Slashdot Mirror

theodp (442580) writes "Over at the Communications of the ACM, a new article — Computing's Narrow Focus May Hinder Women's Participation — suggests that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs should shoulder some of the blame for the dearth of women at Google, Facebook, Apple, Twitter and other tech companies. From the article: "Valerie Barr, chair of ACM's Council on Women in Computing (ACM-W), believes the retreat [of women from CS programs] was caused partly by the growth of personal computers. 'The students who graduated in 1984 were the last group to start college before there was personal computing. So if you were interested in bioinformatics, or computational economics, or quantitative anthropology, you really needed to be part of the computer science world. After personal computers, that wasn't true any more.'" So, does TIME's 1982 Machine of the Year deserve the bad rap? By the way, the ACM's Annual Report discusses its participation in an alliance which has helped convince Congress that there ought to be a federal law making CS a "core subject" for girls and boys: "Under the guidance of the Education Policy Committee, ACM continued its efforts to reshape the U.S. education system to see real computer science exist and count as a core graduation credit in U.S. high schools. Working with the CSTA, the National Center for Women and Information Technology, NSF, Microsoft, and Google, ACM helped launch a new public/private partnership under the leadership of Code.org to strengthen high school level computing courses, improve teacher training, engage states in bringing computer science into their core curriculum guidelines, and encourage more explicit federal recognition of computer science as a key discipline in STEM discussions.""

10 years ago today on this site, readers answered the question "Why is Java considered un-cool?" 10 years later, Java might not be hip, but it's certainly stuck around. (For slightly more than 10 years, it's been the basis of the Advanced Placement test for computer science, too, which means that lots of American students are exposed to Java as their first formally taught language.) And for most of that time, it's been (almost entirely) Free, open source software, despite some grumbling from Oracle. How do you see Java in 2014? Are the pessimists right?

10 years ago today on this site, readers answered the question "Why is Java considered un-cool?" 10 years later, Java might not be hip, but it's certainly stuck around. (For slightly more than 10 years, it's been the basis of the Advanced Placement test for computer science, too, which means that lots of American students are exposed to Java as their first formally taught language.) And for most of that time, it's been (almost entirely) Free, open source software, despite some grumbling from Oracle. How do you see Java in 2014? Are the pessimists right?

10 years ago today on this site, readers answered the question "Why is Java considered un-cool?" 10 years later, Java might not be hip, but it's certainly stuck around. (For slightly more than 10 years, it's been the basis of the Advanced Placement test for computer science, too, which means that lots of American students are exposed to Java as their first formally taught language.) And for most of that time, it's been (almost entirely) Free, open source software, despite some grumbling from Oracle. How do you see Java in 2014? Are the pessimists right?

Cult of Mac has taken a look at the three years since Tim Cook began his job as Apple's CEO, and rates him a "solid B." Cook might be neither as charismatic or volatile as Steve Jobs was, but he's made some interesting moves and statements. One factor (an area in which Cult of Mac gives Cook an A) is employee happiness, something for which Jobs was not always known: Cook’s highest “grade” on this hypothetical report card may come from Apple employees. Though the lanky 53-year-old is reportedly short on small talk, his people skills have earned him a 93 percent approval rating from a sampling of almost 2,000 people who work at Apple on website Glass Door, where anonymous employees can rate their satisfaction with the overall work environment as well as give thumbs up or down for the CEO.

The premise behind Coin is attractive: consolidate credit cards onto a single card-sized gadget. However, on Friday the company announced a delay in the release of its final version from this summer to spring of 2015, and in a way that angered many of the project's crowd-funding backers. The announcement of a delay was not only sudden, and quite close to the previously announced shipping date, but upset those who'd pre-ordered by outlining a confusing beta program that would involve an interim product release — recipients of the beta version (limited to 10,000) would have had to then pay $30 to upgrade to the final product. As CNET reports, the delay until 2015 remains, but with regard to that beta program, Coin has now reversed its stance. The beta program will be free -- meaning preorder customers who opt-in will no longer forfeit the $55 they paid and will still receive the finished Coin product next year. The program will also expand from 10,000 customers to 15,000. Regardless of whether your smartphone is running Apple's iOS or Google's Android operating system, preorder customers can opt-in to Coin's beta program through its app and will be eligible for a device if they fall within the 15,000-person threshold. The order is determined by when you bought your Coin. Coin customers, some who placed orders as far back as November 2013 when the startup first opened its website for preorders, were displeased not so much with the product delay as with the way Coin handled the situation. The company had, as recently as August 14, sent out an update explaining that a long-awaited shipping announcement would arrive at month's end --yet without an indication that it may miss its shipping target.

I am interested in a telescope for the use of some elementary and middle school aged relatives. Older and younger siblings, and parents, would no doubt get some scope time, too. Telescopes certainly come in a range of prices, from cheap to out of this world, and I am purely a duffer myself. But I enjoy looking at the moon and stars with magnification, and think they would, too. What I'm trying to find might be phrased like this: "the lowest priced scope that's reasonably robust, reasonably accurate, and reasonably usable for kids" -- meaning absolute precision is less important than a focus that is easy to set and doesn't drift. Simplicity in design beats tiny, ill-labeled parts or an incomprehensible manual, even if the complicated one might be slightly better when perfectly tuned. I'd be pleased if some of these kids decide to take up astronomy as a hobby, but don't have any strong expectation that will happen -- besides, if they really get into it, the research for a better one would be another fun project. That said, while I'm price sensitive, I'm not looking *only* at the price tag so much as seeking insight about the cluster of perceived sweet spots when it come to price / performance / personality. By "personality" I mean whether it's friendly, well documented, whether it comes intelligently packaged, whether it's a crapshoot as to whether a scope with the same model name will arrive in good shape, etc -- looking at online reviews, it seems many low-end scopes have a huge variance in reviews. What scopes would you would consider giving to an intelligent 3rd or 4th grader? As a starting point, Google has helped me find some interesting guides that list some scopes that sound reasonable, including a few under or near $100. (Here's one such set of suggestions.) What would you advise buying, from that list or otherwise? (There are some ideas that sound pretty good in this similar question from 2000, but I figure the state of the art has moved on.) I'm more interested in avoiding awful junk than I am expecting treasure: getting reasonable views of the moon is a good start, and getting at least some blurry rings around Saturn would be nice, too. Simply because they are so cheap, I'd like to know if anyone has impressions (worth it? pure junk?) of the Celestron FirstScope models, which are awfully tempting for under $50.

The eruption of the Bardarbunga volcano in central Iceland, which appeared a strong possibility after a series of earthquakes, is currently underway, beneath the ice of the Dyngjujokull glacier. The BBC reports that Iceland has raised its air travel alert to red, its higest level, but that for now all of Iceland's airports remain open. CNN notes that "the underground activity did not immediately result in changes to volcanic activity on the surface ... Because of a pressure from the glacier cap it is uncertain whether the eruption will stay sub-glacial or not, Iceland 2 TV said."

rtoz writes Google has just announced a new processor for Project Ara. The mobile Rockchip SoC will function as an applications processor, without requiring a bridge chip. A prototype of the phone with the Rockchip CPU, will be available early next year. Via Google+ post, Project Ara team Head Paul Eremenko says "We view this Rockchip processor as a trailblazer for our vision of a modular architecture where the processor is a node on a network with a single, universal interface -- free from also serving as the network hub for all of the mobile device's peripherals." (Project Ara is Google's effort to create an extensible, modular cellphone; last month we mentioned a custom version of Linux being developed for the project, too.)

rbrandis (735555) writes In a video announcement Thursday on Discovery Channel, MythBusters hosts Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman revealed that longtime co-hosts and fan favorites Kari Byron, Grant Imahara, and Tory Belleci are no longer on the show. "This next season we're going back to our origins with just Adam and me," Hyneman said in the video, which explained that the change took hold as of the season's last episode on August 21. (Our interview with the original-and-remaining Mythbusters is one of my favorites.)

jammag writes: A new trend has emerged where tech companies have realized that abusing users pays big. Examples include the highly publicized Comcast harassing service call, Facebook "experiments," Twitter timeline tinkering, rude Korean telecoms — tech is an area where the term "customer service" has an Orwellian slant. Isn't it time customer starting fleeing abusive tech outfits?

An anonymous reader writes: We've known for a while that NSA specifically targets Tor, because they want to disrupt one of the last remaining communication methods they aren't able to tap or demand access to. However, not everybody at the NSA is on board with this strategy. Tor developer Andrew Lewman says even as flaws in Tor are rooted out by the NSA and British counterpart GCHQ, other agents from the two organizations leak those flaws directly to the developers, so they can be fixed quickly. He said, "You have to think about the type of people who would be able to do this and have the expertise and time to read Tor source code from scratch for hours, for weeks, for months, and find and elucidate these super-subtle bugs or other things that they probably don't get to see in most commercial software." Lewman estimates the Tor Project receives these reports on a monthly basis. He also spoke about how a growing amount of users will affect Tor. He suggests a massive company like Google or Facebook will eventually have to take up the task of making Tor scale up to millions of users.

metasonix writes: As if the problems brought up during the recent 2014 Wikimania conference weren't enough, now Wikipedia is having an outright battle between its editor and administrator communities, especially on the German-language Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation, currently flush with cash from its donors, keeps trying to force flawed new software systems onto the editor community, who has repeatedly responded by disabling the software. This time, however, Foundation Deputy Director Erik Moeller had the bright idea to create a new level of page protection to prevent the new software from being disabled. "Superprotection" has resulted in an outright revolt on the German Wikipedia. There has been subsequent coverage in the German press, and people have issued demands that Moeller, one of Wikipedia's oldest insiders, be removed from his job. One English Wikipedia insider started a change.org petition demanding the removal of superprotection."

schwit1 writes: Managers of NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) are searching for a mission that they can propose and convince Congress to fund. "Once SLS is into the 2020s, the launch rate should see the rocket launching at least once per year, ramping up to a projected three times per year for the eventual Mars missions. However, the latter won’t be until the 2030s. With no missions manifested past the EM-2 flight, the undesirable question of just how 'slow' a launch rate would be viable for SLS and her workforce has now been asked." Meanwhile, two more Russian rocket engines were delivered yesterday, the first time that's happened since a Russian official threatened to cut off the supply. Another shipment of three engines is expected later this year. In Europe, Arianespace and the European Space Agency signed a contract today for the Ariane 5 rocket to launch 12 more of Europe’s Galileo GPS satellites on three launches. This situation really reminds me of the U.S. launch market in the 1990s, when Boeing and Lockheed Martin decided that, rather than compete with Russia and ESA for the launch market, they instead decided to rely entirely on U.S. government contracts, since those contracts didn’t really demand that they reduce their costs significantly to compete.

