[Noisebridge-discuss] Sigh -- I'm not helping with Maker Faires this year.
rachel lyra hospodar
rachelyra at gmail.com
Wed Apr 4 15:35:33 PDT 2012
Matt, your earlier message included the following text. You may wish to
steer this conversation towards the specific (individual questions or
concerns about tactics), but I believe that the broader questions are
important. Tell me, do you truly believe what is stated below? If so, I
cannot have a nitty gritty discussion with you about tactics...because our
base level assumptions do not match.
And I want to remind you. DARPA isn't in the business of killing people.
It's in the business of engineering peace where there is none. War and
chaos do not achieve the objectives of DARPA or the US military. Their goal
is to END conflict.
On Apr 4, 2012 3:20 PM, "Matt Joyce" <matt at nycresistor.com> wrote:
> We are hackers.... so I am going to model this posting in the way of
> psuedo python.
> Developers of Make have decided to introduce a new module called DARPA.
> import DARPA from USGOV
> import DIYClassic
> Fair enough.
> Open Source Community Leader Mitch Altman has concerns about how DARPA
> as a module operates and whether or not we should be using it in our
> software. He has decided that he no longer wishes to collaborate with
> Make as a result. He needed to let the community know this for a
> variety of reasons. This of courses starts a firestorm of debate.
> So lets look at DARPA as a module.
> We know it has a collection of methods... some of which are really
> sweet. It has several methods for calling get_money from grants.
> However many of these are as GNU would say tainted. However in spite
> of these several methods have been used to great success in the past.
> Project Internet, Grand Challenge, and a few others have been raised
> as examples.
> So I guess the question I have is.. can we build either a default deny
> or default allow list of methods that DARPA provides that work for our
> open source projects? Are they portable? Is there a friendly
> community contact involved in a two way discussion about future
> development and participation.
> These are just my questions. I think there are probably many more to
> ask. It seems to me what is at question here is whether we can set a
> community standard for interfacing with DARPA? If we can, do we
> benefit from it? Is there a better alternative? Can we write a
> hackerspace enhancement proposal for this. And do we want to adopt it
> if we can?
> I mean lets not lose our heads here. This is an important discussion
> with some serious stakes. We need to focus on defining what the
> issues are we want addressed. Figuring out how and if we can get
> answers on addressing them. Then deciding if we should.
> In short lets line up our issues and knock them down. If at the end
> of that there's an issue that remains then so be it.
> This discussion is turning unproductive.
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Corey McGuire <coreyfro at coreyfro.com>
> > Noone is saying this doesn't happen.
> > What we are saying is, here is a chance to take the positive aspects of
> > of humanity and roll them in to one event.
> > For example.
> > I am a Co-Parent. I have an active role in my child's life. So does his
> > mother. We may not approve of each other's methods for raising our, and
> > indeed, we may have, each, committed wrongs (I am only using this as
> > illustration, likenesses to people living or dead is purely
> > To use these wrongs as a reason for pushing the other parent out of the
> > child's life, however, is a GREATER wrong...
> > ...because, regardless of a few wrongs, there is no shortage of good
> > in our case, each parent provides. Were we separate our child from one
> > parent over a few wrongs, the child would not be exposed to the good of
> > parent...
> > ...BUT NOT ONLY THAT...
> > ...because these children are intelligent beings, each with the ability
> > measure right and wrong...to not have both parents represented, then the
> > child only has ONE model to base their entire world view from.
> > Do you, Rachel Lyra Hospodar and Mitch Rodrick (just a guess)
> Altman, want
> > to be dead beat parents and under represent yourselves in the cultural
> > exchange that is maker fair just because you don't like that the other
> > parents *cough*DARPA*cough* have let the other kid watch a "Nightmare on
> > street" marathon?
> > Then...guess who wins?
> > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:38 AM, rachel lyra hospodar <
> rachelyra at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> If you think our government only indulges its hobby of killing brown
> >> people in other countries, you are mistaken. If you think it only kills
> >> brown people who are on the wrong side of the military, you are
> >> If you think there is no difference between using existing technology,
> >> seeking to steer the way new technology is produced, I think that you
> >> very mistaken.
> >> If you think I'm obligated to volunteer for a large and already
> >> project regardless of how it is run, you are sadly mistaken.
> >> I do think that maker faire is a valuable source of hacker lifeblood for
> >> our community. I hope those of you that feel comfortable with the
> >> that things are headed are willing to step up to the plate and
> contribute to
> >> a noisebridge presence. I have helped a lot in years past with the
> >> noisebridge offerings but am glad to have a little more energy to focus
> >> elsewhere.
> >> R.
> >> On Apr 4, 2012 11:22 AM, "VonGuard" <vonguard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I agree Martin.
> >>> I think it's rather silly to stay out of Maker Faire for the reasons
> >>> stated. Anyone boycotting because of this funding should really stop
> >>> computers, and never use any technology out of MIT or CMU. ARPANET,
> >>> became the Internet, was a military funded project. And MIT and CMU
> >>> take huge amounts of DARPA money. Remember the self-driving car
> >>> Frankly, I'm happy our tax dollars are coming back to us in some way,
> >>> matter how they get there. It's better than the government spending it
> >>> its favorite overseas pass-time: killing brown people.
> >>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Martin Bogomolni <martinbogo at gmail.com
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> The -message- is important though.
> >>>> A recruiter is legally bound, by the contract they have signed with
> >>>> the US armed forces, to identify and attempt to recruit as many
> >>>> qualified people as they can through a number of enticements into the
> >>>> US armed forces. This is their primary job.
> >>>> A DARPA STEM grant comes with a couple strings attached (it must be
> >>>> spent for the purpose the grant was applied for, namely
> >>>> Science/Tech/Engineering/Math education) but it does not commit anyone
> >>>> who accepts that grant to the purpose of recruiting, or to perform a
> >>>> research task for the US armed forces.
> >>>> The thinking that goes into a Military Recruiter is: "Send out our
> >>>> most charismatic, and experienced soldiers to go find people who will
> >>>> be useful to the military and recruit them."
> >>>> The thinking that goes into the STEM education fund is : "Support
> >>>> science, technology, engineering and math in schools and get people
> >>>> interested in science. The more people get interested in these
> >>>> subjects, the higher quality pool of people we will have in the US in
> >>>> the future to draw on."
> >>>> I'm not going to scoff at DARPA money, especially since it doesn't
> >>>> require or _directly_ encourage people to join the military. I would
> >>>> honestly be more delighted if this money came from an education
> >>>> initiative outside of the military, but because it doesn't tie the
> >>>> carrot on the stick directly to military service, I also don't have a
> >>>> problem with it.
> >>>> IMHOI it's taking millions of dollars away from projects that might
> >>>> directly be used to hurt people, and beating it into plowshares
> >>>> through education. I feel this kind of thing should be
> >>>> ///encouraged///. If it comes down to it, I'd rather that every
> >>>> agency in the government that could spend money on education and
> >>>> making participation in science and technology do so. Certainly,
> >>>> many do (from the CDC in disease prevention and education to the FDA,
> >>>> from Welfare offering job training to the NSF directly funding
> >>>> science).
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> > --
> > Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler - Albert
> > Einstein
> > Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo Da Vinci
> > Perfection is reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when
> > is nothing left to take away - Antoine de Saint Exupéry
> > Keep It Simple Stupid - Kelly Johnson
> > _______________________________________________
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss