People are losing their homes, we are losing our life savings. That ain't right, man.
We let these giant corporate banking behemoths rob the American people.
I want to see a system that works for everyone.
It's time for us as citizenry to stand up and say,
this is unacceptable and we're not going to take it anymore.
I want to inform people that capitalism doesn't have to be the way it is.
This country needs an enema. Well, the world needs an enema.
They could, they would, bondedly bond for the best, expect the worst.
I hope that's understood, bondedly bond.
And a very good evening to everybody. The program is Off the Hook.
Emanuel Goldstein here with you on this Wednesday evening.
Joined tonight by Mike. Hi. Rob T. Firefly. Good evening.
And Jim. Hello. In the studio and somewhere in Pennsylvania, Bernie S.
Greetings from Pennsylvania.
We have an action-packed show tonight, all kinds of things to discuss.
So let's get right into it.
First of all, an important announcement, something that involves our listeners.
Next week begins the autumn fundraiser.
Yes, we have no control over this. It is autumn now.
That's just something that the sun and the earth have arranged and it happens.
And when that happens, we go on the air and we ask for money for an entire month.
But it is possible that next week, instead of spending the hour asking for money,
we don't have to do any of that.
And the reason being, it could be those of you who write to us a lot
after fundraising shows asking, how can I contribute too?
How can I be a part of this? I listen to the show two days after it's on.
Or I listen to the show in a different time zone and I really want to be included.
I want to be a part of this. This is your chance.
Because if only 15 of you, yeah, it's down to 15 now.
Only 15 of you actually go to the website www.wbai.org
and go to the BAI Buddy Program or just go from the link on our main www.2600.com page
and pledge $10 a month.
If 15 people do that, we don't have to raise funds next week because it makes up for that.
See how it works? It's really pretty incredible.
Yeah, it's pretty simple.
It's the BAI Buddy System and we've been introducing that slowly over the air here.
But this is an opportunity to see if it actually works with off-the-hook listeners.
If enough off-the-hook listeners contribute in that manner,
I believe the number was 20 total to just eliminate an entire day of fundraising for the show.
But you know what? It doesn't have to stop there.
If another 20 were contributing on top of that, there would be two shows we wouldn't have to do, etc.
So we can go the whole month without doing fundraising if this system works.
And it's such a piddling amount. It really is $10 a month.
When you think about, you know, I just had a coffee downstairs and that was practically $10.
What kind of coffee are you drinking for $10?
I'm not going to get into it.
But the point is a lot of things cost a lot of money or even things that don't cost that much
cost more than what we are saying this amount would be significant to us.
That significant amount is less than a lot of daily expenses.
So that's something to consider.
So again, to do this, to be a part of this, just go to the website www.wbai.org
and look for the BAI Buddy System or go to www.2600.com.
Read the story about how to eliminate on-air fundraising and just follow those directions.
Now, it's very important, though, that after you do this, you email us, othat2600.com.
Email us and tell us your name, all right?
And what we're going to do then is check with the station to make sure that you're real
and that you actually did contribute.
And that will be counted against the total that we have to raise.
It's as simple as that.
Now, if you don't tell us, then we're not going to know and we won't be able to count it.
So you'll be contributing, yes, but it won't count against our fundraising efforts.
If you really like listening to us pitch, then you could do that.
You could become a BAI buddy and decline to tell us.
And if we don't make it, that's fine.
This is all new to us.
We're learning as we go along.
But in this day and age of Kickstarters and people showing their mass support
throughout the world for various things they believe in,
what better purpose than to support WBAI?
I can't think of one.
So I hope a lot of people contribute and are a part of this
because it's definitely something that people power matters.
It has mattered so much over the years, over the decades.
So once more, we just need another 15 people to go to the website and contribute $10 a month.
You know what?
If somebody were to contribute $20 a month, and I think a couple of you have already done that,
that means that you count as two people.
Or if somebody were to actually go in there and contribute $150 a month,
I'm not suggesting that, but there are people out there who can afford it.
That would mean the whole thing would be over right away.
So one person has that power if that's a wealthy person out there.
And what happens is the amount gets deducted every month from your credit card or your bank,
however that works.
It's something that has been experimented with in various organizations,
and it's fairly painless.
And you get WBAI premiums as well.
You can go to their website and find out about that.
Yes, indeed.
As you said, we have been getting notes during fundraisers asking,
is there any way around this?
Because people like hearing us have our regular shows, and we enjoy doing them.
So this is it.
This is the way we're trying.
It's totally experimental.
We don't know if it will work.
We hope it will.
And the only way it can work is with your help.
So if you go to WBAI.org and become a BAI buddy, be our buddy,
and you can help us out and get some cool stuff and get membership in the station.
And it's really $10 a month.
Think of all the things that you spend $10 on in a month
and think if they're cooler than us or not cooler than us.
And maybe you can do $20 a month or $25 a month or other amounts.
It definitely adds up.
And you'll see a difference because, well, we won't be talking about this then.
We won't be trying to raise money for the whole hour for the next month.
That would be something.
That would be amazing.
But if we are, let's not look at it as a failure.
We're just learning how the whole thing works.
But I really think that this is an attractive solution to something
that I know bugs people because, well, we don't have commercials.
We don't have commercials.
We have to get funds somehow.
And we don't like to steal.
It's not right, and we're not going to do that.
So asking for help from our listeners, that's the way to do it.
I should mention that we're on Wall Street.
We may be the only people on Wall Street who feel that way.
Yeah, a lot of people steal around here.
I see it all the time.
It's really kind of sad.
Hey, we have some important things to discuss tonight,
other important things.
Of course, this is very important as well.
But coming up this weekend is something that has happened twice in New York,
and we've been a part of it each time.
And it's something that we're actually going to be giving away tickets to
in just a few minutes as well.
And it's happening in Queens, and it's really cool.
And thousands and thousands of people show up.
Does anybody want to guess what this is?
I know.
Well, then it's not a guess, is it, if you know it?
No, then I won't guess.
All right.
Well, you know what?
We all know, so it's kind of silly.
We'd have to pull somebody out of the hallway and ask them.
We're talking about the Maker Faire.
Yes, the Maker Faire is coming back to New York.
It's happened twice.
It's happening at the Academy of Science in Queens.
The New York Hall of Science.
The New York Hall of Science.
Yeah, I always get that mixed up.
And we have the coordinator of the Maker Faire in New York.
Sherry Huss is joining us right now.
Sherry, are you with us?
I am.
Hi.
I'm in.
How are you doing?
You're on site already, right?
Can you hear me?
Okay, she's on a cell phone.
I'm sorry, I had you on mute.
Okay, you had me on mute.
Nice to be chatting with you again.
But yes, we are on site.
And we have been here.
The crew started coming in on Sunday.
And our first big installation, the Mousetrap, is here setting up.
And we're kind of in full force, ready to go.
What is the Mousetrap?
So the Mousetrap is kind of a giant Rube Goldberg device
created by Mark Perez in San Francisco.
And if anyone wants to search it, it's a life-size mousetrap.
And Mark Perez and his team put on an amazing show
where they actually have a whole story created,
take a bowling ball kind of based on the old mousetrap game
and have brought it to real life.
Instead of a little marble, it's now a bowling ball.
Instead of a plastic little club, it's a real club.
And they drop a safe on a car or something at the end.
And it's quite fun.
Wasn't it a police car last time they dropped it on?
They did have, year one they had a taxi.
Year two they had a police car.
And we'll have to wait and see what they have this year.
Okay.
It was a safe we'll drop it on, but yes, good memory.
Well, it's hard to forget something like that.
Now, this is the third year that Maker Faire has come to New York.
What do you see as the differences between the first two that took place?
You know, I actually would say this year,
from looking at a lot of the applications and makers,
we have a lot of new makers.
I want to say something like 40% new, which is really great.
We have a big emphasis this year in 3D printing,
which seems to be the talk of the town these days,
and also Arduino.
And we have a whole pretty vibrant young makers area as well.
So I'd say those things have definitely grown.
The Arduino space is twice as large as last year, for example.
Wow.
And then Raspberry Pi is another big topic
that your listeners might be interested in too.
Did you say Raspberry Pis?
Raspberry Pi.
What exactly is that?
Well, any of your listeners know?
Well, they're not online right now.
But Mike, you perked up.
Okay.
I haven't actually seen one,
but I guess it's this little tiny $30 computer
that people on the radio can't see my hands.
But I guess, you know, just a few inches long.
And it runs Linux,
and you can plug a monitor and a keyboard into it.
It's about the size of a credit card,
which I believe was the goal.
So it's a small, inexpensive computer.
Open source, I believe.
And it's out there, and it's awesome.
Well, cool.
We actually have some.
Evan from the Raspberry Pi Foundation will be here
talking a little bit about it, getting it in hands.
In fact, they're doing a big hackerspace tour this week.
I think they were at Alpha One Labs in Brooklyn on Sunday.
And they're continuing to kind of educate
and put affordable computing in people's hands
that's definitely open source.
Well, Sherry, can you tell us something about the schedule?
When does it begin?
How long does it run for?
Absolutely.
So Maker Faire is, and it's rain or shine.
It's looking a little threatening right now,
but we believe it's going to actually be clear up over the weekend.
A chance of scattered showers.
That's what I heard.
We can handle that.
That's great.
Saturday, so we open both days at 10 a.m.
Saturday, it'll be 10 a.m. to 7 p.m.,
and Sunday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.,
and we're located at the New York Hall of Science in Queens,
which is part of the Corona Park, Flushing Meadows.
Easy to get to on the number 7 train.
7 train is the way to go.
And then we also have, if anyone's driving,
we have parking at Citi Field.
There are shuttles that come over, and we have a bike valet area.
So we're really pushing alternative transportation.
Awesome.
Now, you have all kinds of outdoor events but also things indoors.
We do.
Inside, you'll find things.
We'll have a beautiful performance space where a local group called Clank
will be performing in the Great Hall,
and they do sort of a performance musical piece
with audience participation, instruments made out of found objects,
which will be quite great.
We have a whole area inside with kind of like electronics
and a whole host of different things.
And outside, we have things that your audience may be interested in.
We have the Power Racing Series,
which is actually started at Maker Faire in Detroit,
and Jim Burke out of Pumping Station One, the hacker space in Chicago,
has been organizing it.
And quite simply, what they do is they get little kids' power wheels.
They have a budget of $500,
and several hacker spaces will submit an entry,
and then they'll have quite a lot of fun racing those onsite.
The thing I've always been most impressed with
is just the young people who show up and are so enthusiastic
and just into all the different projects that are going on.
I honestly can't think of an event that seems to cultivate that
quite as much on that scale
because there are thousands of people that show up to these things,
and it's just that the enthusiasm is so contagious.
No, absolutely.
Another thing this year that will be quite fun, especially for kids,
we have something that the folks at NYU's ITP program
have put together called Nerdy Derby.
So they're encouraging, if you go to nerdyderby.com,
they're encouraging folks to create their own little Pinewood Derby car.
So they've created a track.
They're going to have different races throughout the day,
different categories.
I think that there's even a food category.
