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

Wed Mar 16 19:34:37 UTC 2011

What about people who want to be proud of their hard-earned electronics and
computer skills who are not hobbyists but people who are working full-time
developing projects for market?

mediumreality.com
On Mar 16, 2011 12:17 PM, "erik swedberg" <erik_swedberg at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> your use of the word hacker to describe people who do stuff with
electronics and
> software is itself a co-opting of the term that used to have to do with
breaking
> into systems (for fun, learning, or malice) and phreaking - the
connotation
> includes a healthy dose of subversion - think war games, or guys in trench
coats
> meeting in shopping mall food courts with well-worn vinge and brunner
paperbacks
> in their pockets.
>
> it sometimes befuddles me that lots of people seem to have forgotten the
> history. think of all the awesome scientists and engineers who worked on
> electronics and software from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s - sweet
dudes with
> beards (and all these folks:
> http://www.luckham.org/LHL.Bell%20Labs%20Days.html): bell labs, the guys
who
> wrote unix and its variants, the programmers for the atari 2600 games,
woz, ham
> radio operators, the dudes who invented the transistor
> (http://www.corp.att.com/history/milestone_1947b.html), the guys who made
the
> first video games using oscilloscopes - none of these folks were then
called
> hackers, whereas now they would all qualify under our current definition.
>
> and the word is changing again, to be more inclusive of those not engaged
in the
> dark arts. for the modern people who want a badge to be proud of their
> hard-earned electronics and computer skills, i propose a new word:
hobbyist.
>
>
>
>
>
> -erik
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Evan Bangham <ebangham at gmail.com>
> To: rachel lyra hospodar <rachel at mediumreality.com>
> Cc: noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Sent: Wed, March 16, 2011 1:53:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] [drama] My Hair Is On Fire - Current
events
> that are shaping your rights as we speak
>
> 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.
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110316/18f0acb4/attachment-0003.html>