DARPA + Makers + School = the Future of Innovation 70
PerlJedi writes "The future of innovation in America is the Maker movement. A new project being announced on the Makezine blog aims to bring low cost innovation and alternative manufacturing processes to schools in hopes of turbo-charging the next generation of inventors in the U.S. From the announcement: 'The new Makerspace program, developed by Dale Dougherty of MAKE and Dr. Saul Griffith of Otherlab, will integrate online tools for design and collaboration with low-cost options for physical workspaces where students may access educational support to gain practical hands-on experience with new technologies and innovative processes to design and build projects. The program has a goal of reaching 1000 high schools over four years, starting with a pilot program of 10 high schools in California during the 2012-2013 school year.'"
Fixing the wrong problem. (Score:2, Insightful)
It doesn't matter how well educated and motivated Americans are for making things. As long as there is cheap trade with countries with more sane intellectual property laws and/or poor labor regulations, the USA cannot compete.
It is not a knowledge problem, it is a legal one.
Re:Fixing the wrong problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is incorrect. You honestly think most people on slashdot are unemployed? They're mostly very well paid IT people and engineers with a dash of everything else. There is an extraordinary difference in the productivity of the average skilled American worker and the average unskilled Chinese worker.(unskilled Americans and skilled Chinese left out of the equation now). It is on the order of a hundred times as much. Pretending like a lack of technical skills is valueless is no way to address problems in an economy where unskilled and non-technically skilled people represent the vast majority of the unemployed. Your gloom-and-doom assertions have no basis in fact, and betray a bizarre Luddite attitude that seems contrary to the techy nature of slashdot.
It's just weird.
Re: (Score:2)
They're mostly very well paid IT people and engineers with a dash of everything else. There is an extraordinary difference in the productivity of the average skilled American worker and the average unskilled Chinese worker.
So you are saying that a good education is important?
Re: (Score:3)
And how many folks end up with jobs in IT versus those that tried but got discouraged by the low pay early on and competition from H-1B visa holders that were imported to artificially depress wages?
Re:Fixing the wrong problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
I work with numerous H1-B coworkers. They are good people, on the whole and not deserving of contempt from just being foreign. On top of that, I am well payed in spite of whatever depressing effect they have.
What you're forgetting is that when you hire H1-B, you're bringing talent and skill into the U.S. and increasing the health of the U.S. economy. Moreover, they're paying the same rent/food/electricity/transportation/tax costs every other person living in the U.S. is too. The real risk H1-B poses to the U.S. is not "taking our jobs" as the very low unemployment in those fields indicates, but rather that we send these workers home after their visa expires, and lose all the knowledge they brought with them and gained during their employment.
It only "artificially" depresses wages if you consider their existence artificial. Personally, I'd be happier with a clear path to citizenship for H1-B workers.
Re:Fixing the wrong problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
What about the talent that's already here? It made sense for us to snag Einstein, von Braun and all those amazing European minds before, during and after WWII because they were so exceptional. But, by bringing in people on H-1B visas to fill jobs that could be filled by ordinary IT workers all you're doing is creating a dependence on foreign laborers to get the work done. It's very much the same sort of thing as why food shipments to starving countries are only a stop gap measure. Long term you provide a disincentive to self sufficiency.
Yes, those folks aren't bad people, but what you're failing to take into account is the folks that gave up and retrained before the economy went in the gutter and the number of positions which don't exist any more as companies cut back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You know how much it costs to file H1B, do you? I mean including lawyer fees and everything. You also understand that the personnel you train at your expense on your processes, is going to leave you as soon as 5 years from now, not because they dislike the company, but because their visa will expire without a remedy. It is stringently difficult to get a job on H1 status, because you end up costing more than a citizen, all in all factored in.
Re: (Score:3)
You cannot compete with slave labor.
The USAry is going to have to eventually make a decision:
1) Race to the bottom where you have super cheap crap being made, by people that make $10 an hour.
If you want to live and compete like FOXCONN employees, then thats great. We can put dorms and nets outside the buildings so people don't jump to their deaths in despair and misery working in such conditions.
Isn't that iGreat?!
2) Or Add to the equation, not just Free Markets, but Fair Trade. That means when you manuf
Re:Fixing the wrong problem. (Score:5, Interesting)
There are so many things wrong with this comment that I don't know where to start. I'm 90% sure it's a troll, but I'll bite anyway:
The problem is that we live in a society where everyone expects success to be handed to them. In the U.S., the poorest of the poor have a standard of living that outshines the majority of the rest of the world. We're all taught to get straight A's through high school, get a four-year degree while amassing crushing amounts of debt, and then after that we'll be able to land a job with a six figure salary and join a union that will keep us from getting fired no matter how little work we actualy do. When that doesn't happen, we complain that the government isn't creating enough jobs for us and then sit back to enjoy nice free unemployment checks while waiting for an opportunity to fall in our lap. What. The. Fuck.