So you can create a car and race it made from food.
So that should be fun too.
Bernie, I wanted to give you a chance to chime in
if you had any questions.
Well, not so many questions, Sherry,
but what strikes me is Maker Faire reminds me of
when the circus comes to town.
In a good way, right?
Yeah, I mean this terrific crew comes in,
puts up all these amazing attractions and big tents and displays,
and there's midways.
But this is like a circus for geeks,
and everybody gets to participate and make stuff
and share in this group experience
where everybody gets to build stuff
and fawn over other stuff that people have built
and get ideas about how to change what this person built.
There's so much symbiosis going on.
You see stuff, these projects, people are building these cool things
that anybody could really build
except nobody had thought of it before.
And you can just borrow this idea from this person.
Your mental creative juices just gush and ooze
as you're walking through Maker Faire
because you're like, wow, I could do this and that,
and then people do it.
They come up with all kinds of new ideas
just by seeing all the stuff going on.
Great imagery there, Bernie, thank you.
Gushing and oozing.
Sherry, I wanted to ask you,
this is the third time it's been in New York,
but the Maker Faire takes place in other locations as well.
What are some of those places?
There are two major Maker Faires.
The flagship fairs right now are in the Bay Area,
and this will be our seventh year of producing Maker Faires.
The Bay Area this year had over 100,000 people, which is great.
And then on the East Coast now,
we really enjoy working with the New York Hall of Science,
love what they're doing for kids,
and that's kind of our second flagship event.
But what's most important, I think, in noting,
is that we have a whole program for communities and organizations
to create their own Maker Faires.
And we've created a playbook,
we've pulled together a whole host of communities
that are interested in doing this,
and this year there will be 60 community-driven
and organized Maker Faires around the world.
In fact, this weekend, coming up,
not only will we have our big Maker Faire here,
the World Maker Faire in New York,
there will be one going on in Columbus, Ohio,
and two other locations.
So it's really quite amazing what the communities are doing.
That's really great.
It's definitely contagious and something
that I think a lot of people will benefit from.
How many people usually show up to the ones in New York?
Well, in New York it's been growing.
I anticipate last year we had about 35,000
over the course of the weekend,
and I think this year we'll probably be getting closer
to about 50,000.
That's incredible.
Which is incredible.
There's so much space there too,
so it's not crowded or anything like that.
That's correct.
Actually, we're on the property of the old World's Fairground,
and in fact we have a challenge
which would be great to put out there in 2014 and 2015.
That will be the 50th and the 75th anniversary
of the World's Fair.
So what we'd like to do is get people,
and even your audience, to start thinking,
what can we do to kind of, you know,
how can we hack the Unisphere?
How can we expand onto the property
and really kind of celebrate what was started back in 1939?
Yeah, maybe we could paint it or just make it look nicer.
There you go.
It's actually quite beautiful.
In fact, that's another thing I would encourage people
to come out because I think a lot of folks
don't make it to the neck of the woods
when they're coming to New York.
True.
The grounds are really quite beautiful out here.
In fact, I just took Mike Jeremy,
from Austin, who's created really beautiful butterfly bikes,
and we went kind of on a ride,
and he's going to do a ride around the Unisphere
on Saturday and Sunday before we open,
and I have to say that's a pretty spectacular piece.
So if people haven't seen the Unisphere, come out,
and then let's figure out how we embellish it
and put a maker touch on it for the future.
Well, one thing that definitely struck me
were so many different types of bikes
that appear at these events,
and just the imagination and creativity involved in that.
That's right.
Well, I think actually that's even an area for kids.
A lot of kids really like getting into their bicycles.
There are makers here that will learn how to work on them.
Actually, we even have the Fixers Collective
that will be here this year,
and so it's just sort of bikes
as part of this whole maker culture.
I think even for little kids,
kind of understanding what it means,
how to fix it, how to take care of it,
and then also having an idea that transportation
is kind of a way to help them, too.
Excuse me.
The Hall of Science is pretty great in its own right, too.
You were saying that people don't usually make it up there
if they live in New York or if they come to New York,
and I really can't say too many good things about the place.
It's a great museum for kids, or if you're young at heart.
I grew up going there,
and it certainly inspired a lot of my interests.
You know, I didn't go there until the first Maker Faire.
I was aware of it.
I was at the World's Fair, the second one, not the first one,
but I hadn't been to the Hall of Science.
Maybe I was there when I was three or something.
I don't know, but I had not been there since.
I passed by it a million times,
so just the Maker Faire was what brought me to that place,
and it's such an amazing open area,
and it's just a very nice place to hang out
even if there wasn't a Maker Faire there,
so I definitely recommend that.
And I think even the Hall of Science
have done a really great job of,
year-round, kind of keeping the maker spirit going.
They have a maker space on site.
They open and welcome their space to makers,
so anyone that's out there that has an idea,
I know that they're quite interested in, again,
getting kids hands-on and engaged
and also having fun.
Okay, Sherry Huss, we want to thank you so much,
not only for speaking with us tonight,
but just for organizing this incredible event
with the help of so many other people.
And what we're going to do now,
thanks to your generosity,
we're going to have four pairs of tickets
to the Maker Faire for the weekend
for people who call in to us right now,
212-209-2900.
Sherry, I hope to see you this weekend,
and best of luck with everything.
And, of course, we'll be talking about it next week, too.
That sounds great.
Thanks a lot, thanks for the time,
and we hope to see you this weekend as well.
Okay, take care.
Bye-bye.
Now, as I said,
212-209-2900 is the phone number,
and what we are doing is,
four people will get a pair of tickets
so what you have to do is give us your name
or give us your name and someone else's name
because it's two tickets for the weekend.
And if you don't know who you're going to bring,
just your name plus one.
That'll work.
But four people, the first four calling in.
I see all the lines are lit up already,
so we probably have our winners.
Please only call if you know you can make it
because it's kind of silly
to get tickets that you can't use.
All right, so that's being taken care of.
Rob's going to answer the phone in the other room
and write down the names.
And all you have to do is show up
to the Hall of Science.
Your name will be on the list.
That's how it works.
That's a will call.
Will call.
Is that a person or...?
Yeah.
All right.
I never understood that phrase,
will call.
You're there, you're calling already.
I don't get it.
Okay, we have other bits of information.
It's actually kind of related to Maker Faire
because it's a major part of Maker Faire
and that is the Maker Bot.
How would you describe a Maker Bot, Mike?
It's a contraption that is a 3D printer
so you can make a design on a computer
for like a button or anything 3D
and you can send it to this printer
and it will print it out in plastic.
It's really incredible
and you'll see that working at the Maker Faire
and a lot of hackerspaces have it as well.
Is that Kyle I see on the phone now?
Yes, I'm here.
Can you hear me all right?
Yeah, I hear you just fine.
Thanks for joining us from Seattle.
Fantastic, thanks for having me.
Yeah, well, no problem.
So you've seen Maker Faires too,
Maker Bots that is,
Maker Faires in addition.
Both.
Uh-huh.
And yeah, Maker Bots,
they're sort of a popular tool
that very sought after tool
in some spaces and with hobbyists,
all kinds of different people are using them to,
as Mike said,
make different objects out of plastic
simply by sending a software file
from a computer to this device.
It's kind of like Postscript,
like printing a document.
Right, you can print an object,
print an actual object,
which is pretty incredible.
But the Maker Bot has kind of landed
in some controversy over the last week or so.
I'm going to give a little background here.
The Maker Bot was developed from a project,
was it the RepRap?
RepRap, what was it again?
RepRap, yeah.
Yeah, RepRap,
which how would you describe that project?
Well, it's another 3D printer project.
The goal, I don't know if they ever succeeded,
was that the RepRap could print itself.
So if you had a RepRap,
you could print one for a friend.
I don't know if they ever quite got there,
but it's a fully open hardware design
for a 3D printer.
Okay, and the Maker Bot
was developed based on that
and continued as an open source project.
Now, what has happened recently
is that this other device has come along.
I'm looking for the name of it.
Do you know the name of it?
It's the Maker Bot 2.
No, not theirs.
Oh, another device.
Kyle, do you know?
No, what?
Are you thinking of the Replicator 2?
No, no, no.
It's not the Maker Bot's.
It's that other one.
There's a number of products in this space.
I think you're thinking of commercial ones.
Okay, well...
They're like accompanying 3D systems,
makes them a lot of stuff
that you would see at a university.
No, I'm talking about
what started the controversy this week.
Oh, yeah, actually.
I know exactly what you're talking about.
TangerBot.
Okay, I found it.
Thanks, guys, for your help.
I found the name.
TangerBot.
Now, that is a device
that is being sold
through some Chinese company, I believe.
No, it's a guy named Matt Strong.
Oh, okay.
Do I have it wrong?
It's a guy named Matt Strong,
and he's the project's creator,
and he's unabashedly copied
the latest MakerBot design
and had a lot of the parts
sourced from China
so that he can beat their price by 33%.
Okay, so that is what's going on now.
Because the MakerBot was open source,
it was fairly easy for somebody to do this.
So now, the debate going on
in the open source community
and in the MakerBot community as well,
does it make sense for the MakerBot,
for future MakerBot models
to remain open source
since this kind of thing
is just going to happen over and over again?
And how would people react
if the MakerBot became closed source?
Well, it's not a theoretical question.
The MakerBot company
has announced this week their new design,
which is not fully open.
Not fully open, but somewhat open?
You know, it's not quite out yet,
so it's not totally clear
exactly how open it's going to be.
Okay.
But not as open
as their previous models for sure
and not fully open.
It's going to use some cast parts,
some machined parts
that you can't just make yourself,
and other stuff like that.
It's an interesting question.
What do you do in a situation like this
when because everything is open
and everybody can see all the source code
and design things on their own
and copy things on their own,
if they can simply outsource it
to someplace cheaper,
they can put the developers out of business
and simply take all the innovation
for themselves?
I mean, I guess that's the nature of capitalism,
isn't it?
Um, E.
Go ahead.
Can I make a distinction?
Let's just step back a little bit.
Sure.
With the device, the RepRap,
you actually are making parts,
like components for the device
to then assemble the device.
Now, that's distinct from where the MakerBot
was in the market and is.
It's much more of a kit
that you may or may not assemble.
And with the latest one,
they're actually going to have it
completely assembled,
so you don't have to even put the kit together.
But the MakerBot didn't have you
printing out parts for it.
So the RepRap was much more for, like,
people that are really hardcore,
want to build their own device,
have it be a little bit more custom,
or whatever.
It's something you actually have to be,
you know, building the various components
or acquiring them one way or another.
MakerBot, as I said, was a kit
sort of aimed to get people going,
you know, and that was really what,
I think, helped the explosion
in making things and stuff,
because you're able to get it
into a classroom or get it
into the hands of creative people
so that they can innovate
and they can make stuff
and they don't have to be
fiddling with trying to make one part
for one piece for something
that eventually will make things.
So the MakerBot was a catalyst
for really getting people
doing this stuff and designing
and getting projects out of the computer
and into the real world.
And with the latest one,
as a commercial product,
it is, as I said,
completely assembled
and has a lot of features
and upgrades and things like that.
