Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What the Maker Revolution Will Really Look Like

blog.zanoby.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 45 posts

Re: What the Maker Revolution Will Really Look Like

#21

Post by podperson »

I think this article misses not only "the" point but pretty much all points about the "maker" revolution. The maker revolution is about the world of "atoms" being converged into the world of "bits". Just as desktop publishing technology engulfed specialized information-centric industries such as mathematical and musical typesetting, 3d printers are the first step towards what Neal Stephenson referred to as "matter compilers" in The Diamond Age -- where the gap between design and physicality is almost trivial -- the idea that this will look like guilds or mass cottage industry or whatever is wrong-headed: it will look like something we've never seen before.

(I think matter compilers are going to far, and we'll probably use standardized recyclable lego-like pieces rather than atoms but the idea is basically sound).

Re: What the Maker Revolution Will Really Look Like

#22

Post by michaelfeathers »

Call me pessimistic, but I suspect that the 'Maker Revolution' could bring us a level of legal madness that is far beyond what we have seen in copyright over the past 20 years.

Plans for 3D printing are not only copyrightable, they are subject to patent law. That, and the potential for creation of contraband with 3D printers may lead to online clearing houses for designs that you make and print at home, or strict legislation controlling the use of home printers and sale of items from them.

Beyond that, it is likely that there will be a secondary effect. Right now, you can make just about any item you want to in your wood shop, hobby shop or on your kitchen table, and use it at home or sell it to neighbors or friends. 3D printers may bring much more legal scrutiny to things that pass under the radar as craft today even if printers aren't used.

I want a better future than that, so I hope that people take the initiative to support early safe harbor legislation and exemptions for home projects.

Re: What the Maker Revolution Will Really Look Like

#23

Post by berntb »

hosh wrote: post #11
berntb wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>provide for your needs without depending on a global supply chain. Hmm... reminds me of a discussion (@Stross' blog) about how many people were needed in a society, to support a technological civilization. Stross argued we would need many millions of people. http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/07/insuffic... (Of course, lots of specialised services can be replaced with less efficient generic ones, but…

Basic material needs: Food. Water. Shelter. Air. Existential needs: Love, affection, contentment, happiness, connection. Technology can address the basic needs and can never address existential needs. Everything else are wants. Wants are endless since they attempt to address existential needs but never actually satisfy them. In that sense, Stross is correct. There will always be more wants than can be supported by an…

Uhh... you went of in some weird orthogonal direction. The Stross reference were about the minimum number of people needed for a technological civilization.

(Didn't you read it? Are you defending some belief system as an excuse for being religious? We're just talking past each others?)

(And you're wrong, anyway. without technology and science, we'd still have little time, get sick and die early -- living under tyranny. Not much chance of contentment and happiness when you e.g. see your kids die; it was ~ 30% child mortality before technology/science, depending on where you lived. The point is, industrialisation is a prereq for fulfilling existential needs for most of the population.)

Re: What the Maker Revolution Will Really Look Like

#24

Post by berntb »

yk wrote: post #20
berntb wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>provide for your needs without depending on a global supply chain. Hmm... reminds me of a discussion (@Stross' blog) about how many people were needed in a society, to support a technological civilization. Stross argued we would need many millions of people. http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/07/insuffic... (Of course, lots of specialised services can be replaced with less efficient generic ones, but…

The discussion focussed on the entire technological stack; and I do not think that anybody claims that we will be designing and printing comercial airliners from scratch at home. By contrast the maker revolution is (in its first stages) about the long tail of manufactoring. So in the forseeable future it is about beeing able to sell small runs of specialized goods at prices compareable to more generic and mass produc…

The discussion noted all the specialities needed in education. The point I was trying to make is that a maker revolution has a potential to drastically cut down the number of specialized people needed; consider just e.g. logistics. (Not talking about the first stages.)

Re: What the Maker Revolution Will Really Look Like

#25

Post by Jtsummers »

jdreaver wrote: post #12

I don't understand why we keep us in the word "democratize" when it comes to increasing individual freedom with technology. Democracy is the tyranny of the majority; we aren't voting to see who gets to produce or consume what. It's a pet peeve of mine because it's simply used as a buzzword and makes no sense in a technological context.