Today's videos are parts five and six of our casual interview with Tim O'Reilly, founder of O'Reilly Media and one of the most influential open source boosters around. (You supplied the questions. He supplied the answers.) We had a lot more to say about Tim Tuesday when we ran parts one and two of our video interview with him. Yesterday we ran parts three and four. (Today's alternate Video Links: Video 5 ~ Video 6.)

Today's videos are parts five and six of our casual interview with Tim O'Reilly, founder of O'Reilly Media and one of the most influential open source boosters around. (You supplied the questions. He supplied the answers.) We had a lot more to say about Tim Tuesday when we ran parts one and two of our video interview with him. Yesterday we ran parts three and four. (Today's alternate Video Links: Video 5 ~ Video 6.)

Today's videos are parts five and six of our casual interview with Tim O'Reilly, founder of O'Reilly Media and one of the most influential open source boosters around. (You supplied the questions. He supplied the answers.) We had a lot more to say about Tim Tuesday when we ran parts one and two of our video interview with him. Yesterday we ran parts three and four. (Today's alternate Video Links: Video 5 ~ Video 6.)

Today's videos are parts five and six of our casual interview with Tim O'Reilly, founder of O'Reilly Media and one of the most influential open source boosters around. (You supplied the questions. He supplied the answers.) We had a lot more to say about Tim Tuesday when we ran parts one and two of our video interview with him. Yesterday we ran parts three and four. (Today's alternate Video Links: Video 5 ~ Video 6.)

Today's videos are parts five and six of our casual interview with Tim O'Reilly, founder of O'Reilly Media and one of the most influential open source boosters around. (You supplied the questions. He supplied the answers.) We had a lot more to say about Tim Tuesday when we ran parts one and two of our video interview with him. Yesterday we ran parts three and four. (Today's alternate Video Links: Video 5 ~ Video 6.)

A while ago you had a chance to ask Andrew "bunnie" Huang about hardware, hacking and his open source hardware laptop Novena. Below you'll find his answers to those questions. Why "bunnie"?
by Anonymous Coward Seriously, that's the first question I have whenever I see his name. I just can't get past it. What's the story behind that nickname? Please tell me so I can focus on his good works instead.

bunnie: “bunnie” is a shortened version of my full nickname, which is “vorpal bunnie”. In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the vorpal bunnie is an innocuous-looking rabbit that would suddenly spring forth, decapitating King Arthur's knights with its sharp pointy teeth. It was also a mob in the Rogue clone “Moria”, and it had the interesting property of exponentially reproducing if you didn't kill it immediately. Whenever I ran into it, I would kite it around the dungeon until the level was overrun by vorpal bunnies.

It was around this time that I had to pick a handle for logging in to BBSes and I don't mean punbb, I mean the old 1200 baud dial-up jobs from the 80's. My friend helping me set up an account was probably just trolling when he recommended “vorpalbunnie” as a username, but lacking any other inspiration, I ran with it.

When I enrolled at MIT, it was 1992, and the Internet was still just a curiosity. I had to pick a logon for their computer system, Athena. I hated the generic-sounding default of “ahuang”, so I went with my BBS nickname. I had to shorten my username to bunnie because vorpalbunnie was too long – back then, usernames and passwords were often required to be less than eight to ten characters, rather than more.

Still, few people called me by bunnie, because well, the Internet wasn't very popular and aside from a messaging client called Zephyr, nobody saw my username. This all changed in 1998, when I was a TA for a required Computer Architecture class, and the professor in charge couldn't remember my actual name and he introduced me to about 300 students as “bunnie”. The name was unforgettable – nobody would remember Andrew once they had heard bunnie. I realized at this point I wasn't going to win against the nickname, and so I accepted my fate and henceforth adopted “bunnie” as my new identity.



Chinese industry
by Esteanil

What is the most important thing you wish you had learned earlier about manufacturing in China?

bunnie: Chinese. And how to use a squatting toilet.



Re:Chinese industry
by tchdab1

And speaking of learning, where have you learned things that you could not easily or ever have figured out on your own? Which environment or learning experience do you look back on with gratitude?

bunnie: This is an interesting question. There's a lot of things I couldn't have learned on my own. I don't think I could have taught myself physics; there is in fact a place for classroom learning. I don't want to overemphasize the value of textbooks, but a certain amount of textbook study is necessary, particularly in the hardware world, and having teachers who can explain difficult concepts to you through simple analogies and/or who take the time to understand what you're missing and give you the clues you need is important. Hardware is based upon physical principles and having a solid foundational knowledge of physics will help tie everything together.

That being said, book learning alone won't get you all the way there. There's a lot of practical hands-on knowledge that is not taught in classrooms but I have acquired through many mentors. Generally, I like to surround myself with people who are smarter than I am; you learn a lot just by observing the methods and manners of these people. Subjects like how to debug circuits, running manufacturing operations, how to manage people, how to negotiate, and how to hack are not easily figured out on your own. I like to watch people do these things, and learn from their techniques.

I think the key thing about the environment is that the transfer of knowledge really only happens in a situation where things are “being done”. In other words, you don't learn much from conferences, presentations, or lectures on these topics. I always find it a bit of an irony when I'm asked to lecture on things like manufacturing or hacking. When you can sit shoulder to shoulder with another engineer and watch them problem solve, that’s when you can really see their thought process. You can see all the failures they go through, and the twisting path they take to finally arrive at the answer. In a lecture or presentation, there tends to be a focus only on presenting the problem and the solution, but none of the intermediate failures. Those intermediate failures contain very valuable lessons, which is why hands-on learning is so important.

I'd say my “real” learning began in my PhD program, where you only had to take the courses you really needed to understand your research, and you could skip all the fluff. Also, in that environment, you got to sit with a bunch of peers who are all struggling with difficult questions, and you share notes about how you fail every week, and trade suggestions on how to improve; and you have the wisdom of a thesis advisor who can help guide you when you're really lost. The nice thing about starting my “real life” in the PhD program is that it was an environment where I could take huge risks, fail, and the only consequence is I'm set back on my graduation date. Once you step into a startup, you're burning capital and you're working to a deadline; you become much more risk-averse. That's probably the biggest difference I see between people who went straight to industry vs. graduate school: folks in industry are great at execution, but tend to stay with what they know. Folks who went to graduate school can be unreliable and late for deadlines, but they also tend to take more intellectual risk.



How do you become a professional hardware hacker
by werepants

What advice would you give to a person who wanted to make a living in the "Maker" tradition - being able to spend your days designing, engineering, and building on technically interesting and creative maker projects? I'm most interested in the career aspect, assuming that you've already obtained a preliminary education: would you look for a job with a similarly minded engineering firm, launch a kickstarter, start a hackerspace, hack together some things and try to sell them through a webstore, work as a freelance engineer, or something else entirely?

bunnie: Hardware hacking is a lifestyle. You sort of end up living in it – unlike software people, where all your code is stored in the cloud and all you need to perform is a laptop, hardware people accumulate boxes and boxes of parts, and need a lab full of equipment to get their work done. Novena is an attempt at consolidating some of that into a portable form factor but I'm never going to be able to give up a work bench equipped with a good Tektronix scope and a soldering iron.

Previously, I thought there were two career options in life: either go corporate, or go startup. There's a third path that's not often talked about – the “lifestyle business.” VCs and corporates ridicule this option, because its goal is to make enough money for you to sustain a lifestyle, but doesn't have a “future” – it won't scale to a billion dollars, it won't be acquired by a big company, and it probably won't ever IPO. This does not mean, however, that you have to live on instant ramen and bother your parents every year for money. Lifestyle businesses can grow to million-plus per year turnover businesses, and the margins can be quite good; so when you run the math, your net cash flow can be better than a corporate day job.

The key to starting a lifestyle business is to find a problem that someone has, and to solve it. This sounds really simple, but in fact in today's world of mass-manufactured solutions, what you find is you have cheap solutions that get you 90% of the way there, but few people have 100% solutions to their most pressing needs – and that last 10% is where all the difficulties lie.

A first-order test for whether you've found a genuine solution to a real problem is how much someone would pay for your solution. If someone has a real problem and they really need it solved immediately, and you can convince them you're going to actually solve it, the customer will typically pay a premium for that solution. I always wondered, for example, why there are equipment companies that can get away with selling specialty products that constitute not much more than a panel meter with an Arduino in a badly injection molded plastic case. Certainly, a multimeter can be a potent tool in the hands of someone with a degree in electrical engineering, but a measurement solution that you can hand to any untrained field worker and get correct, consistent results that you can rely upon is hard to come by. Compared to the cost of paying someone to drive out to the field and repeating measurements day after day, it's a steal to get a foolproof piece of kit for a few hundred bucks. In other words, it's not the value of the parts the customer is paying for – it's the value of getting it right the first time and every time after.

The biggest down side of a lifestyle business is that it's not consistent – typically you have one or two major clients, or your clients all concentrate in the same business area. This means your revenue can be highly unpredictable and your business will rise and sink with the macro-economic tides. Practically speaking, this means you need to stay debt-free – once you take on a mortgage or saddle yourself with a fancy car you bought with borrowed money, it's hard to accept the risk of running a lifestyle business. This is easier said than done; there is a lot of peer pressure to keep up with the Joneses, at least in America. One of the subtle benefits of living in Asia is the locals are cheap – the old money tends to understate their wealth and many millionaires ride the bus and eat regularly at the local food court to save a buck or two. It also doesn't hurt to to have a safety net of friends and family you can rely upon – knowing you can always call up your folks or having a sugar mama who can reliably cover rent during thin periods helps mitigate the risks of running a lifestyle business. Finally, it helps to take these risks before you have children, or simply decide to not have children at all – your priorities change once you have dependents who rely entirely upon you for their livelihood.



100% Open Hardware
by Anonymous Coward

At what point will we be seeing a 100% complete open hardware platforms, replaceable~ for modern OTS offerings? By that, I mean from silicon manufacture to FOSS binary. 100% open design, manufacture, and source code. I'd like to think this endeavour isn't more than a thought experiment.

Small Scale Chip Manufacturing?
by Cpt_Kirks

Where do you see small scale chip manufacturing, up to and including custom multi core CPU's, going in the near future?

bunnie: Combining these two questions into one answer.

There is a dirty secret about open software vs. open hardware. In open software, bits are virtually free to copy, store, and distribute. In contrast, for open hardware, atoms are all owned by someone or some organization; or if they aren't specifically owned (e.g., air, water, minerals in the ground), the access to said atoms are regulated by governments or warlords (in regions with no functioning government).

And thus, as you peel the onion of openness, you find yourself asking questions such as, “who owns this pick and place machine?” “who makes the lithographic stepper?” “how was this copper smelted?” “where did this tantalum come from?”. Why should F/OSS simply stop at silicon manufacture, after all? Or for that matter, why do people care so much about F/OSS chip manufacture, yet have no problem with the closed-source processes and machines being used to manufacture PCBs? At the end of the day, there's a fancy multi-million dollar tool that's being used to write the mask patterns for your IC or your PCB, and do you trust that to not have a back door? That machine also probably runs some flavor of Unix, or failing that, is probably loaded with GPL software that's not being used according to the license.