When (not if) China supercedes the U.S. as the new world superpower in the next decade or two, I sincerely hope my fellow Americans will get off their butts and realize that we need to *work* to maintain our standard of living and our place in the world. Even if it's unpleasant, even if it's not what we really want to do at the moment. Otherwise, I fear that I'm going to live to see the fall of the U.S. democracy. Given our history of foreign policy, I'm certain that the rest of the world will celebrate it much as we celebrated the fall of the Soviet Union.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Bump. Someone sprinkle modpoints above.
The current philosophy that China will over take the US in technology improvements or economically is based on non-sense from the media and fear mongers. *gasp* The fact of the matter is that there is such disparity in the Chinese economy they will soon be feeling the sobering effects of the rash growth and self-valuing yuan [businessweek.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Parent really deserves modpoints.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got none of that yet. I've got no degree (yet), no training, and no certs (also no debt though, woo!) - largely because I can't really afford the $300 a pop. I'd just like to work in some sort of office environment, even something like data entry, but I can't seem to get hired for the life of me. The days of talking with the manager and him giving you a two-week trial are over. Now you have to pass personality tests and sit through 45 minutes of radio buttons just to have your application probably dump
Re: (Score:1)
In the U.S., the poorest of the poor have a standard of living that outshines the majority of the rest of the world
Where on earth did you get that idea? Yes, the poor in first-world countries may be better off than the poor in third-world countries, but living in the streets/alleys/etc of New York isn't going to be much/any better than many other countries.
Re: (Score:2)
When (not if) China supercedes the U.S. as the new world superpower in the next decade or two, I sincerely hope my fellow Americans will get off their butts and realize that we need to *work* to maintain our standard of living and our place in the world. Even if it's unpleasant, even if it's not what we really want to do at the moment. Otherwise, I fear that I'm going to live to see the fall of the U.S. democracy. Given our history of foreign policy, I'm certain that the rest of the world will celebrate it much as we celebrated the fall of the Soviet Union.
You don't really think China is going to let that happen, do you? China's power brokers have been refining their techniques of control since the Qin unified China 2200 years ago. They are not going to abandon their current (successful) economic strategy against the US. You don't let a potential enemy redevelop an industrial base after you've spent several decades destroying it by flooding their their economy with inexpensive goods. Once they've killed off the industrial base, they will leverage all the
TFS makes me think of 2 things: (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Cory Doctorow. It wasn't his best book, but wasn't too bad either, and did give one food for thought. Almost required reading for this topic; it's available at your local bookstore, or for free at BoingBoing.
2. What good is being an inventor when a patent is practically impossible for someone who isn't filthy rich to obtain and defend? The rich not only have priveleges you don't, they have rights you don't. Actually, this is one of the subthemes of the aformentioned book.
If I had the money to obtain a patent, I'd have several by now. The patent system is in serious need of reform.
Re:TFS makes me think of 2 things: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are within the reach of individuals
I'm right at the median income, and I couldn't afford to get one (and you're certainly right about not being able to defend one even if I could get one).
Re: (Score:2)
I loved some other books from Cory Doctorow, but I honestly thought this one was not worth the... oh well, it was free, so I cannot complain. But I would not really recommend it. I thought that the only thing interesting about the book was its setting - otherwise, it's just quite a boring story, w
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, it certainly wasn't his best.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why the whole "open source" movement is a great equalizer. If you got an innovation but no money, publish the heck out of it, which makes it ineligible for patenting. (Well, in the US you get a year, but most places the act of publishing
We first used CAD in middle school.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Other labs we had included building a model rocket, learning a few LOGO commands and creating a picture, learning not to be afraid of the guts of a PC (this is a slot! and it can hold add-in cards!), flying a space shuttle simulator, etc. This was 1994 - the labs today can probably include a lot more advanced things. This technology class replaced our shop class, though, so we lost the chance to learn to use buzz saws safely.
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously envy your neighborhood. I see too many places where the model rockets would be dismissed as "weapons" and/or "too dangerous". Don't even get me started on the laser or things like chemistry labs. Computer programming? You're teaching them to hax my AOLZ!
No wonder why education in this country is in the shitter. -.-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
insert links to dumb nerd-fag discussions. get a fucking life, retards.
LOL! Does that post seem in any way ironic to you?
No? I thought not.
So what does this mean? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So what does this mean? (Score:5, Informative)
"Makers" are apparently people who have built 3D printers and think that this is the be-all and end-all of manufacturing technology.
Sure, the fact that you can build one for $100 now is pretty neat. However, CAD/CAM was in vogue back when I was in high school. It indeed has changed the world, but not because anytime somebody wants a widget they take 3 hours to have some laser mill carve it out of steel.
