DARPA + Makers + School = the Future of Innovation

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DARPA + Makers + School = the Future of Innovation

Posted by Soulskill on Friday January 20, 2012 @03:59AM from the broadening-the-base dept.

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.'"

18 of 70 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Fixing the wrong problem. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

It doesn't matter how well educated and motivated Americans are for making things. As long as there is cheap trade with countries with more sane intellectual property laws and/or poor labor regulations, the USA cannot compete.
It is not a knowledge problem, it is a legal one.
1. Re:Fixing the wrong problem. by i+kan+reed · 2012-01-20 04:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This is incorrect. You honestly think most people on slashdot are unemployed? They're mostly very well paid IT people and engineers with a dash of everything else. There is an extraordinary difference in the productivity of the average skilled American worker and the average unskilled Chinese worker.(unskilled Americans and skilled Chinese left out of the equation now). It is on the order of a hundred times as much. Pretending like a lack of technical skills is valueless is no way to address problems in an economy where unskilled and non-technically skilled people represent the vast majority of the unemployed. Your gloom-and-doom assertions have no basis in fact, and betray a bizarre Luddite attitude that seems contrary to the techy nature of slashdot.
  It's just weird.
2. Re:Fixing the wrong problem. by hedwards · 2012-01-20 04:33 · Score: 2
  
  And how many folks end up with jobs in IT versus those that tried but got discouraged by the low pay early on and competition from H-1B visa holders that were imported to artificially depress wages?
3. Re:Fixing the wrong problem. by i+kan+reed · 2012-01-20 04:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I work with numerous H1-B coworkers. They are good people, on the whole and not deserving of contempt from just being foreign. On top of that, I am well payed in spite of whatever depressing effect they have.
  What you're forgetting is that when you hire H1-B, you're bringing talent and skill into the U.S. and increasing the health of the U.S. economy. Moreover, they're paying the same rent/food/electricity/transportation/tax costs every other person living in the U.S. is too. The real risk H1-B poses to the U.S. is not "taking our jobs" as the very low unemployment in those fields indicates, but rather that we send these workers home after their visa expires, and lose all the knowledge they brought with them and gained during their employment.
  It only "artificially" depresses wages if you consider their existence artificial. Personally, I'd be happier with a clear path to citizenship for H1-B workers.
4. Re:Fixing the wrong problem. by Eil · 2012-01-20 05:03 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There are so many things wrong with this comment that I don't know where to start. I'm 90% sure it's a troll, but I'll bite anyway:
  The problem is that we live in a society where everyone expects success to be handed to them. In the U.S., the poorest of the poor have a standard of living that outshines the majority of the rest of the world. We're all taught to get straight A's through high school, get a four-year degree while amassing crushing amounts of debt, and then after that we'll be able to land a job with a six figure salary and join a union that will keep us from getting fired no matter how little work we actualy do. When that doesn't happen, we complain that the government isn't creating enough jobs for us and then sit back to enjoy nice free unemployment checks while waiting for an opportunity to fall in our lap. What. The. Fuck.
  When (not if) China supercedes the U.S. as the new world superpower in the next decade or two, I sincerely hope my fellow Americans will get off their butts and realize that we need to *work* to maintain our standard of living and our place in the world. Even if it's unpleasant, even if it's not what we really want to do at the moment. Otherwise, I fear that I'm going to live to see the fall of the U.S. democracy. Given our history of foreign policy, I'm certain that the rest of the world will celebrate it much as we celebrated the fall of the Soviet Union.
5. Re:Fixing the wrong problem. by hedwards · 2012-01-20 05:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What about the talent that's already here? It made sense for us to snag Einstein, von Braun and all those amazing European minds before, during and after WWII because they were so exceptional. But, by bringing in people on H-1B visas to fill jobs that could be filled by ordinary IT workers all you're doing is creating a dependence on foreign laborers to get the work done. It's very much the same sort of thing as why food shipments to starving countries are only a stop gap measure. Long term you provide a disincentive to self sufficiency.
  Yes, those folks aren't bad people, but what you're failing to take into account is the folks that gave up and retrained before the economy went in the gutter and the number of positions which don't exist any more as companies cut back.
6. Re:Fixing the wrong problem. by qzjul · 2012-01-20 05:24 · Score: 2
  