As a fun mental exercise, I looked into what it would take to make an MCU with the power of an Atmel AVR to replace the closed-source IC that's inside an Arduino. Currently, it seems you can design the Verilog hardware description, synthesize it, and lay out the logic using a fully open source tool chain (although you'll probably spend more time managing and fixing the design tools than you'll spend designing with them). However, you would still have to sign an NDA to get access to the process geometry files, and the EEPROM memory block is provided as a drop-in hard macro. As in, you don't get the source for the EEPROM, you simply leave an EEPROM-sized hole in your maskwork and the fab will slot in the respective polygons for you (there's a long list of plausibly legitimate reasons for why this is the case that I won't bore you with). So if you really wanted to insist that all the design source was open, you couldn't build something that could retain its program memory without power, which is kind of essential for a self-contained MCU like an Arduino.

And then, if you think through this exercise a bit further, even if I shared the high-level design source (Verilog, schematics, layouts) with the world, if users can't access the design rules for the fab process, they still can't practically modify the design; and even if they were okay to sign an NDA to get the process design rules, they'd still have to fork out tens of thousands of dollars to get samples made.

So at the end of the day, the idea of having a BSD-style “make universe” in hardware is tantamount to writing a manual for rebooting civilization from the ground up to the point of manufacturing silicon.

The open hardware community has struggled with this reality, and the best proposal I've heard to date is the concept of “layers of openness”. Hardware is built upon very strong and modular abstraction layers; it's not like software where you could, technically, reach around a virtual machine and tweak real machine parameters if you had to. Silicon is silicon, PCBs are PCBs, and although there are research projects to merge the two in practice there is a very bright and clear line dividing those two abstractions thanks to things like chemistry, physical laws and supply chain logistics.

While we never got as far as making iconographic labels for each layer of openness, there is an idea that well, it's sure better that the PCB design source is being shared than kept proprietary, even if the ICs are closed and the PCB manufacturing process is closed, and the design tool for the PCB is closed. So generally, the hardware community's consensus is that it's legit to say hardware is “open” if you're more open than the status quo; but in reality, if you look at the total amount of human design knowledge, capital investment, and manual labor that goes into making a piece of hardware, we're going to have to rely upon a complex web of suppliers and sub-contractors driven more strongly by issues such as cost management rather than openness for quite some time.

The good news is that as Moore's Law grinds to a halt, fab processes are becoming fully depreciated, dropping the up-front cost of doing a new IC design by orders of magnitude. This means an “open source” (at least at the level of HDL source code) CPU is probably just a couple years away. In fact, there is a team at the University of Cambridge that I'm advising that is making an honest run at building a usable open source CPU. I think their team has a great chance to meet their goal and I think it's definitely a step in a right direction. Their first run at it won't have the performance of top-notch mobile CPUs, but their current direction may include some very unique and meaningful architectural features that will set it apart from closed source alternatives when it comes to security and code reliability.



How was it growing up?
by haneefmubarak

How avid of a hacker were you when you were in high school and how supportive do you feel your friends and family were of your hobby?

bunnie: I started hacking – or rather tinkering – with electronics around the age of 8. By the time I was in high school I was a hopeless nerd (now that I think about it, I was a nerd before being a nerd was cool). High school was actually not too bad, because I went to a magnet school with other nerds, and my teachers and friends were very supportive.

The toughest times were in elementary and middle school. Kids that age have no concept of political correctness, and being both a meek nerd and the only Chinese boy in a midwest school set me up for a lot of bullying and ridicule. I had a couple of other outcast/nerd friends who I'd hang out with occasionally, but mostly, I just kept to myself. I'd just sit in the back of the cafeteria playing with my programmable calculator and reading datasheets (believe it or not, I would carry around as easy reading electronics catalogs and three-inch thick databooks published by Intel and other manufacturers). Most kids didn't even care to understand what I was looking at; they were more concerned if I could see through my squinty eyes and having fun flicking my large Asian earlobes so they would swell and become even bigger and more goofy looking. But being an outsider has its advantages; I was less constrained by the social pressure other kids felt, and overall I was having a lot of fun building hardware.

My parents were always extremely supportive and patient, and they often turned a blind eye toward things I would take apart but not quite get back together into its original fit and form. I think they were happy enough that their son would rather spend summer days in the basement hacking on the Apple II and reading volumes of “Getting started with Science” rather than chasing girls and smoking cigarettes stolen from the local convenience store.



Restrictions in the future?
by plover

Do you see manufacturers of the future attempting to put restrictions on hardware hacking, either more technical or legal? Will manufacturers order CPUs without I2C pins, or toy drones with UEFI secure boot operating systems? Have other countries put restrictions on hardware hacking that have affected you?

bunnie: I don't see pure hardware manufacturers putting restrictions on this. Manufacturers actually want lots of back doors and flexibility to probe their hardware, because they have to be able to debug or reprocess parts that fail to pass quality inspection. Scrap rate directly impacts the bottom line, so there's a strong financial incentive to make hardware that's easy to debug, and transitively, easy to hack.

The people who tend to put restrictions on hacking hardware are people who own content or run services on the hardware. Hardware in that case is seen as a barrier or a method to ensure lock-in to a particular platform, or to require payment for services. Occasionally, content providers are the same as the manufacturer, in which case you tend to see a lot more restrictions put in place on the hardware. As long as the hardware world isn't taken over by the Apples, Amazons, Microsofts and Googles of the world....oh wait, nevermind. We'll just have to keep on defending our rights as consumers by jailbreaking and hacking for some time to come.

But if someone is purely in the hardware business, they actually have no incentive to lock you out – they'll make all the money they ever will selling you the hardware in the first place, and if you bought it just to tinker with, that's just one more sale for them.



How do you go about discovering hacks?
by Joe Gillian

I haven't read your book (I will when I get off work) but I'm curious as to how exactly people discover these hacks. I mean, there's some really weird ones out there that make me question how people even thought to do them, such as hacking a PSP battery into service mode in order to load custom firmware or manually opening a PS2's disc tray to bypass the copy protection that only activated when the button to open or close the DVD drive was pressed. I know with the Xbox, there was a software hack (I don't know if it's the same one you found) with save files from certain games, but only specific versions of those games. So my question is, how do you go about looking for exploits?

bunnie: Surprisingly, many exploits are based on well-known holes or common mistakes made during implementation; it's almost as cliché as kicking in the door with the “unpickable” electronic lock. In hardware, there's almost always JTAG diagnostic ports or a serial console available, and most manufacturers don't bother to plug them. In software, there's a lot of complexity and things tend to leak at the seams, so poorly implemented APIs that lack bounds checks is a very common avenue for exploits. I actually don't think I've “invented” any exploits in my entire career; everything I've done you can find examples of in prior literature, or they are so obvious that one cannot really claim credit for it (a bit like climbing in through the window when the front door is locked – it's just common sense).

But generally, the first things you tend to look for are backdoors put in place for diagnostic or engineering purposes. I'd say 80% of the hardware I've hacked have welcome mats like this set out for me. Then, you look for opportunities to gain access to the code image within, either through dumping ROMs or injecting a small program that can dump RAM. If you can get the binary code, you can reverse engineer it and look for exploitable APIs and function calls. Lacking such code, you can attempt to characterize the system through fuzzing and scanning the available APIs; this involves, for example, injecting garbage into file structures, sending malformed packets or glitching wires and clocks to get the hardware into a vulnerable state. And then there is the whole host of somewhat more difficult vectors such as microscopy and side-channel analyses through power signatures and parasitic emissions, but you usually fall back to those only once all else has failed. There are also occasions where you are confronted with a CPU with an undocumented instruction set or a lack of documentation on its registers or interrupt handlers. In this case, it really helps to have an automated fuzzing framework because often times this boils down to doing a brute-force search of memory space for certain signatures and signs of the registers or behavior you're looking for.

And, one should never pass up trying obvious things, like googling for the root password included in the SoC's maker's devkit and trying that on the diagnostic console. This has worked surprisingly often...



Hacking the Xbox
by nmb3000

One of my first forays into the realm of hardware hacking was following along as you recorded your exploration of the original Xbox console. I was fascinated by the hardware, but enjoyed your analysis and methods even more. It was you that got me interested in hardware and hacking. (Aside: Thank you very much for releasing your book as a freely-available download and for the open-letter about Aaron and MIT)

What was the most memorable experience for you of your Xbox expose? Was there a particular part of the hardware that you found especially well-designed (or laughably poor)? A method that yielded unexpected success (or failure)? What kind of fallout from Microsoft did you face? I remember you posting the voicemail of the Microsoft employee asking you to remove the images of the Xbox ROM -- something I got a good laugh out of. And as a follow-up: do you have a feeling for how "secure" hardware has changed in the decade since the original Xbox launch?

Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions, and also for all the work you've done pushing for a world with both open software and open hardware.

bunnie: Thanks for reading the book! Actually, the book pretty comprehensively documents my experience hacking the Xbox, even a decade on there's no new secrets for me to give out. There's always that massive endorphin rush when your experiment works out – I remember the night I found the secret key I could barely sleep; I was trembling with excitement.

But it's also important to remember there's a lot of luck involved and at the end of the day I really prefer to do hacking for fun, and not as a business model. It's much easier to carve out a living, in my opinion, building things than breaking into things; sometimes you encounter things that are really difficult to break into and you end up expending much more resources and time than the contract is worth. So, I find it hard making money as a hacker: I either charge too little for the service, or I lose money completing a difficult job that I underestimated.

I think Microsoft has done a very professional and comprehensive job securing their latest generation of consoles. They hired some of the best and the brightest hackers to design it and they actually listened to them. You'd also be amazed at how incredibly hard it is to get management to sign off on silicon modifications to improve security, but these days more and more manufacturers are starting to “do it right”.

redletterdave (2493036) writes "When Steve Ballmer announced he was stepping down from Microsoft's board of directors, he cited a fall schedule that would "be hectic between teaching a new class and the start of the NBA season." It turns out Ballmer will teach an MBA class at Stanford's Graduate School of Business in the fall, and a class at USC's Marshall School of Business in the spring. Helen Chang, assistant director of communications at Stanford's Business School, told Business Insider that Ballmer will be working with faculty member Susan Athey for a strategic management course called "TRAMGT588: Leading organizations." As for the spring semester, Ballmer will head to Los Angeles — closer to where his Clippers will be playing — and teach a course at University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business. We reached out to the Marshall School, which declined to offer more details about Ballmer's class.

Today's videos are parts three and four of our casual interview with Tim O'Reilly, founder of O'Reilly Media and one of the most influential open source boosters around. (You supplied the questions. He supplied the answers.) We had a lot more to say about Tim yesterday when we ran parts one and two of our video interview with him. (Today's alternate Video Links: Video 3 ~ Video 4; transcript covers both videos.)