3D printers, and CAM in general are great for prototyping, but they're not going to make a dent in the cost of finished goods. Right now maker bots can only make 99 cent plastic toys - which some guy in China can already make for two cents, and which probably costs $1.50 in materials to make using a 3D printer. If you want to make new gears for your bike then you're going to need something capable of cutting through hard steel, and that isn't going to be $50 and made out of plastic. About the only thing you'd save making such things yourself is any patent rights for the design, and those aren't much compared to manufacturing costs.
About the only thing manufacture-at-home is likely to be cost-effective at is counterfeiting currency - since its value is almost entirely fiat. I saw a neat documentary about some guy who was doing just that with casino chips. The neat thing about it was that when they finally traced him they couldn't arrest him since he lived in a state that didn't have legalized gambling and forging casino chips was consequently not considered a crime. He wasn't using 3d printers though - this was serious die-pressing equipment/etc.
Re:So what does this mean? (Score:4, Informative)
3D printers, and CAM in general are great for prototyping, but they're not going to make a dent in the cost of finished goods.
I beg to differ. While it is true that 3D printing cannot hold a candle to the efficiency of bulk injection molding, it is already bringing down the prices of other types of products. For example, I am involved with the design of a robotic mechanism that had lots of tiny, hard-to-machine parts and needed lots of assembly time. With 3D printing, we could basically print half the parts pre-assembled in shapes that would be physically impossible to either machine or mold (blind holes, internal cavities, crazy angles and contours, etc). The resulting drop in machine and assembly time cut the cost by a factor of ten, even when produced in quantity. Plus, since we don't have to order parts in batches, we can afford to offer them at a lower price while order volume is low.
3D printers are also revolutionizing the replacement-part industry for cars, aircraft, and antiques. High-quality, high-strength parts can be made by printing steel or titanium, and also by coating plastic parts with metal. True, they won't replace your bike sprocket or drive shaft, but they can do a lot more than 99 cent plastic toys.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like this argument kind of misses the point. First, 3D printers (of the makerbot variety, as well as more traditional/expensive machines) have both come down drastically in price and improved drastically in quality in the last few years. The same goes for CNC milling equipment (and computing, and printing, etc.). No, they aren't appropriate for making a million widgets to be sold at 2 cents/piece, but they're perfectly appropriate for teaching people how to design things.
A huge segment of the populat
Re: (Score:3)
> 3D printers, and CAM in general are great for prototyping, but they're
> not going to make a dent in the cost of finished goods. Right now maker
> bots can only make 99 cent plastic toys - which some guy in China can
> already make for two cents, and which probably costs $1.50 in materials
> to make using a 3D printer.
I care about not wasting things. I can't wait until the day comes that it's affordable for me to make little plastic doodads to replace broken bits of plastic in toys and devices.
Roll yer own... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I built a CnC machine (Computer controlled milling machine) It's a hoot.
[Citation needed].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnc [wikipedia.org]
Oh man?! (Score:2)
I'm going back to school. I gots robbed!
Missing a vital step: (Score:2)
Innovation cannot be low cost (Score:5, Funny)
In U.S and, increasingly elsewhere, patents are a threat to any would-be innovator, whether in high-school, or at a university lab, or in private industry.
If DARPA really wants to enable innovation, it should pay for each high school to have a team of 20 patent lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that patent lawyers almost universally support patents and inventors almost universally do not, surely if DARPA wants invention then it should do the opposite and encourage everyone towards being an inventor instead of a patent lawyer.
Just so long as we don't go to... (Score:1)
Cheap, Mafia-made makers.
They tend to get all screwed up on cyber-drugs.
I am rather thoughtful... (Score:2)
Maker program (Score:1)
Maker sounds like an interesting program. 150 plus years ago most young men became an apprentice and gained skills that last them a life time. Maybe we should repeal some compulsory education laws so that teenagers could have the option of being an apprentice.
This is extremely suspicious... (Score:2)
Something tells me the end result of this is the US military as the global copyright police for physical objects.
Re: (Score:2)
Until laws change and they can buy in complex sub systems from low wage areas of the world they still need the US "classified" or like paperwork.
If a drone drops on to US suburbia "It was a Soviet era SAM..." may not stop the local press from asking more questions.
So the US needs skilled workers but expect to see a lot imported form "friendly" cheaper places.
Why DARPA? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DARPA has a mandate to ensure the US military has access to the latest technology. If the US is not producing that technology then the US military will probably not have access to it.
Same as they have an interest that the US can buy computers made from entirely US made parts with a supply chain they can verify.
Get out there and make it happen (Score:2)
Pro Make Rant (Score:2)
Educating kids is THE long term solution for damn near all the problems that plague humanity.
RANT TIME!
Make. It's a culture thing. A lash-back against rampant consumerism. The buy, use, break, replace, cycle that expects everything to be expendable. Up to and including the workforce. We're in this race to the bottom of price but that comes bundled with long-term cost. A sort of DRM for products. When a tool from company X isn't compatible with the product from company Y, it u
Don't drink and derive... (Score:2)
no Commen on this artical (Score:1)