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

[Brian Morris]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:17 PM, erik swedberg <erik_swedberg at yahoo.com>wrote:

>
>
> it sometimes befuddles me that lots of people seem to have forgotten the
> history.
>
> IIRC RMS always called himself a hacker, and did much to promote the idea
of good hacker vs cracker hacker. I still vote for him as the #1 all time
hacker.





> i propose a new word: hobbyist.
>
> I hate that word. More than I hate the word "programmer".

Yet it appears to me there are a lot of hobbyist activities going on at NB.
Well everyone has to start somewhere. BTW classes are not hacking either.

hackers have gurus not teachers.



>
>
>
> -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.
>> >
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110316/ba706a4b/attachment-0003.html>