[Noisebridge-discuss] [drama] My Hair Is On Fire - Current events that are shaping your rights as we speak

[jim]

    this is really lucid. i'm still thinking, (for 
whatever that's worth). 


On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 01:53 -0700, Evan Bangham wrote:
> I'm glad you asked. I'm afraid that I've done some thinking and I'm
> going to be back peddling from some of my previous statements.
> 
> Allow me to posit, if I may, that Noisebridge is a community that is
> made up of both makers and hackers.
> 
> Lets define hacking using these words using some of the verbiage we've
> previously laid out in the thread.
> 
> Hacking:
> "To attempt to solve a problem by artfully applying skills and tools
> in or closely related to the areas of computer programing or circuit
> design without reference to a plan or instructions." I don't think
> many would argue that it was people in software that started using the
> word in relation to writing software before it started to
> linguistically crawl its way into other circles.
> 
> Maker:
>  If you use this same definition as hacker and remove the reference to
> computer programming and circuits you have the word 'maker'. Makers a
> la Make magazine, make stuff using tools in a skillful manor without
> reference to instructions much as hackers do. The only difference is
> that making is not using code or circuits and is thus not considered
> hacking. Making can involve anything from sewing and crafts to
> designing and building bicycles.
> 
> By my definition of the words hacking and making, the building of
> robots for instance, is not hacking, but is in fact, a combination of
> making and hacking. Those that build robots could be either makers or
> hackers, or both. Building various components of a robot could, if
> involving software and electronics be considered hacking. For example,
> if I'm writing a quick and dirty piece of software to enable the robot
> to track some object using a camera, I'm hacking. If I'm building a
> robot arm using a metal shop, I'm no longer hacking, I'm making. 
> 
> In consideration of our robot example, one could come to the
> conclusion that it's natural for the definition of hacking to be
> intertwined with things that have historically, not been considered
> hacking. Clearly this fact does not suddenly make the words synonymous
> just because the skills are used in concert with each other. Any
> broadening of the definition of hacking to suddenly include all forms
> of making are simply an appeal to some sort of linguistic relativism.
> 
> My motives for starting this discussion is that we hackers have spent
> time and sacrifice learning our craft. All those nights in front of
> the keyboard, staring at the glowing screen or heads buried in books,
> learning gate logic and object oriented design patterns take their
> toll on the body and spirit. From society at large we are in some
> cases scorned and alienated.  Given these sacrifices, we wear the our
> badge of hacker with pride, that is pride in our ability to make (or
> break) cool shit with electronics and software as our reward.
> 
> Now we have a situation where non hacker activists see that we apply
> our specially honed skills in technology evermore in the capacity to
> fight against government and corporation's attacks on our freedoms.
> They see that because we are outcasts that we are beholden to no one
> but our selves and are own free ideas. This leads the non hacker
> activists to think "hey man, that's hip, thats cool, these people
> fight the power in such a creative and awesome way!" "I want in on
> that piece of pie and become an individualist hacker like those other
> guys!" so they appropriate our word and our institutions for their own
> means to help cheerlead and message for their own non hacking related
> ideas and groups.
> 
> Hackers and makers love political involvement and we have groups like
> the EFF doing our bidding, so it makes sense to have groups inside
> noisebridge  that specialize in politicking(for lack of a better
> word).  Its when people start calling the act civic engagement hacking
> that a line has been crossed. Its at this point that the word has been
> misappropriated and the effect of this miss appropriation of the word
> hacker, is to minimize the importance of the skills that we sacrificed
> our time and sanity for. 
> 
> This swindling of our brand disempowers us and our community. In my
> conversation with various hackers in noisebridge (Cobalt being one of
> them) I've been told that noisebridge's failure to dedicate itself to
> hackers and that its all inclusiveness, is limiting their involvement
> at noisebridge. I'm not in complete agreement with that view, but when
> I'm hearing hackers aren't willing to come to noisebridge to start
> cool projects because people with the necessary skills to help them do
> so aren't available at noisebridge, partially due to non hackers and
> non makers infringing upon the space, making hackers feel unwelcome.
> This disappoints me greatly.
> 
> Noisebridge is a community of makers and hackers, but they are not one
> and the same. Noisebridge embraces makers and hackers equally and
> rightfully so because both are a means to making cool shit that
> requires a wide range of skills to produce. Makers can directly help
> hackers and vice versa. Hackers need food to survive just like anyone
> else, lets have some cooking classes, both hackers and makers benefit,
> great! Hackers like beer, let's make some beer, awesome! Makers like
> making stuff out of wood and metal, hackers like coding and circuits,
> lets make some robots.
> 
> Its when we have a breakdown of the partnership between makers and
> hackers that there is friction. Let's say some makers start hosting
> classes like "hacking yoga". Oh wait, that's already happening isn't
> it? It would be all good if there were coders or electrical
> engineering types in the class, but if I had to bet, it would be that
> they are very much in the minority in that class. Now that we've got
> makers, non makers and non hackers using the label of hacking for a
> yoga class that hackers do not benefit from, naturally this makes the
> hackers pissed off.
> 
> This is why people who do code and circuits get pissed off when the
> see the word hacker used so loosely. I hope this lets people better
> understand the situation at a kind of sociological level at least.
> This is not just some pet peeve, it is very real and its effects can't
> be positive for the community at noisebridge.
> 
> 
> Fuck I should start a new project "Hacking Noisebridge"
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 6:30 PM, rachel lyra hospodar
> <rachel at mediumreality.com> wrote:
>         
>         What does it mean, to hack?
>         
>         Is sewing hacking?  garments are a technological system we use
>         to
>         regulate temperature.  I use a machine to modify them,
>         creatively and in
>         contravention of established norms.
>         
>         If yes, what about other dimensional art forms?  i just used a
>         table saw
>         on plywood, is that hacking?  Plywood is a highly engineered
>         material.
>         Is this only hacking if i use it as a truss, so that its
>         properties are
>         called on to distribute force?  what if i use it for its
>         unnatural flatness?
>         
>         if no, what about if i sew a circuitboard into a garment?  is
>         it only
>         hacking when there is conductive thread in my machine?  what
>         about when
>         i am sewing an insulation layer?
>         
>         Stop saying what isn't and define what is!
>         
>         On 3/14/2011 11:36 PM, Evan Bangham wrote:
>         > Politics|Cooking|Art|Writing != Hacking
>         >
>         > Yes, hacking can involve creativity and breaking established
>         norms, but you
>         > can't just use it as a blanket term to describe doing
>         anything that involves
>         > these things.
>         >
>         <snip>
>         >
>         > The slow food hacking thing I suppose enters the realm of
>         hacking to a
>         > limited extent because it is using chemistry and the like,
>         and I imagine is
>         > subversive in some way. I could say the same about
>         photography and the like
>         > as long as it breaking the established norms of the medium
>         and is harnessing
>         > technology in some way. Traditional fine art however, can
>         never be 'hacked'
>         > because it is just so far removed from the realm of anything
>         related to
>         > technology or science.
>         >
>         > I think in many senses I'm being far to accommodating for
>         these expanded
>         > definitions of the term as it is though.
>         >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss