used for military applications, it might be worth parting ways over it.
Re: (Score:3)
From what I gather, it was one of those generic DARPA "We want to encourage the engineers of the future!" grants that they hand out for PR more than anything.
Re:I'm wondering why (Score:4, Insightful)
If the DARPA involvement is just to encourage cleverness and the sciences, I don't think he has a leg to stand on (or his principles are WAY different than mine), but if DARPA is having the kids build specific technologies being used for military applications, it might be worth parting ways over it.
At best they want to encourage science education so that maybe they'll have more scientists to choose from to build the weapons of tomorrow. At worst they're staging robotics competitions with obvious and only thinly-veiled combat applications. If you watch videos of these things it's not too unusual to see military brass walking among the competitors in full dress uniform, so the competitors obviously don't give a shit what they're contributing to.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that at-best/at-worst thing is what I'm getting at. Something as generic as better science education is broadly awesome, and avoiding a sponsor (provided they're not a demanding sponsor) for that is pretty dumb. The at-worst concern is worth thinking about though, as would be potential "cultural rot" caused by accepting aid for now and possibly needing to pull back from it later should it head over to type-2.
And nothing of value was lost. (Score:1)
So one guy doesn't show up. That's fine. DARPA will get his ideas anyways if they go global.
Meanwhile, by funding science, unlike the rest of the government (hi Congress), DARPA might make technology more accessible for kids that might otherwise not see it.
Oblig. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Id like to congratulate you on using the full version of the quote with appropriate paraphrasing throughout.
Oh, the Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
And in a move of supreme irony, he is glady leaving to support Chinese Hackerspaces:
Here's a clue, kiddo - try to find anything of significance in China that doesnt have involvement from the People's Liberation Army. But you got no problem supporting that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was ironic that he used the Internet to announce it. And even cited the Internet as one of the things that (D)ARPA perpetrated for its evil goals.
Taking a look at the project that raised his hackles it looks like it's diverting funding from the military to education. Not sure I can find too much fault with that.
Well that's fine then, boycott the internet (Score:4, Interesting)
Please by all means boycott all civilian technology every developed out of the military such as THE INTERNET.
Re:Well that's fine then, boycott the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
People just don't realize that the path of technology is almost ALWAYS military -> business -> consumer. Wars have resulted in tremendous advances in techology. The bigger the war, the greater the advances. Some examples of military technology now used for consumer applications:
* computers
* computer networking
* cellular phone technology
* jet airplanes (even prop planes too - the Wright brothers worked for the military in WWI)
* rockets, space travel (perhaps not consumer-level yet but SOON)
* nuclear technology
Nothing -- and I mean NOTHING -- quite gets the mind racing to invent like contemplation of one's one mortality or enslavement.
I support the guy's right to boycott anything he likes over principles and sort of admire it too, but I kind of hold it against him at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
You forget trauma medicine.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally. I hadn't forgotten, we just unsure how to phrase it amid all the peevish typing I was doing. Couldn't think of any specific examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Red Cross is always a good example. And Florence Nightengale in the Crimean war.
Vietnam and Korea brought us air med evac as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of medevac - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nmcakF-NaI [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You can add jet aircraft, computer, GPS, radio networks, the US Interstates, etc.
As to interstates being alternate airfields that has been debunked but many were designed to transport troops from bases across the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! The world is black or it's write. There's no middle ground. If there's the slightest taint of... um... taint, then it's all tainted and as we all know, no one wants to be hanging around tainted taint.
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously, if anything they should have been more cooperative and helpful. DARPA has all the cool toys. Not to mention they can help you do cool things you cant do otherwise. Rockets, lasers, etc.
And if it doesn't work out, hey, you're in. You now are in a position to affect change and make it run your way, or do max damage (if you so choose).
its the Libertarian thang again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Government Bad... Private Enterprise Good....
Its maybe time to put the failed beliefs aside. Private Enterprise has dug us all into a very neat hole, and separating it from Government is probably one of the few answers that holds any hope of saving this smoking hole that is the remains of our economy. On the other hand DARPA is one of the few things our government has gotten right. The list of truly cool things that DARPA has invested in is nothing less than impressive. We all enjoy the benefits of those things brought into existence as a function of DARPA investments.