  Those of us discouraged from going into IT went into engineering instead.
7. Re:Fixing the wrong problem. by hackus · 2012-01-20 07:30 · Score: 2
  
  You cannot compete with slave labor.
  The USAry is going to have to eventually make a decision:
  1) Race to the bottom where you have super cheap crap being made, by people that make $10 an hour.
  If you want to live and compete like FOXCONN employees, then thats great. We can put dorms and nets outside the buildings so people don't jump to their deaths in despair and misery working in such conditions.
  Isn't that iGreat?!
  2) Or Add to the equation, not just Free Markets, but Fair Trade. That means when you manufacture something, a tariff equalizes it so that Americans can go back to what they had with trade tariff's in the 1950's.
  Personally, I feel the real issue is globalism. It is a broken idea, and as we are watching, Globalism makes it efficient to redistribute the profits by centralizing them in a few companies, and therefore a few hands.
  Instead of many small manufacturing firms of lawn mowers for example, you have one or two, and the people on these boards and share holders get to take in all of the profit. The idea is of course, that this creates billion and trillionaires.
  With a large diverse market, minus globalism you just get 1 or two billionaires, but a whole ton more millionaires.
  Also, I would like to point out, this globalism is the main reason why countries are going broke. The entities that have been created by Globalism largely don't pay any taxes.
  In short, just my opinion, everything has just got too big, and too unwielding. I am hopeful that people will come to their senses and dismantal globalism so we can return to lots of small voices in the farming industry for example. Not just 2 or 3 large industrial farming corporations.
  Which, if you can't see the danger of _just_ one or two companies doing all the farming, well, I am wasting my time anyway.
  But really. Globalism is just too big. It needs to be dismantled into manageable parts so that Democracy can digest the issues.
  Globalism generates issues way to big for the differing cultures and democracies to handle.
  Unless of course, you plan on creating a world government. For that too happen we need a gigantic war to destroy most of the West and everyone who thinks like I do.
  (Well, a War, or maybe a nice virus or maybe just put something in the food and water...which since only a few companies are marking the majority of the food, would probably be fairly easy to do. If not now, it certainly gets easier by the day.)
  I will leave that to you if you think that is happening.
  -Hack
  
  --
  Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
TFS makes me think of 2 things: by mcgrew · 2012-01-20 04:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

1. Cory Doctorow. It wasn't his best book, but wasn't too bad either, and did give one food for thought. Almost required reading for this topic; it's available at your local bookstore, or for free at BoingBoing.
2. What good is being an inventor when a patent is practically impossible for someone who isn't filthy rich to obtain and defend? The rich not only have priveleges you don't, they have rights you don't. Actually, this is one of the subthemes of the aformentioned book.
If I had the money to obtain a patent, I'd have several by now. The patent system is in serious need of reform.

--
Free Martian Whores!
1. Re:TFS makes me think of 2 things: by SuricouRaven · 2012-01-20 04:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
We first used CAD in middle school.. by sandytaru · 2012-01-20 04:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

My middle school had a grant, either from DARPA itself or something similar from the local Army base, and used it to develop an elective for 8th graders called "Explorations in Technology." Students worked through labs as teams, and could pick which labs they wanted to work on. One of the coolest labs, and one that was filled before I could snag it, was the CAD lab with a laser cutter where the student could design their own pendant (either with their initials, or some other design) and then have it carved out of plastic with a laser. The Makerbot will fit right into such technology labs in schools lucky enough to have them.

Other labs we had included building a model rocket, learning a few LOGO commands and creating a picture, learning not to be afraid of the guts of a PC (this is a slot! and it can hold add-in cards!), flying a space shuttle simulator, etc. This was 1994 - the labs today can probably include a lot more advanced things. This technology class replaced our shop class, though, so we lost the chance to learn to use buzz saws safely.