And what this guy did with the Tangibot
is he copied basically everything.
He didn't upgrade.
He didn't change anything.
He didn't modify it
from the open source plans
that MakerBot had.
He just completely copied it.
And he's pretty unabashed about that.
I was just listening to a video
where he just lays it all out,
exactly how he went about doing it.
And he's pretty, I don't know,
shameless is the word.
Well, he didn't violate any rules
by doing this, did he?
Right.
And he's very quick to point it out.
I don't know.
I could try to play you a clip,
but that's the gist of it.
Manuel?
Yes, go ahead, Bernie.
I think it's also worth pointing out
that MakerBot Industries
is a small company in Brooklyn
that employs a lot of our neighbors and friends.
And it is an interesting experiment,
not just in technology,
but in how a small manufacturing company
can make it in the United States.
So that adds a whole piece to this discussion.
It's also an interesting crossroads
for the open source community
because here is a challenge
where the idealism of the whole open source concept
is now being used kind of against you.
How do you react to that?
Do you react by simply turning that off
and going closed source?
Or is there some other way to fight back
and come out on top?
Because I think one thing we have to remember
is that the people who are technical,
the people who want to develop things on their own,
they're going to support the people
that allow them to innovate.
But the average person
who just wants something that works
and wants something that's cheap,
they're going to go the cheapest, simplest way.
How do you get those people back?
Precisely, yeah, definitely.
So apparently MakerBot Industries
recently came out with a new product
called the Replicator 2, I think.
And that now has,
instead of open source technology,
has some proprietary technology.
And people are naturally wondering, I think,
is this a response to these, basically,
copies of the previous MakerBot device
that they had on the market.
So I imagine this new device,
which looks like it has amazing features,
it'll lay down lines of, I think, 0.1 millimeters
to really smooth surfaces
on the three-dimensional objects.
It'll print, and it'll print a larger
three-dimensional object
than any other MakerBot product before could print.
It'll make pretty good-sized stuff.
I think a lot of, as you pointed out, Emmanuel,
a lot of people don't really care
whether the product they buy is open source or not.
They just want to buy something that works.
But open source is a very important movement
over the past several years
where the technology is shared and open,
and you can read the source code
and tinker with it and improve upon it.
And this is really an interesting controversy.
MakerBot apparently did this as a business decision.
I don't think they wanted to do it,
MakerBot Industries,
but I think they felt they had to
to protect some of their technology
from being just blatantly copied.
So it's really a vibrant topic
in the geek community right now.
There's also the issue of venture capitalists
who have invested in MakerBot,
and of course they want to see their investment return.
MakerBot was developed
before things like Kickstarter existed,
so maybe today it would be possible
to get a couple of million bucks
from people that are idealistic in nature,
but back when they started,
as far as I understand,
the only way to get the money to start this up
was to get venture capitalists involved,
and of course they want to see a return.
So how do you placate them?
Good questions.
All right.
The question I have for the folks here
is whose move is it?
Is it the open source community's move?
Is it MakerBot's move?
Is it the consumer's move?
And what move is it?
What's the most...
I mean, this is probably something
that has not been done before.
This is a crossroads.
This is something that will determine
perhaps the future
of how open source technology develops.
Mike?
I think you're overstating the case.
This is certainly not the first time
that freely developed technologies
have been put into closed products.
It happens more often with software
because it's easier to do.
People have different opinions.
I don't think there's one right answer.
I don't think it's one person's move.
I think that as users,
we should be careful about what technology we use
and question whether the technology we're using
fits with our values.
But I don't think that's something
we discuss on this program all the time.
Well, you danced around the question really nicely.
What is the thing that should be done?
That's what I'm asking.
That who should do?
Well, you tell me.
Who should do what now?
Do we just sit back and...
So I think MakerBot, Inc.,
as a corporate entity
and its directors and leaders
should decide whether what...
And apparently they have decided,
but they should stop splitting the fence, I would say.
They should decide
if they want to continue to develop their products
in an open manner or not.
And then if they choose not to,
then the community of users should decide
if they wish to continue to do business
with MakerBot on these less open terms.
But I don't think there is one unified response.
Well, I mean, let's say that you're running
a corporation like MakerBot
and somebody comes along,
simply copies everything that you've done
and undercuts you.
I mean, it's easy to say
that they should remain open source
and keep doing these things,
but how do they stay in business?
How is that possible?
They can...
I mean, there are companies that do this.
There are companies that offer a better value,
which is not necessarily the cheapest possible product.
MakerBot itself did not start from scratch.
They, as we mentioned earlier,
modified the designs of the RepRaps
and, you know, as with everything that's built,
stand, you know, on the shoulders of giants
in so many ways.
But...
Mm-hmm.
So when they decide, you know,
they don't want to...
They're so big or big enough
that they don't want to continue
to be part of this community,
that's their decision to make.
Kyle, how about you?
Well, I think there's a couple things going on here.
I think definitely, like, MakerBot's growing
and they have worked really hard
and been a bit of a pillar
as far as leading the way with this stuff.
And I think they deserve to earn money
and to grow the way they want to,
whether they want to be a corporation
or a hippie commune.
Whatever the case, like, seriously,
it's a product that they've designed
and they deserve not to be completely undercut
with a product that is being sold
as an exact clone of MakerBot.
I mean, this guy actually had to take
the references to MakerBot
out of his Kickstarter page
when the controversy started.
And I think that...
I mean, this is...
Yeah, it's open source,
but I mean, if it wasn't,
this would be profoundly illegal.
And I mean, these are why the evil,
like, Acta and a lot...
I don't know, not Acta,
but a lot of the copyright stuff that's going on.
