Are hackerspaces growing because companies don't tap their engineers' creativity?(xconomy.com)
xconomy.com
Are hackerspaces growing because companies don't tap their engineers' creativity?
http://www.xconomy.com/national/2009/05/22/people-doing-strange-things-with-soldering-irons-a-visit-to-hackerspace/
8 comments
Haven't RTFA yet, but want to answer the question posed in the headline: yes. Passionate creatives are often very protective of their idea and unless an exceptional corporate culture exists (Google 20% projects back in Goog's glory days, etc...) most of them that I've met would be loath to turn over something they love to the commitee.
I completely agree. I love my current start up and I would never turn it open to committee unless I was able to control where it goes.
I just take it as an indication that people in the IT/computer fields just don't have any exposure to this kind of work, and they are curious about it.
How many kids graduating with a CS or IT degree today have ever wired up a circuit? Or played with a microprocessor and hooked something up to it? I bet that number is smaller than you think.
How many kids graduating with a CS or IT degree today have ever wired up a circuit? Or played with a microprocessor and hooked something up to it? I bet that number is smaller than you think.
Having recently graduated from a CompE program at the number 2 or 3 (depending on who you ask) school in my non-US country - I think it depends very much on the focus of the school's program (my alma mater, for example, is known to do much more hardware things than most CompE programs we compare ourselves to). Over the course of my four-year degree, we had four lab courses where you play hands-on with circuits and do more traditional hardware hacking (so about one every other semester).
First one is the basic breadboard class, focusing on RLC + OpAmp circuits (basically building amplifiers and Wheatstone bridges) and getting you familiar with how to use a scope, function generator, and the various other tools of the lab.
Second one is CPLDs - over the course of a semester design (in, ugh, VHDL) and build a WWII Enigma machine. Some circuit assembly (attaching various components to the main board) and DIY multiplexing, but the focus is on the CPLD.
Third one is based off a custom board with a CPLD, a little programmable TI micro-controller, and a whole lot of pins to wire-wrap things on to. My year we attached keypads, RTCs, four-line LCD displays, and speakers to do FM wavetable synth - half our final grade was dependent on how good Jingle Bells sounded when we played it back on the last day.
Fourth one was about IC design - given the schematics for several types of amplifiers we simulated them, analyzed them, and then hand-laid them out. Flash-forwards two weeks, and we got them back (as DIPs) from the fab. Rest of the course was about testing them, building a few more RLC circuits to complement and verify them, and hooking everything together to make an AM radio receiver.
If you were really into HW, there were a few electives you could take (mixed-signal analysis, IC fabrication, and a whole bunch of power engineering courses sponsored by our local utility company) that would get you more exposure to it. All of this was in addition to the on-paper analysis courses that everyone took, starting with RLC circuits and ending with the physics behind BJTs and diodes.
First one is the basic breadboard class, focusing on RLC + OpAmp circuits (basically building amplifiers and Wheatstone bridges) and getting you familiar with how to use a scope, function generator, and the various other tools of the lab.
Second one is CPLDs - over the course of a semester design (in, ugh, VHDL) and build a WWII Enigma machine. Some circuit assembly (attaching various components to the main board) and DIY multiplexing, but the focus is on the CPLD.
Third one is based off a custom board with a CPLD, a little programmable TI micro-controller, and a whole lot of pins to wire-wrap things on to. My year we attached keypads, RTCs, four-line LCD displays, and speakers to do FM wavetable synth - half our final grade was dependent on how good Jingle Bells sounded when we played it back on the last day.
Fourth one was about IC design - given the schematics for several types of amplifiers we simulated them, analyzed them, and then hand-laid them out. Flash-forwards two weeks, and we got them back (as DIPs) from the fab. Rest of the course was about testing them, building a few more RLC circuits to complement and verify them, and hooking everything together to make an AM radio receiver.
If you were really into HW, there were a few electives you could take (mixed-signal analysis, IC fabrication, and a whole bunch of power engineering courses sponsored by our local utility company) that would get you more exposure to it. All of this was in addition to the on-paper analysis courses that everyone took, starting with RLC circuits and ending with the physics behind BJTs and diodes.
That's true. When I was in college as a CS undergrad, the only hardware-themed course we were required to take was an Intro to Computer Engineering class that was mostly done on paper (think logic gate circuit diagrams and truth tables).
There was an end-of-term lab requirement where you inserted wires into a board full of tiny holes (I forget its actual name) to demonstrate certain basic circuits, but that was it. I remember that there was no professor or TA for the lab so you were completely on your own.
There was an end-of-term lab requirement where you inserted wires into a board full of tiny holes (I forget its actual name) to demonstrate certain basic circuits, but that was it. I remember that there was no professor or TA for the lab so you were completely on your own.
I live pretty close to this place:
http://www.hgrindustrialsurplus.com/
As a software guy, I've found that I could spend endless hours in here looking at industrial machinery. For no rational reason, I'd love to buy a 50's era metal lathe. So, I agree on the curiosity point.
http://www.hgrindustrialsurplus.com/
As a software guy, I've found that I could spend endless hours in here looking at industrial machinery. For no rational reason, I'd love to buy a 50's era metal lathe. So, I agree on the curiosity point.
I think it's just human nature to want to be free and independent. Let's not forget how low the barriers to starting a software company are these days. These low barriers are just a factor enabling people to quite working for big companies.
Yes, of course! And that's the way we like it.
Remember, not everyone works for a startup. Some people have lives, and hobbies, apart from their day jobs.
Remember, not everyone works for a startup. Some people have lives, and hobbies, apart from their day jobs.
And some people work for a startup and are starting their own hacker spaces. ;)
Hackerspaces now are what computer clubs were in the 1970's.
I work with a couple of guys who've been doing a lot of work to organise UK (specifically London) hack spaces.
http://hackspace.org.uk
I think the reason for the popularity is a mix of work discontent and people wanting to do radically different things than their day job may offer them.
http://hackspace.org.uk
I think the reason for the popularity is a mix of work discontent and people wanting to do radically different things than their day job may offer them.
I think that's a great way to support on-the-edge innovators (or potential innovators).
Not everybody can launch their startup in a garage (or, esp. in UK) has a garage.
Not everybody can launch their startup in a garage (or, esp. in UK) has a garage.
One of the driving forces behind hackers is that they (we) want to solve problems. Larger companies don't let us solve problems because of politics and bureaucracy. They don't have enough "interesting" problems, so we invent our own.
We also have a much higher risk tolerance than most corporations, perhaps for good reason! Look how many startups "fail." Part of the difference is how hackers vs. corporations define fail. If the problem is solved, the hacker believes it is a success. If the solution makes money, the business believes it is a success...
We also have a much higher risk tolerance than most corporations, perhaps for good reason! Look how many startups "fail." Part of the difference is how hackers vs. corporations define fail. If the problem is solved, the hacker believes it is a success. If the solution makes money, the business believes it is a success...
It's an interesting little meme, but when there are more people following the most obscure rock band you've never heard of, you can't really call it a big deal, or wonder what it all means about the state of the world.