Today's videos are parts three and four of our casual interview with Tim O'Reilly, founder of O'Reilly Media and one of the most influential open source boosters around. (You supplied the questions. He supplied the answers.) We had a lot more to say about Tim yesterday when we ran parts one and two of our video interview with him. (Today's alternate Video Links: Video 3 ~ Video 4; transcript covers both videos.)

Today's videos are parts three and four of our casual interview with Tim O'Reilly, founder of O'Reilly Media and one of the most influential open source boosters around. (You supplied the questions. He supplied the answers.) We had a lot more to say about Tim yesterday when we ran parts one and two of our video interview with him. (Today's alternate Video Links: Video 3 ~ Video 4; transcript covers both videos.)

Today's videos are parts three and four of our casual interview with Tim O'Reilly, founder of O'Reilly Media and one of the most influential open source boosters around. (You supplied the questions. He supplied the answers.) We had a lot more to say about Tim yesterday when we ran parts one and two of our video interview with him. (Today's alternate Video Links: Video 3 ~ Video 4; transcript covers both videos.)

Last week you had a chance to ask Bjarne Stroustrup about programming and C++. Below you'll find his answers to those questions. If you didn't get a chance to ask him a question, or want to clarify something he said, don't forget he's doing a live Google + Q & A today at 12:30pm Eastern. Cutting features and old syntax?
by Katatsumuri

Sometimes well-established languages keep adding new features and syntactic constructs until most developers are not even aware of all the possibilities and use maybe 20% in their usual daily work. The old features and syntax are kept around for compatibility and to keep the old guard content, even if cutting them would lead to faster compilation, more elegant language and less confusion.

This may be part of the reason for the constant introduction of new trendy languages with radically simplified syntax and libraries... Which then follow the same pattern. Few languages are introducing new paradigms, many are trying to be a "better" C++, Java, LISP, JavaScript or Perl.

Do you think this cycle is inevitable, or could it be a good idea to sometimes clean up the syntax and the obscure features in new specification versions, to keep the established languages more competitive?

Bjarne: Languages grow. The alternative is stagnation because there is nothing the maintainer of a large code base hates more than working code breaking – even if that code is full of avoidable errors. We dream of cleaning up the mess, but somehow there is never the month or couple of years needed. I dream of “cleaning up the mess” as much as the next guy, and I know the mess better than most. It is hard to evolve a language compatibly, but IMO it is harder still to make a major – worthwhile – breaking change. Stagnation is not something I can accept – we can and must do better (even if that takes compromises).

You probably didn’t mean that, but “syntax” isn’t the most important aspect of software development. People will suffer atrocious syntax to get valuable functionality (C++ template meta-programming is an example). Also, developers and maintainers of production code eventually tire of cute (often very terse) syntax. “Syntax” is the user-interface for programmers, rather than the system itself. What we hope for is a minimal and logical interface to a useful semantics.

For any reasonable definition of “paradigm” (a words I use only very rarely), there are very few new paradigms coming along, so people have to be happy with incremental changes. Slow steady progress can – over time – add up to major improvements. However, few people take the longer (decades) view.



On the evolution of C++
by stox

How do you feel about the evolution of C++ since it was first implemented with Cfront? What began as a pretty straightforward language has been expanded to significant complexity. Has this evolution been positive, or has it been an attempt to make the language apply to too many possible applications?

Bjarne: C++14 is a far better tool for software development than “C with Classes” was, far more powerful in the key areas that “C with Classes” was invented to deal with. It is more expressive, better checked, generates faster code, and is applicable in areas that “C with Classes” could not touch. The cost has been complexity. My aim has been constant: a direct mapping to hardware plus zero-overhead abstraction. C++ is not the best language for everyone and everything, but then I never promised that it would be. However, C++ is an excellent tool for attacking a vast variety of system design and implementation problems.

I hope that the tide has turned so that C++ is becoming more “novice friendly.” C++11 and C++14 are steps on that route: auto, range-for, lambdas, uniform initialization, concepts, etc., all makes it easier to express simple things simply (without loss of performance). For example, a friend sent me this C++99 code (simplified, of course, but from a large code base):

// old code:

std::vector::const_iterator cit = MemVec.cbegin();
for ( ; cit != v.end(); ++cit) {
if (LookForPatterm(*cit))
return true ;
}
return false;

He deemed this to be somewhat messy and in need of improvement. For starters, we can eliminate the long type name by letting auto deduce it:

// first step:

for (auto cit = MemVec.cbegin(); cit != v.end(); ++cit) {
if (LookForPatterm(*cit))
return true ;
}
return false ;

auto is the oldest C++11 feature. I implemented in in 1983/84, but was forced to remove it for C compatibility reasons. It provides the ability to deduce a type from and initializer; after all, the compiler knows the type of MemVec.cbegin() so why should I need to repeat it? Note how the scope of cit is now limited to its area of use.

We can simplify regular loops using a range-for, so we get:

// second simplification:

for (const auto& x : v)
{
if (LookForPatterm(x))
return true ;
}
return false ;

There is now no iterator, so it cannot be accidentally or deliberately modified in the loop. Now it is obvious that we should have used a standard-library algorithm:

// good:

return find_if(cbegin(v), cend(v), LookForPattern) != v.cend() ;

That’s where my friend stopped, observing that it was now also obvious how to use a lambda as the operation in other places. Being a fan of range/container algorithms, I would have said:

// my variant:

return find_if(v,LookForPattern)!=v.cend();

This involves having a range version of find_if lying around somewhere. For example:

// range version of std::find_if:

template
Iterator find_if(Cont& c, Pred p)
{
return std::find_if(begin(c),end(c),p);
}

Next time such an improvement is needed, I think my friend and his colleagues will jump directly to one of the later variants. With a bit of luck, they will even have tool to help them find candidates for simplification.



Regrets
by Anonymous Coward

What do you regret most in C++ and how would you like to change it?

Bjarne: No regrets! Seriously, a language grows up at a specific time and in a specific environment. To survive that language has to be viable at every stage of its evolution. I’d hate to second guess 1980s vintage Bjarne. He was at least as smart as I am and had a far better grasp of the world at the time. Simply saying, “if I had had a few million dollars for buying market share with ‘free’ libraries or for developing a better definition of templates C++ would have been better” just isn’t intellectually honest.

If I had a time machine, I just might jump back to 1987 and drop a sketch of a design of templates with concepts on Bjarne’s desk. He was working on the template design at the time and knew the problems with template parameter requirements well. Unfortunately, neither he nor anyone else at the time knew how to simultaneously get generality, performance, and well-specified interfaces. Given a bit of help from the time traveler, he might very well have gotten the point. Then, in 1990, we would have been able to write:

void sort(Sortable& c); // sort random-access sequences of elements with
void user(vector& vs, vector>& vc)

{
sort(vs); // OK
sort(vc); // error: vs not Sortable; complex does not have }

However, I don’t have a time machine, so we had to wait until next year (or now if you use the concepts branch of GCC).



Future of C++ Standard Library
by DaphneDiane

One of the recent concerns raised with C++ compared to other popular languages is the breadth of the standard library. I know that the C++ standard committee was looking at adding a C++ transformed version of Cairo to the standard. And of course there is boost. What else do you see coming to address the perceived API shortcomings?

Bjarne: C++ is a formally standardized language. It is defined by the ISO. Compared to other such languages, C++ has a huge and growing standard library. However, compared by commercially owned languages, such as Java and C#, the ISO C++ standard library is tiny. We – the C++ standards committee – do not have the resources to buy market share. The committee is trying to add useful libraries as fast as it can safely do so. The standard library is most important because it creates a common foundation, but it can never be sufficient for the needs of the huge community.

We somehow have to create a better “exchange” for open-source and other libraries. We will also have to work harder on library interoperability. There are a huge number of C++ libraries “out there,” but they tend not to be designed for interoperability and many producers of libraries have their very own programming styles and specialized assumptions.

To speed up standardization – especially the standardization of libraries – the ISO C++ standards committee has started “study groups” producing “technical specifications.” A technical specification is not a full-blown international standard, but it is a document produced by the order of 20 people and approved by the full committee. Current library TSs in progress are:

File system
Library foundation (e.g., optional and string_view)
Ranges (for people tired of saying v.begin(),v.end() and much, much more)
Concurrency (threads, etc.)
Parallelism (parallel algorithms, networking, and more)
Numerics (incl. SIMD)
Transactional Memory (has core language parts)
I/O (incl. 2D graphics)
See here for details.



ABI
by gbjbaanb

Do you think that one thing holding C++ back is the lack of a standardized binary interface?

Currently if I want to make a module that can be consumed by others (whether than is others using a different language, or a different C++ compiler, or even just to use a pre-built module without sources) I have to export everything as C and use its (de-facto if nothing else) binary standard.

I think an ABI for C++ would increase its "real world" attractiveness considerably with little, if any, overhead. Do you agree, or are there issues around this that make it a significant challenge (apart from vendor adoption of course).

Bjarne: A C++ ABI would be a huge boon to the C++ community, however, it is not an easy problem to solve technically and most C++ implementation providers have a huge user bases that would howl in outrage if binary compatibility with their previous version was broken.

To solve the technical problem, we would need the ABI to cover basic object layout (easy), class hierarchies (not hard), and abstractions using templates (hard). An ABI that could not handle std::vector, std::map, and similar user-supplied abstractions would be a failure. I do not (in any detail) know how to do that.

To solve the political problem, we would need all vendors on a platform to adopt that ABI (probably impossible except in the longer term) or provide it as an “exchange format” in addition to their traditional ABI.



Which feature would you add to C++?
by jonwil

If you could add one feature to C++ (either the language or the standard library) and have it adopted in the C++ standard and supported by all the compilers etc., what would it be and why?

Bjarne: Ah! Just one feature? You must be kidding, but I’ll say “concepts.” They will change the way people think of generic programming and of programming in general, and we’ll have them next year. They are already shipping in a branch of GCC and will be an ISO C++ TS (Technical Specification) in 2015 (I hope and expect).

People have mentioned more standard libraries and a standard ABI. I’d like to see higher-level concurrency models –the type-safe C++11 threads and locks are still too low level. I’d like to eliminate the need for the visitor pattern workaround; for example, see:

Y. Solodkyy, G. Dos Reis and B. Stroustrup: Open Pattern Matching for C++. ACM GPCE'13.
Y. Solodkyy, G. Dos Reis, and B. Stroustrup: Open and Efficient Type Switch for C++. Proc. OOPSLA'12.
P. Pirkelbauer, Y. Solodkyy, and B. Stroustrup: Open Multi-Methods for C++. ACM GPCE’07.