Well, yeah, Acta and that kind of stuff.
If a bunch of Chinese stuff was being branded
as, like, okay, this is an exact copy
of such-and-such leather handbag or whatever,
people would be all over it.
You can't sell things like that.
They always have to put fake names on things
if it's a copy of something.
And that's kind of exactly what's going on.
The other thing is, this guy,
he doesn't seem like he has...
The guy that's created the tangible,
he doesn't seem like he's very professional or serious.
It just seems like some weekend guy
that just decided he would, you know,
undercut this other company.
I just don't think he knows what he's messing with
as far as the community goes,
because there's a lot of backlash, I think.
As much as people are upset
that maybe MakerBot is considering close source,
I think there's a lot of backlash in the community
because it's kind of ugly to be doing that
to a company that's provided so much
and so openly to developing community.
That said, I don't think that MakerBot...
I think MakerBot could clear things up
and express their concerns
and maybe provide some reasons
and point to exactly what things they are closing down
if that is the case in the future
and maybe say, like,
look, this is an attribute of the market
and this is the hand we're going to play if this continues.
And if people back off
and they get their market that they've carved out again,
I think maybe they could then maybe open it back up
or something like that.
But I don't know.
I think it's within their right.
I'm not saying it's great,
but that's kind of where I'm at right now.
But I'm still kind of processing it
because I just found out about this.
It's really remarkable
how passionate people are about this
and it's taken an interesting direction.
Bernie, I'm going to ask you the same question
and then we're going to move on.
Okay.
Well, I don't know if I know what the question is,
but I'm just going to say
that I know from personal experience
talking to people at MakerBot Industries,
visiting them,
that it seems, by all opinions,
it's an ethically run company.
It's a good business.
It employs good people.
And it deserves to be supported on those merits alone.
But I think MakerBot customers,
MakerBot Industries customers,
are people who are interested in buying their newest product,
which is no longer open source,
are kind of put in a bind.
Do they want to keep supporting it?
By most people's opinion,
it's a very ethically run company
that employs good people
and it deserves a lot of credit for doing that
and for supporting the open source community for so long.
Do they want to continue supporting that company
now that it's gone closed source?
Or do they want to just say none of that all mattered?
So it really puts customers
who want to buy this amazing new device,
the Replicator 2,
which is about the price of a good bicycle
that will make amazing 3D objects with smooth services.
Just plug it into your computer.
You can print anything you can download.
It really puts people in a bind.
I think it's a good company.
I think they deserve to be supported.
At the same time,
I think people really need to decide
which way they want to go.
Do they want to buy an open source product
or do they want to buy an excellent product
run by an excellent company that's ethical
but is closed source
that you can't get anywhere else right now?
Well, I think it's, again,
the community can exercise its power,
get the word out somehow to the populace
and say this is why you should support
the company that developed it,
the open source company,
and not the cheap company that copies it.
But unless you get that message to the public,
it's going to be very hard for that company to survive
unless they were to go closed source,
and then, of course,
that alienates a lot of other people.
So, again, it's a crossroads,
and I'm very curious to see how it works out.
Now, at the Maker Faire,
there will be people from MakerBot there, of course,
so you can come and give them a piece of your mind as well
and maybe find out some things from the front lines.
It's going to be really, really interesting.
But we do have to move on.
We have other things.
We have a lot of topics to discuss tonight,
and we do want to take some phone calls too.
This is something that we've been debating
on our own mailing list.
Actually, I think I'm the only one debating it.
Driverless cars.
Yes, driverless cars might be making more of an appearance
on California roads thanks to a bill signed this week
that sets safety and performance guidelines
for advancing autonomous vehicles in the state.
Governor Jerry Brown and the bill's sponsor,
Senator Alex Padilla,
joined Google co-founder Sergey Brin
at the company's Mountain View headquarters
to sign legislation.
So basically, they're saying that driverless cars
are now legal in California.
And boy, do I have misgivings about this.
Now, Google has been testing and tweaking
autonomous vehicle technology for about two years now.
It was one of the strongest backers
of the new California bill.
The new law also places an emphasis on safety standards,
ensuring that, for now, a bonded operator
is in the driver's seat of a testing vehicle
in case they need to take over driving responsibilities.
It also mandates the DMV adopt regulations
for licensing, testing, and operating autonomous vehicles.
Google has long championed technology.
They're working on ways to make roads safer.
While a car without a driver in the front seat
might not scream safety to the average consumer,
the newest brand of smart car
could significantly reduce traffic accidents.
That's according to Shuao Peng,
an associate professor in the Department of Systems Engineering
at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach.
The biggest advantage of a driverless car is safety,
he said to Tech News World.
According to statistics, each year,
about 1.2 million people die of traffic accidents worldwide,
most of which are often caused by driver fatigue
and the inability to concentrate.
The driverless car can effectively avoid
the driver-caused accident due to fatigue
and other abnormal behaviors.
In addition to eliminating human conditions,
such as fatigue or distraction,
an autonomous vehicle also has a much better response time
than the average human, he said.
When there is an emergency situation
where a driver needs to brake,
the reaction speed of the driverless car
can be as small as 40 milliseconds,
while human beings will take at least 500 milliseconds.
Now, Google, along with researchers
at the University of Texas in Austin,
have also found that autonomous vehicles
could significantly reduce carbon emissions
and could cut down on fuel dependency.
They will also lead to much greater fuel efficiency
due to smoother driving with less stopping and starting
and by supporting methods
for dramatic reductions in congestion.
