DARPA + Makers + School = the Future of Innovation

PerlJedi writes "The future of innovation in America is the Maker movement. A new project being announced on the Makezine blog aims to bring low cost innovation and alternative manufacturing processes to schools in hopes of turbo-charging the next generation of inventors in the U.S. From the announcement: 'The new Makerspace program, developed by Dale Dougherty of MAKE and Dr. Saul Griffith of Otherlab, will integrate online tools for design and collaboration with low-cost options for physical workspaces where students may access educational support to gain practical hands-on experience with new technologies and innovative processes to design and build projects. The program has a goal of reaching 1000 high schools over four years, starting with a pilot program of 10 high schools in California during the 2012-2013 school year.'"

Comments

Fixing the wrong problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter how well educated and motivated Americans are for making things. As long as there is cheap trade with countries with more sane intellectual property laws and/or poor labor regulations, the USA cannot compete.

It is not a knowledge problem, it is a legal one.

Re:Fixing the wrong problem.

[i kan reed]

This is incorrect. You honestly think most people on slashdot are unemployed? They're mostly very well paid IT people and engineers with a dash of everything else. There is an extraordinary difference in the productivity of the average skilled American worker and the average unskilled Chinese worker.(unskilled Americans and skilled Chinese left out of the equation now). It is on the order of a hundred times as much. Pretending like a lack of technical skills is valueless is no way to address problems in an economy where unskilled and non-technically skilled people represent the vast majority of the unemployed. Your gloom-and-doom assertions have no basis in fact, and betray a bizarre Luddite attitude that seems contrary to the techy nature of slashdot.

It's just weird.

Re:Fixing the wrong problem.

[i kan reed]

I work with numerous H1-B coworkers. They are good people, on the whole and not deserving of contempt from just being foreign. On top of that, I am well payed in spite of whatever depressing effect they have.

What you're forgetting is that when you hire H1-B, you're bringing talent and skill into the U.S. and increasing the health of the U.S. economy. Moreover, they're paying the same rent/food/electricity/transportation/tax costs every other person living in the U.S. is too. The real risk H1-B poses to the U.S. is not "taking our jobs" as the very low unemployment in those fields indicates, but rather that we send these workers home after their visa expires, and lose all the knowledge they brought with them and gained during their employment.

It only "artificially" depresses wages if you consider their existence artificial. Personally, I'd be happier with a clear path to citizenship for H1-B workers.

Re:Fixing the wrong problem.

[hedwards]

What about the talent that's already here? It made sense for us to snag Einstein, von Braun and all those amazing European minds before, during and after WWII because they were so exceptional. But, by bringing in people on H-1B visas to fill jobs that could be filled by ordinary IT workers all you're doing is creating a dependence on foreign laborers to get the work done. It's very much the same sort of thing as why food shipments to starving countries are only a stop gap measure. Long term you provide a disincentive to self sufficiency.

Yes, those folks aren't bad people, but what you're failing to take into account is the folks that gave up and retrained before the economy went in the gutter and the number of positions which don't exist any more as companies cut back.

TFS makes me think of 2 things:

[mcgrew]

1. Cory Doctorow. It wasn't his best book, but wasn't too bad either, and did give one food for thought. Almost required reading for this topic; it's available at your local bookstore, or for free at BoingBoing.

2. What good is being an inventor when a patent is practically impossible for someone who isn't filthy rich to obtain and defend? The rich not only have priveleges you don't, they have rights you don't. Actually, this is one of the subthemes of the aformentioned book.

If I had the money to obtain a patent, I'd have several by now. The patent system is in serious need of reform.

Re:TFS makes me think of 2 things:

[SuricouRaven]

Patents are one of the few things you can get without a huge cost. They are within the reach of individuals. Defending them in court, on the other hand, can cost millions - so once you have your shiny new patent, expect companies to ignore it. The best you might manage is to sell it to a company that does have the resources to enforce it.