Remember that an academic paper plus an implementation does not add up to a complete standards proposal, but wouldn’t you like to be able to write:

bool intersect(virtual Shape&, virtual Shape&); // non-member virtual function

void user(Shape& s1, Shape& s2)
{
if (intersect(s1,s2)) //
//
}

Assuming suitable overloads of intersect() to handle Shapes that are Circles, Triangles, etc. The alternative today is a mess of if-statements, some clever special-purpose workaround, or an elaborate visitor setup.



C++ without the C
by kthreadd

Apple recently introduced a language they call Swift or Objective-C without the C. It is technically a completely different language from Objective-C though. When C++ started out it had the major benefit that it was (mostly) compatible with C which at the time was immensely popular, making it trivial to mix new C++ code with existing C code. Today C is still a popular language but not as widely used as it once was. Assuming that C++ could drop C compatibility, how would you take that opportunity to improve C++?

Bjarne: People tend to underestimate C. Today, we probably don’t need C compatibility (except to keep billions of lines of critical code running), but we do need a direct map to hardware. If we didn’t have C or the C-level subset of C++, we would have to find a different way to do that map. Languages without C’s problems typically rely on C or C++ to do their dirty work for them.

I think we should think more about isolating unsafe code in a program than to eliminate it. Putting the necessary unsafe code into a different language limits our control of it, limits what can be communicated to it, and typically imposes overheads.

That said, when people rail against C, and by implication C++, they usually (and correctly in case of C and C-style C++) point to two problems: lack of type safety and the lack of abstraction mechanisms. Together, those two problems leave people with lots and lots of low-level code in which bugs can hide (e.g., buffer overflows, invalid pointers, and resource leaks).

C++ attacks these problems by providing alternatives. You can write type-safe code in C++; you can write simple code that doesn’t leak or leave invalid pointers behind; you can do so with zero overhead compared to lower-level alternatives. Consider:

vector collect(const string& terminator)
{
vector res;
for (string s; cin>>s && s!=terminator; )
res.push_back(s);
return res;
}

void user() { auto ss = collect("end"); // ss is a vector
// }

I used C++11’s move semantics and auto to simplify that code. Note the absence of memory management code and the absence of leaks. Returning containers by value is simple and efficient in C++11 because the standard library provide move constructors for all containers, such as vector.

The problem is that many people don’t write such simple code and are stuck with the old problems hidden in lots of far more complicated code.

I don’t actually think that there is less C and C++ programming these days. I think that in absolute terms there is more than ever, and not just people working on “legacy code.” People are confused by unscientific estimates of usage and especially by the fact that there is much more software development these days, so that the amount of C and C++ is declining relative to the total. In particular, I think I see significant growth of C++ in its core domains. The number of C++ programmers today is more likely to be 4 or 5 million than the 3 million I estimated ten years ago. But it is hard to count programmers.



Hour of Code
by Orestesx

What is your opinion of the "Hour of Code" as promoted by CSEdWeek? Does it trivialize computer science education?

Bjarne: I guess that anything that popularizes hands-on software development experience is good. On that count, I’m in favor of Lego, programming contests, Raspberry Pie, etc. Too many people think science and (especially) engineering boring.

Do color change and explosive chemistry experiments trivialize chemistry? Do demonstrations of Newton’s cradle and prisms trivialize physics? No! You need to inspire and motivate students in preparation for the necessary hard work. I think Computer Science should be taught as a serious academic discipline – like Physics and Biology – for which years of work is needed for mastery, rather than as a basic skill that must be quickly mastered by all. I think the serious work should start in high school, like it is (or IMO should be) for mathematics, physics, and biology. It is not just child’s play. It could start in university if it wasn’t that students tend not to choose fields of study in university that they have not encountered in high school.

Not everybody can become a good programmer. The world needs a lot of programmers, maybe 20 million, but we don’t need a billion. We need to distinguish between the education of professionals and giving people a bit of computer literacy. People seem confused about this or unwilling to accept that serious preparation is needed for people who build serious software. Our lives and livelihood depends on software. Just think of the amount of computing that goes into delivering your food to your table: agriculture, transport, telecommunications, embedded systems, planning, scheduling, etc. You cannot milk a herd of cows without the help of computers these days! Or at least you cannot if you have to keep records of the cows’ health and production for the obligatory quality control. I would strongly prefer for critical software to be developed and maintained by professionals. I’m less concerned about the quality of your favorite videogame or the advertisements that pop up to annoy me when I try to read the news.

I’m more interested in the engineering part of computer science than the pure science part. Computer science is among other things a set of science-based practical skills, an engineering discipline.



Personal programming projects
by kthreadd

Apart from work, do you have any personal programming projects going on? Which type of programming do you like most and is there a particular project that you would like to implement?

Bjarne: I tend to look at three kinds of code: code that creates trouble in the context of the C++ standard (subtle cases and proposals), small experiments with programming techniques, and production code. This implies looking on a lot of libraries and writing lots of small examples. Unfortunately, my “day job” plus my standards work do not leave time for significant personal projects.



Code rejuvenation
by SansEverything

You speak a lot about code rejuvenation and bringing old code to new standards. As you are working on C++14, many compilers do not fully support C++11 yet. In the past, it was even worse. Don't you think that this lack of feature support from compilers is a major problem and the biggest obstacle to code rejuvenation?

Bjarne: No. C++11 and/or C++14 implementation availability is not a major problem. Both are getting remedied fast, faster than I would have believed a couple of years ago. The adoption of C++11 is far faster than the C++98 adoption was. Waiting a year or two is not a significant problem in this context. There is plenty of work that can be done today.

When I talk about “rejuvenation” (some people call it “modernization” or “upgrading”), I mean rewriting large amounts of code written in styles known to complicate comprehension, hide bugs, and hinder optimization. I’m thinking of C-style code, code overusing class hierarchies, and some examples of complex template metaprogramming. Such code also tend to prevent newer, better, and simpler techniques to be used in newer code. The reason is partly that the need interoperate with such code messes up new code, partly that programmers steeped in the old style are reluctant to believe that the newer techniques work.

For example, I’d like to replace uses of arrays and pointers with std::arrays and vectors. I’d like to eliminate macros. I’d like to replace old-style for loops with range-for loops. I’d like to eliminate overuse of free store (heap). I’d like to break up large functions into smaller and more precisely defined ones. I’d like to replace ad hoc code with algorithms. I’d like to replace hand-crafted containers with standard-library ones. If I can, I’d like to eliminate race conditions and increase the amount of concurrency. I want to do all that without adding run-time overheads.

Typically, we cannot afford to rewrite the old code by hand. So when I talk about rejuvenation, I focus on (static) code analysis and code transformation: we must automate the rejuvenation process as far as possible. The reason I don’t refer to this as “refactoring” is that I’m typically not interested in a process that produces 100% compatible code. Some of the transformations I want require human attention. I want major improvement, not bug compatibility. People are working to produce such tools.

In June, we discussed news that JPL and MakerBot were teaming up to host a competition for designing a futuristic Mars base. The competition is now over, and the top three designs have been chosen. First place went to Noah Hornberger, who designed a base with hexagonal rooms and shielding made of depleted uranium. Second place went to a martian pyramid with an aquaponics system on top, mirror-based solar collectors, central water storage, and compartmentalized living spaces. The third place award went to Chris Starr for his Mars Acropolis, which was styled upon the ancient Greek Acropolis. It has a water tower at the top of the structure, a series of greenhouses at the bottom, and living quarters in between. The full list of 227 entries is browse-able on Thingiverse.

Wikipedia says Tim O'Reilly "is the founder of O'Reilly Media (formerly O'Reilly & Associates) and a supporter of the free software and open source movements." And so he is. O'Reilly Media is also the company from which Make magazine and the assorted Maker Faires sprang, before spinning off into an ongoing presence of their own. (This year's Solid conference, as well as the confluence of hardware and software at OSCON demonstrate O'Reilly's ongoing interest in the world of makers, though.) O'Reilly has been a powerful force in technical book publishing, popularized the term Web 2.0, and has been at least a godfather to the open source movement. He's also an interesting person in general, even more so when he's hanging out at home than when he's on stage at a conference or doing a formal interview. That's why we were glad Timothy Lord was able to get hold of Tim O'Reilly via Hangout while he was in a relaxed mood in a no-pressure environment, happy to give detailed responses based on your questions, from small (everyday technology) to big (the Internet as "global brain").

We've run a few two-part videos, but this is the first time we've split one video into six parts -- with two running today, two tomorrow, and two Thursday. But then, how many people do we interview who have had as much of an effect on the nature of information transmission -- as opposed to just publishing -- as Tim O'Reilly? We don't know for sure, but there's a good chance that O'Reilly books are owned by more Slashdot readers than books from any other publisher. That alone makes Tim O'Reilly worth listening to for nearly an hour, total. (Alternate Video Links: Video 1 ~ Video 2; transcript below covers both videos.)

Wikipedia says Tim O'Reilly "is the founder of O'Reilly Media (formerly O'Reilly & Associates) and a supporter of the free software and open source movements." And so he is. O'Reilly Media is also the company from which Make magazine and the assorted Maker Faires sprang, before spinning off into an ongoing presence of their own. (This year's Solid conference, as well as the confluence of hardware and software at OSCON demonstrate O'Reilly's ongoing interest in the world of makers, though.) O'Reilly has been a powerful force in technical book publishing, popularized the term Web 2.0, and has been at least a godfather to the open source movement. He's also an interesting person in general, even more so when he's hanging out at home than when he's on stage at a conference or doing a formal interview. That's why we were glad Timothy Lord was able to get hold of Tim O'Reilly via Hangout while he was in a relaxed mood in a no-pressure environment, happy to give detailed responses based on your questions, from small (everyday technology) to big (the Internet as "global brain").

We've run a few two-part videos, but this is the first time we've split one video into six parts -- with two running today, two tomorrow, and two Thursday. But then, how many people do we interview who have had as much of an effect on the nature of information transmission -- as opposed to just publishing -- as Tim O'Reilly? We don't know for sure, but there's a good chance that O'Reilly books are owned by more Slashdot readers than books from any other publisher. That alone makes Tim O'Reilly worth listening to for nearly an hour, total. (Alternate Video Links: Video 1 ~ Video 2; transcript below covers both videos.)

Wikipedia says Tim O'Reilly "is the founder of O'Reilly Media (formerly O'Reilly & Associates) and a supporter of the free software and open source movements." And so he is. O'Reilly Media is also the company from which Make magazine and the assorted Maker Faires sprang, before spinning off into an ongoing presence of their own. (This year's Solid conference, as well as the confluence of hardware and software at OSCON demonstrate O'Reilly's ongoing interest in the world of makers, though.) O'Reilly has been a powerful force in technical book publishing, popularized the term Web 2.0, and has been at least a godfather to the open source movement. He's also an interesting person in general, even more so when he's hanging out at home than when he's on stage at a conference or doing a formal interview. That's why we were glad Timothy Lord was able to get hold of Tim O'Reilly via Hangout while he was in a relaxed mood in a no-pressure environment, happy to give detailed responses based on your questions, from small (everyday technology) to big (the Internet as "global brain").