You know, I keep reading these articles about this
and I see all the pluses, all the marvelous things,
and I'm seeing precious little as far as
what the disadvantages are,
and I do think there are disadvantages,
and I think it's something that we tend to sort of
plunge headlong into these automated devices
and we get, you know, smartphone syndrome,
where we just kind of get mesmerized
and don't really look at the potential threats,
disadvantages, how our lives are getting
a little bit less in our control.
I'm not sure if I can explain that to people
that simply think that a computer
can do everything better.
I'm sure it can. Go ahead, Bernie.
I just want to say, what we're talking about here
are robots that are hurtling down the highway.
It's at highway speeds.
And they're autonomous.
They make their own decisions.
It's only a matter of time
when enough of these are on the road
where someone gets hurt or killed by one of these.
It's just going to happen.
No matter whose fault it is, whatever,
it's going to happen.
And then our society is going to have
some really serious questions to ask.
Do we want this?
Right now, with cars operated by human beings,
something like 3,000 people die in the United States
every couple of weeks
just from automobile accidents,
which are caused ostensibly by people
not driving properly.
Don't get me wrong.
I think most people should not drive.
I think there should be a lot less vehicles on the road.
But I don't think the answer is to simply automate
and to put all our faith in computers
or automation or anything like that.
I don't want to be a Luddite or anything like that.
But we do have to look at this with a critical eye
and not simply put all of our faith in technology.
I have a question, Emanuel.
Why do you think people would react differently
to a robot killing someone on the road in an accident
versus a human being driving a car
and killing someone by accident?
I mean, that happens all the time.
We're used to that.
But when a robot kills someone by accident,
why should we react any differently?
I can't believe we're having this conversation.
Kyle, then Mike.
That's not an answer, Emanuel.
Okay, you're not Kyle.
Mike.
I mean, Kyle.
I'm really confused.
E, I just wanted to say,
with your comment about things becoming less in our control
in relation to smartphones and stuff,
what about things becoming more boring?
And, I mean, have you ever run into somebody accidentally?
That doesn't happen if you're, like, you know,
dodge-squaring and all this social proximity-based stuff.
Wait, wait, wait.
In your car?
You mean run into people accidentally in your car?
No, no, no.
On the street.
Like, bump into somebody.
Oh.
I'm talking about chance encounters.
You know, excitement.
The parts of life that aren't predicted and mediated
and organized and networked in that way.
Well, yeah, of course.
Driving a car, I mean, is less boring.
How about this?
I enjoy driving cars.
Mm-hmm.
You know?
Of course.
I enjoy being a driver.
That's fun, you know?
It can be exciting to be out on the road.
We've talked countless times about road trips,
and that's a parallel draw to, like, things becoming a bit boring.
I mean, I really feel like where's the smartphone lobby?
It's just allowing more time for people to be sitting in a car on their phone
and having the car drive them so that they can check in
and do all the B crud they have to do on their smartphone.
My second thing that occurred to me in this discussion was,
what happens when people start, like, jamming and, like,
messing with all the autonomous cars that Bernie was talking about
hurtling down the road?
I see it now, like, me loving my driving.
I figure out a way to, like, jam, you know, 30% of the robotic cars,
and they're all piled up.
Or maybe I can make them all, like, go into a cool shape
or do, like, weird, you know, math games on the highway or something.
Oh, you're going to be the number one danger to future society.
That's for sure.
Mike?
So, I mean, it's clear that human-driven automobiles
are the most dangerous technology that we currently allow to exist,
you know, outside of war zones.
So nuclear technology is less dangerous?
The amount of people killed by automobiles in the United States
is much higher than the amount of people killed by nuclear technology
in the United States.
Well, give it time. Give it time.
Okay, go ahead.
And so the question, can we make this technology safer,
is a very interesting question.
It's one that we should try to answer.
It's not one that we should just say, well, I like to drive,
therefore it's okay if thousands of people die every year.
That's not an answer that I'm satisfied with
as to why we should continue to keep things the way they are.
Now, are these cars better than human-driven cars?
I don't know the answer to that.
No one knows the answer to that because they're not made yet
in any real quantities.
Maybe these things suck.
Maybe they'll kill even more people than humans do.
But we certainly don't have the evidence to say out of hand
that this technology is so bad that we must stop it now
when the technology we have already is so bad
that we must stop it now, in my opinion, and we're not stopping it.
I don't know if it's the technology or if it's the drivers.
I think drivers need to be better trained.
It's the human car system is bad.
Humans cannot react fast enough to stop in many circumstances.
I don't think all humans can be categorized in the same way.
I think there are bad drivers and good drivers.
The human nervous system has physical limits.
You cannot react quicker than a third of a second.
Right, but the human nervous system is not responsible
for all the accidents that take place.
Bad drivers are, bad situations like that.
Getting rid of the humans is going to solve that.
Rob?
I just think I like that it's Google that's behind this
because think of all the times you've been in front of your Gmail
or your YouTube page or something and it's frozen up
and you've had to reload.
Imagine instead of a web page that's a steel box
heading toward you at 60 miles an hour.
Also, I'd really like to know what people like our friend Tiffany Rad
and the Open Auto Project and folks like that
who are into hacking the hardware in their cars think of all this.
You have to hack this.
You have to absolutely take it apart and know how it works.
All the problems I've had with automobiles over the last couple of years
have been computer problems.
What happens when there's a computer problem
when you're going at a high rate of speed and something fails?
Are you supposed to immediately jump to attention
and take over manually with a moment's notice?
I'm not saying do not develop technology.
Of course, I'm always into experimenting and trying things out,
but let's not blindly accept it.
I see too many people blindly signing on to Gmail
and saying, oh, yeah, they read my mail
and they send me ads based on what I say
and it's okay because they have a nice interface.
No, you question things like this.
You try to get something better.
You still use a technology and figure it all out,
but don't blindly accept things.
I'm for questioning and trying different things.
I agree with you.
I'm just also for questioning the notion
that human-driven cars work well.
Well, they can if the people are trained.
But the people aren't trained.
You can't make people better.
That's one thing that science isn't doing very well
is making people better.
Okay, but that's all we got.
That's who we are.
We're humans.
So let's outsource to computers the things
that we don't do well as humans
and stick to the things that we as humans do well.
I think we drive pretty well for the people
that are good drivers.
The people that are bad drivers should not be on the road.
I agree with that.
How are you going to accomplish that?
By making it a bit more rigid as far as who gets licenses
and not assuming that driving every place is a right.
It's a privilege.
You have to pass a certain test.
You have to maintain a certain level of standard
to be able to do that.
I just think too many people are on the road.
There's too many cars on the road.
That's another thing.
They say more cars can get on the road now
because they'll be spaced closer together
and somehow it's going to save fuel and make things cleaner.
How does that make things cleaner
when there are more cars on the road
and they're closer together?
To me, that's a recipe for disaster
because when something does happen
and you need a car length every 10 miles an hour
that you're traveling.
That is a fact.
That's got nothing to do with human reaction.
That's physics.
That's not going to change
if you have a computer doing things
and if you space things too closely together,
you're going to have problems.
Explain to me the physics
and why they have nothing to do with human reaction.
Because you have to stop a vehicle
and 10 miles an hour per vehicle length,
that's standard.
How do you stop the vehicle?
Apply brakes.
You apply the brake, you move your foot,
you take your foot off the pedal, it's on,
and you move it over to the pedal
and that takes time that a computer could do faster.
Yeah, okay.
You can stop a lot faster, I suppose,
and people could really be injured a lot more
because of the rate of how quickly you stop.
You can go from 60 to 0 in a millisecond, I suppose,
but that's not what we're talking about.
No, that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about the time it takes you
to actually move your foot over.
That takes time.
The time before you even begin to stop
is a significant factor in a lot of...
I'm just saying I don't think it's safe
to put cars so close together
that you're relying on that amount of time.
Yes, go ahead, Bernie.
I'd like to take some phone calls if possible.
Real quick, I just want to say
I think we can probably all agree
that driverless cars have the potential
of being driven more safely
than the average driver-driven,
human driver-driven car.
If we all agree on that,
or if that comes to happen,
then are we still going to react differently
when one of these driverless cars kills someone
compared to a car driven by a human being?
Well, good question,
but I like to look at it more in a social setting.
What's it going to be like to actually go someplace?
Can you just decide you want to drive someplace,
change your mind, make a U-turn, things like that,
or are these going to be restricted?
You're not going to be allowed
to go one mile an hour over the speed limit
without some horrible penalty,
or it just won't be even physically possible.
All the spontaneity will evaporate,
and it's one more thing
that we as individuals won't be able to do.
I would respond to that.
Your spontaneity is worth a lot less
than the life of the people
who are killed by automobiles.
Yeah, I don't think they're the same thing.
I really don't.
Let's see if we can take some phone calls.
212-209-2900, good evening.
You're on off the hook.
Yes, hi.
Hi, make it quick, please.
Okay, I just want to point out
that we've had autopilots in airplanes
for many, many years,
and we don't call them pilotless airplanes.
They do a great job,
and there are traps with automation.
And we have cruise control in vehicles, too.
That's a...
That's a lesser form.
Mm-hmm, but, you know,
you have pilots landing the things
and then taking off with pilots, too.
No, they have Autoland.
They have Category 3D.
I'm a pilot myself,
so I know a little bit about this.
Okay, well...
But when things...
There's a problem.
You know, pilots do tend to get complacent
when everything's being done for them.
So you have a very good example
with Air France 447.
When all the lights start flashing,
they didn't know what to do.
Yeah, and that's a very interesting point.
For instance, cars that tell you
how to parallel park,
they're very popular now.
And people don't know how to park anymore
because they rely on that so much.
People have GPS to go everywhere.
They can't find things themselves without GPS.
They're helpless without it.
And I just think it's...
You know, we need to keep holding on
to these skills,
not simply automate them all away.
And, of course, the other big difference
with airplanes is that
with airline travel,
there's a big infrastructure
of radar and controllers
and people like that
who are all paying attention
to the plane,
to where the plane is
and where it's going,
even when the pilot's not.
And also, the skies just are not
as crowded as the roads.
Mm-hmm.
So there's a lot more risk
if you put a car
under automatic control.
Okay, well, this is a hot topic.
We're going to talk about it more,
I'm sure, in weeks to come.
But we're kind of out of time now.
Any final words from any of you?
I'm not going to say any more
on the subject.
Who's insuring these cars?
And what happens
when you get into a crash
with a robot?
Do they take the robot's word,
or does the robot
fill out the paperwork?
And if two of these cars
hit each other,
do they have computer road rage?
Oh, there's so many possible scenarios
that we can draw up, Rob.
I'd like to thank Rose,
Gary, Maria, and Barbara
on the winners
of our Maker Faire tickets.
And we'll see you at the fair.
All right.
Have a good night.
♪♪♪
♪♪♪
♪♪♪
♪♪♪
♪♪♪
♪♪♪
♪♪♪
♪♪♪
♪♪♪
♪♪♪
♪♪♪
♪♪♪
♪♪♪
♪♪♪
♪♪♪
♪♪♪
♪♪♪
♪♪♪
♪♪♪
♪♪♪
♪♪♪
♪♪♪
♪♪