--
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Roll yer own... by Tsingi · 2012-01-20 04:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

I built a CnC machine (Computer controlled milling machine) It's a hoot. Building a fabricating shop is not that hard or overly expensive; if you have the skills to build and use one I highly recommend it.
1. Re:Roll yer own... by Tsingi · 2012-01-20 04:35 · Score: 2
  
  I built a CnC machine (Computer controlled milling machine) It's a hoot.
  [Citation needed].
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnc
Innovation cannot be low cost by DoofusOfDeath · 2012-01-20 04:21 · Score: 4, Funny

In U.S and, increasingly elsewhere, patents are a threat to any would-be innovator, whether in high-school, or at a university lab, or in private industry.
If DARPA really wants to enable innovation, it should pay for each high school to have a team of 20 patent lawyers.
Re:So what does this mean? by Rich0 · 2012-01-20 05:05 · Score: 4, Informative

"Makers" are apparently people who have built 3D printers and think that this is the be-all and end-all of manufacturing technology.
Sure, the fact that you can build one for $100 now is pretty neat. However, CAD/CAM was in vogue back when I was in high school. It indeed has changed the world, but not because anytime somebody wants a widget they take 3 hours to have some laser mill carve it out of steel.
3D printers, and CAM in general are great for prototyping, but they're not going to make a dent in the cost of finished goods. Right now maker bots can only make 99 cent plastic toys - which some guy in China can already make for two cents, and which probably costs $1.50 in materials to make using a 3D printer. If you want to make new gears for your bike then you're going to need something capable of cutting through hard steel, and that isn't going to be $50 and made out of plastic. About the only thing you'd save making such things yourself is any patent rights for the design, and those aren't much compared to manufacturing costs.
About the only thing manufacture-at-home is likely to be cost-effective at is counterfeiting currency - since its value is almost entirely fiat. I saw a neat documentary about some guy who was doing just that with casino chips. The neat thing about it was that when they finally traced him they couldn't arrest him since he lived in a state that didn't have legalized gambling and forging casino chips was consequently not considered a crime. He wasn't using 3d printers though - this was serious die-pressing equipment/etc.
Re:So what does this mean? by robot256 · 2012-01-20 06:03 · Score: 3, Informative

3D printers, and CAM in general are great for prototyping, but they're not going to make a dent in the cost of finished goods.
I beg to differ. While it is true that 3D printing cannot hold a candle to the efficiency of bulk injection molding, it is already bringing down the prices of other types of products. For example, I am involved with the design of a robotic mechanism that had lots of tiny, hard-to-machine parts and needed lots of assembly time. With 3D printing, we could basically print half the parts pre-assembled in shapes that would be physically impossible to either machine or mold (blind holes, internal cavities, crazy angles and contours, etc). The resulting drop in machine and assembly time cut the cost by a factor of ten, even when produced in quantity. Plus, since we don't have to order parts in batches, we can afford to offer them at a lower price while order volume is low.
3D printers are also revolutionizing the replacement-part industry for cars, aircraft, and antiques. High-quality, high-strength parts can be made by printing steel or titanium, and also by coating plastic parts with metal. True, they won't replace your bike sprocket or drive shaft, but they can do a lot more than 99 cent plastic toys.
Re:So what does this mean? by sootman · 2012-01-20 06:25 · Score: 2

> 3D printers, and CAM in general are great for prototyping, but they're
> not going to make a dent in the cost of finished goods. Right now maker
> bots can only make 99 cent plastic toys - which some guy in China can
> already make for two cents, and which probably costs $1.50 in materials
> to make using a 3D printer.
I care about not wasting things. I can't wait until the day comes that it's affordable for me to make little plastic doodads to replace broken bits of plastic in toys and devices. I'd rather spend $1 to fix a $1 toy with a tiny part than spend $1 to buy a replacement and throw the broken one away. There's a whole world of things that are made from plastic that can be fixed with plastic that don't require the strength of a bike sprocket.
You know the first thing I'd make if it were feasible? You know the little plastic battery covers on the backs of remotes? I could use about 5 of those right now. A plastic with the strength of the polystyrene used in model cars and planes would suffice.

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Don't drink and derive... by ruhri · 2012-01-20 07:52 · Score: 2

I'm all for putting Maker's into schools, but wouldn't they have to lower the drinking age for that?