We've run a few two-part videos, but this is the first time we've split one video into six parts -- with two running today, two tomorrow, and two Thursday. But then, how many people do we interview who have had as much of an effect on the nature of information transmission -- as opposed to just publishing -- as Tim O'Reilly? We don't know for sure, but there's a good chance that O'Reilly books are owned by more Slashdot readers than books from any other publisher. That alone makes Tim O'Reilly worth listening to for nearly an hour, total. (Alternate Video Links: Video 1 ~ Video 2; transcript below covers both videos.)

Along with the rest of the mix that makes this site work, Slashdot has nearly two decades now of spotting and showing off interesting projects, inventions, technologies, and hobbies. Some of them are strictly personal, some are frankly commercial, and some are the fruits of ambitious organizations (or tiny teams) motivated by curiosity and passion (or even politics, or just plain fun). As outlined earlier, we've been gathering a lot of these into our new Build section; read on to learn a bit more about what that includes. (And watch out later today for the first part of our conversation with technology-inspiring Rennaisance Man Tim O'Reilly, and later in the week for answers to the questions you asked Bunnie Huang.) The Build section puts under one big virtual roof makerspace visits, interviews with technologists and innovators, and hands-on projects and inventions. Not everything you'll find in the Build section can be built with a soldering iron and some duct tape (worthy projects can come from a large company, a university or a DARPA competition just as well as from a personal workshop, and different resources mean different constraints and possibilities), but all of it should be inspirational: it's a big umbrella, and it can include projects that incorporate biotech, new materials, creative use of sensors, 3-D printing, hardware built to be hackable, cooking, robots, and re-purposing equipment that without a dose of practical creativity might be consigned to a junk-heap, but don't have to be.

Just like the rest of Slashdot, the Build section combines reader-suggested, editor-curated stories with original content, like video visits to the hackerspaces and makerspaces where some of these projects and technologies emerge, and interviews with some of the people behind the (happily booming) culture of invention. Most of the stories that appear in the Build section will also appear on the main section of the site, but reading the Build section itself means getting a concentrated dose of cool endeavors, as well as some section-exclusive posts. Expect the occasional small give-away, and most importantly send along your tips and suggestions for projects you'd like to see explored here.

What inspires you, inspires Slashdot.

Along with the rest of the mix that makes this site work, Slashdot has nearly two decades now of spotting and showing off interesting projects, inventions, technologies, and hobbies. Some of them are strictly personal, some are frankly commercial, and some are the fruits of ambitious organizations (or tiny teams) motivated by curiosity and passion (or even politics, or just plain fun). As outlined earlier, we've been gathering a lot of these into our new Build section; read on to learn a bit more about what that includes. (And watch out later today for the first part of our conversation with technology-inspiring Rennaisance Man Tim O'Reilly, and later in the week for answers to the questions you asked Bunnie Huang.) The Build section puts under one big virtual roof makerspace visits, interviews with technologists and innovators, and hands-on projects and inventions. Not everything you'll find in the Build section can be built with a soldering iron and some duct tape (worthy projects can come from a large company, a university or a DARPA competition just as well as from a personal workshop, and different resources mean different constraints and possibilities), but all of it should be inspirational: it's a big umbrella, and it can include projects that incorporate biotech, new materials, creative use of sensors, 3-D printing, hardware built to be hackable, cooking, robots, and re-purposing equipment that without a dose of practical creativity might be consigned to a junk-heap, but don't have to be.

Just like the rest of Slashdot, the Build section combines reader-suggested, editor-curated stories with original content, like video visits to the hackerspaces and makerspaces where some of these projects and technologies emerge, and interviews with some of the people behind the (happily booming) culture of invention. Most of the stories that appear in the Build section will also appear on the main section of the site, but reading the Build section itself means getting a concentrated dose of cool endeavors, as well as some section-exclusive posts. Expect the occasional small give-away, and most importantly send along your tips and suggestions for projects you'd like to see explored here.

What inspires you, inspires Slashdot.

Along with the rest of the mix that makes this site work, Slashdot has nearly two decades now of spotting and showing off interesting projects, inventions, technologies, and hobbies. Some of them are strictly personal, some are frankly commercial, and some are the fruits of ambitious organizations (or tiny teams) motivated by curiosity and passion (or even politics, or just plain fun). As outlined earlier, we've been gathering a lot of these into our new Build section; read on to learn a bit more about what that includes. (And watch out later today for the first part of our conversation with technology-inspiring Rennaisance Man Tim O'Reilly, and later in the week for answers to the questions you asked Bunnie Huang.) The Build section puts under one big virtual roof makerspace visits, interviews with technologists and innovators, and hands-on projects and inventions. Not everything you'll find in the Build section can be built with a soldering iron and some duct tape (worthy projects can come from a large company, a university or a DARPA competition just as well as from a personal workshop, and different resources mean different constraints and possibilities), but all of it should be inspirational: it's a big umbrella, and it can include projects that incorporate biotech, new materials, creative use of sensors, 3-D printing, hardware built to be hackable, cooking, robots, and re-purposing equipment that without a dose of practical creativity might be consigned to a junk-heap, but don't have to be.

Just like the rest of Slashdot, the Build section combines reader-suggested, editor-curated stories with original content, like video visits to the hackerspaces and makerspaces where some of these projects and technologies emerge, and interviews with some of the people behind the (happily booming) culture of invention. Most of the stories that appear in the Build section will also appear on the main section of the site, but reading the Build section itself means getting a concentrated dose of cool endeavors, as well as some section-exclusive posts. Expect the occasional small give-away, and most importantly send along your tips and suggestions for projects you'd like to see explored here.

What inspires you, inspires Slashdot.

Along with the rest of the mix that makes this site work, Slashdot has nearly two decades now of spotting and showing off interesting projects, inventions, technologies, and hobbies. Some of them are strictly personal, some are frankly commercial, and some are the fruits of ambitious organizations (or tiny teams) motivated by curiosity and passion (or even politics, or just plain fun). As outlined earlier, we've been gathering a lot of these into our new Build section; read on to learn a bit more about what that includes. (And watch out later today for the first part of our conversation with technology-inspiring Rennaisance Man Tim O'Reilly, and later in the week for answers to the questions you asked Bunnie Huang.) The Build section puts under one big virtual roof makerspace visits, interviews with technologists and innovators, and hands-on projects and inventions. Not everything you'll find in the Build section can be built with a soldering iron and some duct tape (worthy projects can come from a large company, a university or a DARPA competition just as well as from a personal workshop, and different resources mean different constraints and possibilities), but all of it should be inspirational: it's a big umbrella, and it can include projects that incorporate biotech, new materials, creative use of sensors, 3-D printing, hardware built to be hackable, cooking, robots, and re-purposing equipment that without a dose of practical creativity might be consigned to a junk-heap, but don't have to be.

Just like the rest of Slashdot, the Build section combines reader-suggested, editor-curated stories with original content, like video visits to the hackerspaces and makerspaces where some of these projects and technologies emerge, and interviews with some of the people behind the (happily booming) culture of invention. Most of the stories that appear in the Build section will also appear on the main section of the site, but reading the Build section itself means getting a concentrated dose of cool endeavors, as well as some section-exclusive posts. Expect the occasional small give-away, and most importantly send along your tips and suggestions for projects you'd like to see explored here.

What inspires you, inspires Slashdot.

Along with the rest of the mix that makes this site work, Slashdot has nearly two decades now of spotting and showing off interesting projects, inventions, technologies, and hobbies. Some of them are strictly personal, some are frankly commercial, and some are the fruits of ambitious organizations (or tiny teams) motivated by curiosity and passion (or even politics, or just plain fun). As outlined earlier, we've been gathering a lot of these into our new Build section; read on to learn a bit more about what that includes. (And watch out later today for the first part of our conversation with technology-inspiring Rennaisance Man Tim O'Reilly, and later in the week for answers to the questions you asked Bunnie Huang.) The Build section puts under one big virtual roof makerspace visits, interviews with technologists and innovators, and hands-on projects and inventions. Not everything you'll find in the Build section can be built with a soldering iron and some duct tape (worthy projects can come from a large company, a university or a DARPA competition just as well as from a personal workshop, and different resources mean different constraints and possibilities), but all of it should be inspirational: it's a big umbrella, and it can include projects that incorporate biotech, new materials, creative use of sensors, 3-D printing, hardware built to be hackable, cooking, robots, and re-purposing equipment that without a dose of practical creativity might be consigned to a junk-heap, but don't have to be.

Just like the rest of Slashdot, the Build section combines reader-suggested, editor-curated stories with original content, like video visits to the hackerspaces and makerspaces where some of these projects and technologies emerge, and interviews with some of the people behind the (happily booming) culture of invention. Most of the stories that appear in the Build section will also appear on the main section of the site, but reading the Build section itself means getting a concentrated dose of cool endeavors, as well as some section-exclusive posts. Expect the occasional small give-away, and most importantly send along your tips and suggestions for projects you'd like to see explored here.

What inspires you, inspires Slashdot.

Along with the rest of the mix that makes this site work, Slashdot has nearly two decades now of spotting and showing off interesting projects, inventions, technologies, and hobbies. Some of them are strictly personal, some are frankly commercial, and some are the fruits of ambitious organizations (or tiny teams) motivated by curiosity and passion (or even politics, or just plain fun). As outlined earlier, we've been gathering a lot of these into our new Build section; read on to learn a bit more about what that includes. (And watch out later today for the first part of our conversation with technology-inspiring Rennaisance Man Tim O'Reilly, and later in the week for answers to the questions you asked Bunnie Huang.) The Build section puts under one big virtual roof makerspace visits, interviews with technologists and innovators, and hands-on projects and inventions. Not everything you'll find in the Build section can be built with a soldering iron and some duct tape (worthy projects can come from a large company, a university or a DARPA competition just as well as from a personal workshop, and different resources mean different constraints and possibilities), but all of it should be inspirational: it's a big umbrella, and it can include projects that incorporate biotech, new materials, creative use of sensors, 3-D printing, hardware built to be hackable, cooking, robots, and re-purposing equipment that without a dose of practical creativity might be consigned to a junk-heap, but don't have to be.

Just like the rest of Slashdot, the Build section combines reader-suggested, editor-curated stories with original content, like video visits to the hackerspaces and makerspaces where some of these projects and technologies emerge, and interviews with some of the people behind the (happily booming) culture of invention. Most of the stories that appear in the Build section will also appear on the main section of the site, but reading the Build section itself means getting a concentrated dose of cool endeavors, as well as some section-exclusive posts. Expect the occasional small give-away, and most importantly send along your tips and suggestions for projects you'd like to see explored here.