Let's say DARPA invests in perfecting the Hammer, because a hammer can bang your enemy up real good. By the way those hammers are great at building houses, mining mineral, shaping metal and forgings, wood working, and sculpting artwork. So that one investment has huge social implications and tremendous collateral value. I worked with a company in 1997, that was lead by a small team of engineers fresh out of MIT. They had developed a processor with a hundred processing units on a three level network, which could be reconfigured to perform a vast variety of task (our use at the time however was signal processing, many simultaneous signal processors and CPUs existing in software operating on a single chip.) DARPA invested several million to help get the technology off the ground, and ultimately Broadcom bought the technology (Cisco had their fingers in it too.) Today's VOIP takeover is the result of that technology, and it would never have happened without DARPA seeing that this made many new interesting things possible (including a single chip synthetic aperture processor for high resolution imaging from directed radar emissions.)
I don't know if there is a Karmic debt for taking money from warriors. I'd prefer to look at the fruit the tree bears and judge it from what it contributes. In this case, DARPA has served us well, and is one of the few government organizations that I would welcome to any group of creators and inventors. This is a fine use of our tax dollars and is one area where government serves us well.
Re: (Score:2)
Other than a patriotic goal that my country win all wars it gets involved in, there's a great reason to develop better warfare technology: As technological asymmetry increases, the total number of deaths before surrender decreases.
Re: (Score:2)
Our current economic mess has equal blame in both the private and public sectors. For example, the ridiculous loan investment products tanked because financial institutions got lost in their own shiny mathematics, and a lot of the loans chopped into the mix were bad thanks to happy unicorn and ainbow government initiatives. This shit is so widely reported and readily available that it's one of the biggest mysteries of the human race why otherwise intelligent people cling to these binary points of view, and
Re: (Score:2)
Its maybe time to put the failed beliefs aside. Private Enterprise has dug us all into a very neat hole, and separating it from Government is probably one of the few answers that holds any hope of saving this smoking hole that is the remains of our economy.
Your first paragraph contradicts your title. Libertarianism is all about separating the government from private industry. Stuff like bail outs, government-granted monopolies, and hell, even the very existence of corporate charters are explicitly against the libertarian ideal that the government has strictly limited and delineated powers.
What you're railing against is closer to fascism - the merging of the state and industry. Of course, in America's case it looks like the merger is being accomplished by indu
Re: (Score:2)
Friend, a whore is a whore. Our government has been whoring for a very long time. The whole point to the checks and balances was to create an effective zero sum game pitting branches against one another and preventing any one branch from becoming too powerful. Since 1980, our government has been under attack by vested corporate interests bent on making the government a facade for promoting the wants and needs of corporations. As those corporations became multinational, those needs no longer included the wel
How can someone so smart, be so dumb? (Score:2)
But Mitch doesn't want to work with Darpa? Forget that without the interne
ask the same thing of Einstein, Sakharov, (Score:2)
etc. and if you dont know who those guys are, and havent read their writing, then maybe you shouldnt be calling other people 'dumb'.
Maker Faire is a flea market (Score:2)
I had an exhibit at Maker Faire once. I realized I was being used as free entertainment for a flea market. Haven't been there since. Maker Faire is a for-profit operation run by O'Reilly Media, whose main business is running overpriced conferences.
Boycott all ARPA and DARPA inventions! (Score:2)
Oh....wait...
responsibility (Score:2)
I am a scientist. I have a choice. When a government organization I don't like comes to me for help I can either
ensure that organization gets good advice or I can refuse to help and risk that they're going to get bad advice. If no one "good" agrees to help, we're collectively ensuring they get bad advice. This is OUR government, why would we want that?
For a moral scientist or engineer, the clear correct choice is to help the government make good decisions. "Help" may mean convincing the government NOT
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Physics obviously would continue to exist. Our understanding of physics would probably be close to the ancient greeks if you eliminated the contributions of over-privileged white* guys.
*I read " over-privileged white" as privileged male members of the dominant ethnic group of whatever region you are in.
So would the internet eventually exist: Possibly. Would it exist now: No.
Or is the "in an
Re: (Score:2)
I won't bother to address any of your points save the last:
If by "not sanctioned by" you mean "funded by", then you are correct. Public key cryptography was funded by the government and military.
Re: (Score:3)
I think a lot of people see it as misplaced self righteousness, maybe?
I'm reminded of a story in recent years about a family who was trying to live some sort of "sustainable" lifestyle or something, and they were all smug about it. They only bought locally grown food and rode bikes and the usual stuff. Meanwhile, they live in a nice home in a major city, and the parents were well paid professionals. The only reason their little experiment works is because everyone *else* is still doing the regular things in
Re: (Score:2)
I said it was a bad analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hear they aren't real Scotsmen, either.