I think it gets used that way because it has been for at least decades now. Democratization of information, knowledge has long been tied to the idea of decentralization and distribution amongst the masses. This easily carries over to many of the principal ideas of the internet and the communication of ideas, designs, etc that it permits.

Re: What the Maker Revolution Will Really Look Like

#26

Post by wmf »

podperson wrote: post #21

I think this article misses not only "the" point but pretty much all points about the "maker" revolution. The maker revolution is about the world of "atoms" being converged into the world of "bits". Just as desktop publishing technology engulfed specialized information-centric industries such as mathematical and musical typesetting, 3d printers are the first step towards what Neal Stephenson referred to as "matter co…

3d printers are the first step towards ... where the gap between design and physicality is almost trivial

Maybe the author is thinking of the next few years and you're thinking about the next few decades.

Re: What the Maker Revolution Will Really Look Like

#27

Post by hosh »

berntb wrote: post #23
hosh wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic material needs: Food. Water. Shelter. Air. Existential needs: Love, affection, contentment, happiness, connection. Technology can address the basic needs and can never address existential needs. Everything else are wants. Wants are endless since they attempt to address existential needs but never actually satisfy them. In that sense, Stross is correct. There will always be more wants than can be supported by an…

Uhh... you went of in some weird orthogonal direction. The Stross reference were about the minimum number of people needed for a technological civilization. (Didn't you read it? Are you defending some belief system as an excuse for being religious? We're just talking past each others?) (And you're wrong, anyway. without technology and science, we'd still have little time, get sick and die early -- living under tyrann…

Yeah. I read it. Given the constraint, premise, and assumptions, what Stross says makes sense. It's model that's limited in scope.

I'm not being religious. Satisfaction and contentedness is something you can go verify for yourself by observing yourself.

It is entirely possible for an individual to fulfill existential needs even with the horrors of 30% child mortality rate, but most people can't or don't do that. Technology serves as a great support for this, but it will never actually fulfill those existential needs.

It's my hope that microfab technologies will free up people's time so that they can really look into existential needs.

Re: What the Maker Revolution Will Really Look Like

#28

Post by bcoates »

hosh wrote: post #11
berntb wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>provide for your needs without depending on a global supply chain. Hmm... reminds me of a discussion (@Stross' blog) about how many people were needed in a society, to support a technological civilization. Stross argued we would need many millions of people. http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/07/insuffic... (Of course, lots of specialised services can be replaced with less efficient generic ones, but…

Basic material needs: Food. Water. Shelter. Air. Existential needs: Love, affection, contentment, happiness, connection. Technology can address the basic needs and can never address existential needs. Everything else are wants. Wants are endless since they attempt to address existential needs but never actually satisfy them. In that sense, Stross is correct. There will always be more wants than can be supported by an…

If you're not young, able, and heterosexual, technology can easily be the difference between isolation and connection.

Re: What the Maker Revolution Will Really Look Like

#29

Post by king_jester »

hosh wrote: post #4

The author missed the true significance of the Maker Revolution. It is not about people being able to design their own products or having a market full of craptastic products. The Maker Revolution is about being able to provide for your needs without depending on a global supply chain. It's about the kind of material freedom you might have if your neighborhood hardware store, or even your household fab in the garage…

Is this really true though? To get raw materials to use a maker to build something you'll probably have to depend on global supply chains, esp. since most goods will require multiple kinds of material to complete.

> The Maker Revolution is about being able to provide for your needs without depending on a global supply chain.

> It's about the kind of material freedom you might have if your neighborhood hardware store, or even your household fab in the garage can make all the goods for your basic needs, and then some.

This is definitely the case, as most of what maker robots are creating now fit this category. With good enough tech, hardware stores, Wal-Mart, and other sellers of mass produced, low complexity items will go out of business, or at least be more much niche then they are now.

Post reply on HN