What inspires you, inspires Slashdot.

Along with the rest of the mix that makes this site work, Slashdot has nearly two decades now of spotting and showing off interesting projects, inventions, technologies, and hobbies. Some of them are strictly personal, some are frankly commercial, and some are the fruits of ambitious organizations (or tiny teams) motivated by curiosity and passion (or even politics, or just plain fun). As outlined earlier, we've been gathering a lot of these into our new Build section; read on to learn a bit more about what that includes. (And watch out later today for the first part of our conversation with technology-inspiring Rennaisance Man Tim O'Reilly, and later in the week for answers to the questions you asked Bunnie Huang.) The Build section puts under one big virtual roof makerspace visits, interviews with technologists and innovators, and hands-on projects and inventions. Not everything you'll find in the Build section can be built with a soldering iron and some duct tape (worthy projects can come from a large company, a university or a DARPA competition just as well as from a personal workshop, and different resources mean different constraints and possibilities), but all of it should be inspirational: it's a big umbrella, and it can include projects that incorporate biotech, new materials, creative use of sensors, 3-D printing, hardware built to be hackable, cooking, robots, and re-purposing equipment that without a dose of practical creativity might be consigned to a junk-heap, but don't have to be.

Just like the rest of Slashdot, the Build section combines reader-suggested, editor-curated stories with original content, like video visits to the hackerspaces and makerspaces where some of these projects and technologies emerge, and interviews with some of the people behind the (happily booming) culture of invention. Most of the stories that appear in the Build section will also appear on the main section of the site, but reading the Build section itself means getting a concentrated dose of cool endeavors, as well as some section-exclusive posts. Expect the occasional small give-away, and most importantly send along your tips and suggestions for projects you'd like to see explored here.

What inspires you, inspires Slashdot.

Along with the rest of the mix that makes this site work, Slashdot has nearly two decades now of spotting and showing off interesting projects, inventions, technologies, and hobbies. Some of them are strictly personal, some are frankly commercial, and some are the fruits of ambitious organizations (or tiny teams) motivated by curiosity and passion (or even politics, or just plain fun). As outlined earlier, we've been gathering a lot of these into our new Build section; read on to learn a bit more about what that includes. (And watch out later today for the first part of our conversation with technology-inspiring Rennaisance Man Tim O'Reilly, and later in the week for answers to the questions you asked Bunnie Huang.) The Build section puts under one big virtual roof makerspace visits, interviews with technologists and innovators, and hands-on projects and inventions. Not everything you'll find in the Build section can be built with a soldering iron and some duct tape (worthy projects can come from a large company, a university or a DARPA competition just as well as from a personal workshop, and different resources mean different constraints and possibilities), but all of it should be inspirational: it's a big umbrella, and it can include projects that incorporate biotech, new materials, creative use of sensors, 3-D printing, hardware built to be hackable, cooking, robots, and re-purposing equipment that without a dose of practical creativity might be consigned to a junk-heap, but don't have to be.

Just like the rest of Slashdot, the Build section combines reader-suggested, editor-curated stories with original content, like video visits to the hackerspaces and makerspaces where some of these projects and technologies emerge, and interviews with some of the people behind the (happily booming) culture of invention. Most of the stories that appear in the Build section will also appear on the main section of the site, but reading the Build section itself means getting a concentrated dose of cool endeavors, as well as some section-exclusive posts. Expect the occasional small give-away, and most importantly send along your tips and suggestions for projects you'd like to see explored here.

What inspires you, inspires Slashdot.

Along with the rest of the mix that makes this site work, Slashdot has nearly two decades now of spotting and showing off interesting projects, inventions, technologies, and hobbies. Some of them are strictly personal, some are frankly commercial, and some are the fruits of ambitious organizations (or tiny teams) motivated by curiosity and passion (or even politics, or just plain fun). As outlined earlier, we've been gathering a lot of these into our new Build section; read on to learn a bit more about what that includes. (And watch out later today for the first part of our conversation with technology-inspiring Rennaisance Man Tim O'Reilly, and later in the week for answers to the questions you asked Bunnie Huang.) The Build section puts under one big virtual roof makerspace visits, interviews with technologists and innovators, and hands-on projects and inventions. Not everything you'll find in the Build section can be built with a soldering iron and some duct tape (worthy projects can come from a large company, a university or a DARPA competition just as well as from a personal workshop, and different resources mean different constraints and possibilities), but all of it should be inspirational: it's a big umbrella, and it can include projects that incorporate biotech, new materials, creative use of sensors, 3-D printing, hardware built to be hackable, cooking, robots, and re-purposing equipment that without a dose of practical creativity might be consigned to a junk-heap, but don't have to be.

Just like the rest of Slashdot, the Build section combines reader-suggested, editor-curated stories with original content, like video visits to the hackerspaces and makerspaces where some of these projects and technologies emerge, and interviews with some of the people behind the (happily booming) culture of invention. Most of the stories that appear in the Build section will also appear on the main section of the site, but reading the Build section itself means getting a concentrated dose of cool endeavors, as well as some section-exclusive posts. Expect the occasional small give-away, and most importantly send along your tips and suggestions for projects you'd like to see explored here.

What inspires you, inspires Slashdot.

Along with the rest of the mix that makes this site work, Slashdot has nearly two decades now of spotting and showing off interesting projects, inventions, technologies, and hobbies. Some of them are strictly personal, some are frankly commercial, and some are the fruits of ambitious organizations (or tiny teams) motivated by curiosity and passion (or even politics, or just plain fun). As outlined earlier, we've been gathering a lot of these into our new Build section; read on to learn a bit more about what that includes. (And watch out later today for the first part of our conversation with technology-inspiring Rennaisance Man Tim O'Reilly, and later in the week for answers to the questions you asked Bunnie Huang.) The Build section puts under one big virtual roof makerspace visits, interviews with technologists and innovators, and hands-on projects and inventions. Not everything you'll find in the Build section can be built with a soldering iron and some duct tape (worthy projects can come from a large company, a university or a DARPA competition just as well as from a personal workshop, and different resources mean different constraints and possibilities), but all of it should be inspirational: it's a big umbrella, and it can include projects that incorporate biotech, new materials, creative use of sensors, 3-D printing, hardware built to be hackable, cooking, robots, and re-purposing equipment that without a dose of practical creativity might be consigned to a junk-heap, but don't have to be.

Just like the rest of Slashdot, the Build section combines reader-suggested, editor-curated stories with original content, like video visits to the hackerspaces and makerspaces where some of these projects and technologies emerge, and interviews with some of the people behind the (happily booming) culture of invention. Most of the stories that appear in the Build section will also appear on the main section of the site, but reading the Build section itself means getting a concentrated dose of cool endeavors, as well as some section-exclusive posts. Expect the occasional small give-away, and most importantly send along your tips and suggestions for projects you'd like to see explored here.

What inspires you, inspires Slashdot.

Along with the rest of the mix that makes this site work, Slashdot has nearly two decades now of spotting and showing off interesting projects, inventions, technologies, and hobbies. Some of them are strictly personal, some are frankly commercial, and some are the fruits of ambitious organizations (or tiny teams) motivated by curiosity and passion (or even politics, or just plain fun). As outlined earlier, we've been gathering a lot of these into our new Build section; read on to learn a bit more about what that includes. (And watch out later today for the first part of our conversation with technology-inspiring Rennaisance Man Tim O'Reilly, and later in the week for answers to the questions you asked Bunnie Huang.) The Build section puts under one big virtual roof makerspace visits, interviews with technologists and innovators, and hands-on projects and inventions. Not everything you'll find in the Build section can be built with a soldering iron and some duct tape (worthy projects can come from a large company, a university or a DARPA competition just as well as from a personal workshop, and different resources mean different constraints and possibilities), but all of it should be inspirational: it's a big umbrella, and it can include projects that incorporate biotech, new materials, creative use of sensors, 3-D printing, hardware built to be hackable, cooking, robots, and re-purposing equipment that without a dose of practical creativity might be consigned to a junk-heap, but don't have to be.

Just like the rest of Slashdot, the Build section combines reader-suggested, editor-curated stories with original content, like video visits to the hackerspaces and makerspaces where some of these projects and technologies emerge, and interviews with some of the people behind the (happily booming) culture of invention. Most of the stories that appear in the Build section will also appear on the main section of the site, but reading the Build section itself means getting a concentrated dose of cool endeavors, as well as some section-exclusive posts. Expect the occasional small give-away, and most importantly send along your tips and suggestions for projects you'd like to see explored here.

What inspires you, inspires Slashdot.

Along with the rest of the mix that makes this site work, Slashdot has nearly two decades now of spotting and showing off interesting projects, inventions, technologies, and hobbies. Some of them are strictly personal, some are frankly commercial, and some are the fruits of ambitious organizations (or tiny teams) motivated by curiosity and passion (or even politics, or just plain fun). As outlined earlier, we've been gathering a lot of these into our new Build section; read on to learn a bit more about what that includes. (And watch out later today for the first part of our conversation with technology-inspiring Rennaisance Man Tim O'Reilly, and later in the week for answers to the questions you asked Bunnie Huang.) The Build section puts under one big virtual roof makerspace visits, interviews with technologists and innovators, and hands-on projects and inventions. Not everything you'll find in the Build section can be built with a soldering iron and some duct tape (worthy projects can come from a large company, a university or a DARPA competition just as well as from a personal workshop, and different resources mean different constraints and possibilities), but all of it should be inspirational: it's a big umbrella, and it can include projects that incorporate biotech, new materials, creative use of sensors, 3-D printing, hardware built to be hackable, cooking, robots, and re-purposing equipment that without a dose of practical creativity might be consigned to a junk-heap, but don't have to be.

Just like the rest of Slashdot, the Build section combines reader-suggested, editor-curated stories with original content, like video visits to the hackerspaces and makerspaces where some of these projects and technologies emerge, and interviews with some of the people behind the (happily booming) culture of invention. Most of the stories that appear in the Build section will also appear on the main section of the site, but reading the Build section itself means getting a concentrated dose of cool endeavors, as well as some section-exclusive posts. Expect the occasional small give-away, and most importantly send along your tips and suggestions for projects you'd like to see explored here.

What inspires you, inspires Slashdot.

Along with the rest of the mix that makes this site work, Slashdot has nearly two decades now of spotting and showing off interesting projects, inventions, technologies, and hobbies. Some of them are strictly personal, some are frankly commercial, and some are the fruits of ambitious organizations (or tiny teams) motivated by curiosity and passion (or even politics, or just plain fun). As outlined earlier, we've been gathering a lot of these into our new Build section; read on to learn a bit more about what that includes. (And watch out later today for the first part of our conversation with technology-inspiring Rennaisance Man Tim O'Reilly, and later in the week for answers to the questions you asked Bunnie Huang.) The Build section puts under one big virtual roof makerspace visits, interviews with technologists and innovators, and hands-on projects and inventions. Not everything you'll find in the Build section can be built with a soldering iron and some duct tape (worthy projects can come from a large company, a university or a DARPA competition just as well as from a personal workshop, and different resources mean different constraints and possibilities), but all of it should be inspirational: it's a big umbrella, and it can include projects that incorporate biotech, new materials, creative use of sensors, 3-D printing, hardware built to be hackable, cooking, robots, and re-purposing equipment that without a dose of practical creativity might be consigned to a junk-heap, but don't have to be.

Just like the rest of Slashdot, the Build section combines reader-suggested, editor-curated stories with original content, like video visits to the hackerspaces and makerspaces where some of these projects and technologies emerge, and interviews with some of the people behind the (happily booming) culture of invention. Most of the stories that appear in the Build section will also appear on the main section of the site, but reading the Build section itself means getting a concentrated dose of cool endeavors, as well as some section-exclusive posts. Expect the occasional small give-away, and most importantly send along your tips and suggestions for projects you'd like to see explored here.

What inspires you, inspires Slashdot.

Along with the rest of the mix that makes this site work, Slashdot has nearly two decades now of spotting and showing off interesting projects, inventions, technologies, and hobbies. Some of them are strictly personal, some are frankly commercial, and some are the fruits of ambitious organizations (or tiny teams) motivated by curiosity and passion (or even politics, or just plain fun). As outlined earlier, we've been gathering a lot of these into our new Build section; read on to learn a bit more about what that includes. (And watch out later today for the first part of our conversation with technology-inspiring Rennaisance Man Tim O'Reilly, and later in the week for answers to the questions you asked Bunnie Huang.) The Build section puts under one big virtual roof makerspace visits, interviews with technologists and innovators, and hands-on projects and inventions. Not everything you'll find in the Build section can be built with a soldering iron and some duct tape (worthy projects can come from a large company, a university or a DARPA competition just as well as from a personal workshop, and different resources mean different constraints and possibilities), but all of it should be inspirational: it's a big umbrella, and it can include projects that incorporate biotech, new materials, creative use of sensors, 3-D printing, hardware built to be hackable, cooking, robots, and re-purposing equipment that without a dose of practical creativity might be consigned to a junk-heap, but don't have to be.

Just like the rest of Slashdot, the Build section combines reader-suggested, editor-curated stories with original content, like video visits to the hackerspaces and makerspaces where some of these projects and technologies emerge, and interviews with some of the people behind the (happily booming) culture of invention. Most of the stories that appear in the Build section will also appear on the main section of the site, but reading the Build section itself means getting a concentrated dose of cool endeavors, as well as some section-exclusive posts. Expect the occasional small give-away, and most importantly send along your tips and suggestions for projects you'd like to see explored here.

What inspires you, inspires Slashdot.

Along with the rest of the mix that makes this site work, Slashdot has nearly two decades now of spotting and showing off interesting projects, inventions, technologies, and hobbies. Some of them are strictly personal, some are frankly commercial, and some are the fruits of ambitious organizations (or tiny teams) motivated by curiosity and passion (or even politics, or just plain fun). As outlined earlier, we've been gathering a lot of these into our new Build section; read on to learn a bit more about what that includes. (And watch out later today for the first part of our conversation with technology-inspiring Rennaisance Man Tim O'Reilly, and later in the week for answers to the questions you asked Bunnie Huang.) The Build section puts under one big virtual roof makerspace visits, interviews with technologists and innovators, and hands-on projects and inventions. Not everything you'll find in the Build section can be built with a soldering iron and some duct tape (worthy projects can come from a large company, a university or a DARPA competition just as well as from a personal workshop, and different resources mean different constraints and possibilities), but all of it should be inspirational: it's a big umbrella, and it can include projects that incorporate biotech, new materials, creative use of sensors, 3-D printing, hardware built to be hackable, cooking, robots, and re-purposing equipment that without a dose of practical creativity might be consigned to a junk-heap, but don't have to be.

Just like the rest of Slashdot, the Build section combines reader-suggested, editor-curated stories with original content, like video visits to the hackerspaces and makerspaces where some of these projects and technologies emerge, and interviews with some of the people behind the (happily booming) culture of invention. Most of the stories that appear in the Build section will also appear on the main section of the site, but reading the Build section itself means getting a concentrated dose of cool endeavors, as well as some section-exclusive posts. Expect the occasional small give-away, and most importantly send along your tips and suggestions for projects you'd like to see explored here.

What inspires you, inspires Slashdot.

Along with the rest of the mix that makes this site work, Slashdot has nearly two decades now of spotting and showing off interesting projects, inventions, technologies, and hobbies. Some of them are strictly personal, some are frankly commercial, and some are the fruits of ambitious organizations (or tiny teams) motivated by curiosity and passion (or even politics, or just plain fun). As outlined earlier, we've been gathering a lot of these into our new Build section; read on to learn a bit more about what that includes. (And watch out later today for the first part of our conversation with technology-inspiring Rennaisance Man Tim O'Reilly, and later in the week for answers to the questions you asked Bunnie Huang.) The Build section puts under one big virtual roof makerspace visits, interviews with technologists and innovators, and hands-on projects and inventions. Not everything you'll find in the Build section can be built with a soldering iron and some duct tape (worthy projects can come from a large company, a university or a DARPA competition just as well as from a personal workshop, and different resources mean different constraints and possibilities), but all of it should be inspirational: it's a big umbrella, and it can include projects that incorporate biotech, new materials, creative use of sensors, 3-D printing, hardware built to be hackable, cooking, robots, and re-purposing equipment that without a dose of practical creativity might be consigned to a junk-heap, but don't have to be.

Just like the rest of Slashdot, the Build section combines reader-suggested, editor-curated stories with original content, like video visits to the hackerspaces and makerspaces where some of these projects and technologies emerge, and interviews with some of the people behind the (happily booming) culture of invention. Most of the stories that appear in the Build section will also appear on the main section of the site, but reading the Build section itself means getting a concentrated dose of cool endeavors, as well as some section-exclusive posts. Expect the occasional small give-away, and most importantly send along your tips and suggestions for projects you'd like to see explored here.

What inspires you, inspires Slashdot.

Along with the rest of the mix that makes this site work, Slashdot has nearly two decades now of spotting and showing off interesting projects, inventions, technologies, and hobbies. Some of them are strictly personal, some are frankly commercial, and some are the fruits of ambitious organizations (or tiny teams) motivated by curiosity and passion (or even politics, or just plain fun). As outlined earlier, we've been gathering a lot of these into our new Build section; read on to learn a bit more about what that includes. (And watch out later today for the first part of our conversation with technology-inspiring Rennaisance Man Tim O'Reilly, and later in the week for answers to the questions you asked Bunnie Huang.) The Build section puts under one big virtual roof makerspace visits, interviews with technologists and innovators, and hands-on projects and inventions. Not everything you'll find in the Build section can be built with a soldering iron and some duct tape (worthy projects can come from a large company, a university or a DARPA competition just as well as from a personal workshop, and different resources mean different constraints and possibilities), but all of it should be inspirational: it's a big umbrella, and it can include projects that incorporate biotech, new materials, creative use of sensors, 3-D printing, hardware built to be hackable, cooking, robots, and re-purposing equipment that without a dose of practical creativity might be consigned to a junk-heap, but don't have to be.

Just like the rest of Slashdot, the Build section combines reader-suggested, editor-curated stories with original content, like video visits to the hackerspaces and makerspaces where some of these projects and technologies emerge, and interviews with some of the people behind the (happily booming) culture of invention. Most of the stories that appear in the Build section will also appear on the main section of the site, but reading the Build section itself means getting a concentrated dose of cool endeavors, as well as some section-exclusive posts. Expect the occasional small give-away, and most importantly send along your tips and suggestions for projects you'd like to see explored here.

What inspires you, inspires Slashdot.

In 2010, ash spewed into the atmosphere by the volcano beneath Iceland's Eyjafjallajökull glacier grounded European air traffic for days (and, partially, for weeks). As reported by The Guardian, a series of similarly situated earthquakes may herald a similar ash-ejecting erruption, and the country has raised its volcano risk to its second-most-severe rating (orange). From the article: Iceland met office seismologist Martin Hensch said the risk of any disruptive ash cloud similar to the one in 2010 would depend on how high any ash would be thrown, how much there would be and how fine-grained it would be. Bardarbunga is Iceland's largest volcanic system, located under the ice cap of the Vatnajokull glacier in the southeast of Iceland. It is in a different range to Eyjafjallajokull. The met office said in a statement it measured the strongest earthquake in the region since 1996 early on Monday and it now had strong indications of ongoing magma movement. "As evidence of magma movement shallower than 10km implies increased potential of a volcanic eruption, the Bardarbunga aviation colour code has been changed to orange," it said. "Presently there are no signs of eruption, but it cannot be excluded that the current activity will result in an explosive subglacial eruption, leading to an outburst flood and ash emission." ... Hensch said the biggest risk in Iceland itself was from flood waves from any eruption under the glacier. He said the area of Iceland mainly at risk of flooding was mostly uninhabited but that roads in the area had been closed.

itwbennett (1594911) writes In a follow-up to yesterday's story about the Chinese hackers who stole hospital data of 4.5 million patients, IDG News Service's Martyn Williams set out to learn why the data, which didn't include credit card information, was so valuable. The answer is depressingly simple: people without health insurance can potentially get treatment by using medical data of one of the hacking victims. John Halamka, chief information officer of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and chairman of the New England Healthcare Exchange Network, said a medical record can be worth between $50 and $250 to the right customer — many times more than the amount typically paid for a credit card number, or the cents paid for a user name and password. "If I am one of the 50 million Americans who are uninsured ... and I need a million-dollar heart transplant, for $250 I can get a complete medical record including insurance company details," he said.

Personal Audio has been trying to assert patents they claim cover podcasting for some time now; in March Adam Carolla was sued and decided to fight back. Via the EFF comes news that he has settled with Personal Audio, and the outcome is likely beneficial to those still fighting the trolls. From the article: Although the settlement is confidential, we can guess the terms. This is because Personal Audio sent out a press release last month saying it was willing to walk away from its suit with Carolla. So we can assume that Carolla did not pay Personal Audio a penny. We can also assume that, in exchange, Carolla has given up the opportunity to challenge the patent and the chance to get his attorney’s fees. ... EFF’s own challenge to Personal Audio’s patent is on a separate track and will continue ... with a ruling likely by April 2015. ... We hope that Personal Audio’s public statements on this issue mean that it has truly abandoned threatening and suing podcasters. Though a press release might not be legally binding, the company will have a hard time justifying any further litigation (or threats of litigation) against podcasters. Any future targets can point to this statement. Carolla deserves recognition for getting this result.