User:PwNzI
Go to www.thingiverse.com and find 5 things which have stl files associated with them for printing (some things are not 3D printable, but just shared designs). You should find five designs which you consider to be partcularly: 1. useful 2. artistic/beautiful 3. pointless/useless 4. funny/weird 5. scary/strange. Comment on why you have chosen these things.
From Thingiverse, here are five designs I found that have stl files associated with them for printing.
1. Most useful – Cubicle coat hanger (special mention: Pool cue holder)
2. Most artistic/beautiful – Camaro Nervoso
3. Most pointless/useless – Stormtrooper valve cap for a bicycle tire (although it is cool)
4. Most funny/weird – My Customized Ass!
5. Most scary/strange – African mask
Read this article
Watch this video: Charlie Rose interviews a successful Designer
Do you feel that you are a tinkerer? Do you know anyone else who is? What do you think about the argument regarding the influence of corporate culture on tinkering? At the end of the article is the line, "...preserving the habitat of the tinkerer is one of the few time-proven ways we as a nation can get back on track." What do you think about this idea? What are the primary design principles you took away from the interview? What did you think when you saw his final project with his daughter? Can you think of how some of his principles might apply to our work?
While growing up, I was often discouraged from taking things apart since I usually had a tendency to not return them to an operational state. However, since entering college, I did not have to worry about such discipline (having a better idea of how things worked and the ability to correctly put them back together definitely helped too). As a result, I definitely consider myself to be a tinkerer. If something is broken, my first instinct is to take it apart (possibly voiding warranties along the way) and try to figure out what is wrong with it. Another part of tinkering comes from wanting to modify things, and I most certainly have that trait too. A couple of my really good friends from college fit the tinkering persona even more than I do. One of them, in fact, talked me through my first couple of things I took apart and helped me get comfortable with doing so.
Corporate culture has certainly discouraged tinkering over the past few years. Whether it was intentional or not is up for debate, but it is most certainly influencing the nation’s attitude toward tinkering. The idea that “...preserving the habitat of the tinkerer is one of the few time-proven ways we as a nation can get back on track” seems like a bit of a moot point to me. I agree that tinkers have a tendency to discover cutting-edge, revolutionary technology and that they are vital to our nation’s success, but I do not foresee a situation in which the tinkerer’s habitat will be destroyed. There will always be a natural curiosity in many people and a way to open up commercial items. Barring a national ban on tinkering (which I am not sure how that would work or how constitutional it would be) and the removal of tinkering videos on Youtube.com, I do not think we have to worry about destroying the habitat of tinkerers.
The primary design principles that I took away from the interview of David Kelley was to always keep the user in mind and keep it as simple as possible. The design process they used, involving having a diverse group of people that can build on each other and watching humans to improve products, makes perfect sense and is something that everyone should consider doing. While it may take the project longer to complete, it will do a lot more to ensure its success. I thought it was really cool that he was making a 3D printer and makes us doing it even cooler. His design principles are definitely applicable to our work, as keeping things simpler and more user-friendly would potentially drive costs down and increase popularity.
The “Mother of all Demos” is here.
First, watch that first section of the mother of all demos (above), which includes the first computer mouse and cursor ever seen in public. Do you recognize the rough features we use on every computer today in its earliest form? Are you impressed by what he’s demonstrating? Do you think that you would have recognized the importance of this work if you were in the audience at the time?
Then watch this (turn up your sound). In it, Professor Richard Doyle discusses disruptive technological change, open source, knowledge sharing, and ‘creative culture’ among other things. The first 22 minutes is his talk, while the rest consists of questions and chat.
What does he say regarding the initial perception of the mother of all demos?
After watching the first section of the mother of all demos video, I definitely recognize some rough futures included on every computer today. Obviously, the keyboard looks very similar. The cursor looks very similar to those found in a word processing document, with the exception of the fact that it does not become an arrow when moved off text. The mouse had a similar shape (but, understandably, not a similar size) and looked to operate in a similar manner. I am very impressed by what he’s demonstrating, as many of these features comprise the core of what we use in word processing today. The introduction of the mouse and cursor also opened the door for a world of possible uses in a computer and made this far more efficient. I think that if I was in the audience at the time, I definitely would have recognized the importance and how much of a revelation his work was.
The initial perception of the mother of all demos is that, while it was amazing to people, they assumed it was a hoax. They believed that there was something other than the mouse that was performing Douglas Engelbart’s actions. After the mother of all demos, Engelbart contacted some of his funders and wanted to show them his progress, but they said they had already built a copy of it. However, while the funders could replicate it, they couldn’t figure out how to get it to work.
Doyle makes a number of arguments regarding the importance of our open source efforts in comparison to models requiring intellectual property. Why do we and why should we share the information we generate? (Or shouldn’t we? Are we missing out by not trying to patent our efforts?) How might we better share our knowledge?
Sharing the information we generate helps us to return to the roots of science and helps us to overcome obstacles that have kept us from moving scientific & technological innovation into the world (through the use of network science). You still get individual creativity; it is just placed within a collective effort. The culture of creativity allows for novel ideas to be generated and is helping to keep us ahead technologically. If the information is not shared, it tends to be hidden away and is ineffective toward advancing society. There will always be a level of self-righteousness in people, especially inventors. This tends to lead to an attempt to copyright and obtain intellectual property rights, which can easily get in the way and inhibit the development and production of technologies. However, if this characteristic can be overcome and the technology is open-sourced, the development of the technology is usually greatly accelerated. The downside is that the original ownership is usually blurred after this point, and someone else may be receiving credit for your idea.
The way the knowledge is currently shared (through the use of wikis and forums) is a fairly good means for it. However, having a dedicated search engine of open source products and ideas (“Open Google,” if you will) would greatly facilitate the sharing of knowledge, in my opinion. Search engines have become the primary means to obtain information and answer questions, and with how quickly open source products are changing, the use of printed materials would become outdated very quickly. I believe that having an online catalog of open source information that is easily searchable and found would do wonders for the sharing of knowledge and technological advancement.
