robertogreco + darpa   15

crap futures — constraint no. 4: education
"We hesitated a bit before tackling this one, because education is such a vast and complex subject. But as far as constraints on possible futures go, education is impossible to ignore. Skill sets and thought paths are determined at an early age, shaping and constraining future possibilities for entire generations of pupils. (It is worth rediscovering Ken Robinson’s 2008 talk on changing paradigms in relation to educational constraints.) There are serious consequences to enforcing the constraint of economic utility on education, drastically narrowing curricula to what are considered core subjects, replacing older - not to say obsolete or useless - technologies with newer ones in the classroom, and so on. Maslow’s evocative maxim, often attributed to Mark Twain for reasons unknown, comes to mind: ‘It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.’ Today this might be paraphrased as: ‘Give a child a computer, and everything has to be coded.’ Or 3D printed. Or laser cut. Or CNC machined. Obviously the more of these tools girls and boys are given, the better for them and the country they live in.

Unfortunately, recent educational trends in the UK paint a rather bleak picture where constraints are concerned. An article from the BBC on the rise of 3D printing in schools states: ‘the key inspiration … has been what is loosely termed the “digital maker” movement’. But why digital maker movement and not simply maker movement? The article goes on to tell us that ‘"Fab lab" stands for a “fabrication laboratory”, where digital ideas are turned into products and prototypes.’ Again, why digital ideas and not just ideas? What is it about a fablab that needs to be wholly digital and not a hybrid of materials and practices? (Some spaces and curricula do seek to fuse the old ‘shop’ class with the new computer lab, but other concerns may arise - as in the case a few years ago of controversial DARPA military funding to put a thousand DIY workshops in US high schools.)

A UK Government report, meanwhile, that lays out the agenda on 3D printing in education there, includes the following ‘points to consider’: ‘Who will use it? What will it be used for?’ These are good questions, too seldom asked. As for the questions that were not asked, they might include: ‘What will happen to the old machines?’, ‘What will happen to the old knowledge?’ and ‘What is lost in the headlong rush to full digitalisation?’ 3D printing holds an enormous amount of potential, as boundary pushing movements like 3D Additivism demonstrate. But the 3D printer and the laser cutter shouldn’t be the only tools in the box, and deskilling leads to a narrowing of possibilities for everyone.

Roland Barthes, writing in the 1950s about the sudden shift from traditional wooden toys to plastic ones, observed:
Wood makes essential objects, objects for all time. Yet there hardly remain any of these wooden toys…. Henceforth, toys are chemical in substance and colour; their very material introduces one to a coenaesthesis of use, not pleasure. These toys die in fact very quickly, and once dead, they have no posthumous life for the child.

A word of warning to those who would abandon old areas of knowledge and useful materials too quickly."
crapfutures  2016  rolandbarthes  wood  education  children  durability  materials  time  slow  plastic  future  futures  3dprinting  digital  digitization  3dadditivism  fablabs  darpa  diy  making  makermovement  economics  purpose  additivism  fablab 
january 2016 by robertogreco
Imperial Designs | The Unforgiving Minute
[via: https://twitter.com/tealtan/status/667000828113260544 ]

"[image]

Here’s an example: the Chand Baori Stepwell in Rajasthan, built in the 8th and 9th centuries. (You can watch a video about Chand Baori, and another about stepwells, based on an article by journalist Victoria Lautman.) Stepwells were a critical part of water management, particularly in western India and other dry areas of Asia, the earliest known stepwell forms date from around 600AD. The Mughal empire encouraged stepwell construction, but the administrators British empire decided that stepwells should be replaced with pumped and piped water systems modelled on those developed in the UK – a ‘superior’ system. It was of course also a system that moved from a communal and social model of water management to a centralised model of water management – and the British loved centralised management, because it’s easier to control.

[image]

Here’s another model of water management – the Playpump, which received a lot of media attention and donor support after it was proposed in 2005. The basic idea was that kids playing on the big roundabout would pump water up from the well for the whole village. This doesn’t seem very imperial at first sight: it looks like these kids are having fun, and the village is getting water. Unfortunately it was a massive failure because it flat out didn’t work, although the Playpumps organisation is still around; if you want to know more about that failure, read this article in the Guardian and this lessons learned from the Case Foundation, and listen to this Frontline radio show on PBS. TL;DR: the Playpump didn’t work because it was designed by outsiders who didn’t understand the communities: a classic case of design imperialism. There are lots of examples just like this, where the failure is easy to see but the imperialism is more difficult to spot.

About 5 years ago there was a big hoo-hah about an article called “Is Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism?” by Bruce Nussbaum. Nussbaum accused people and organisations working on design that would alleviate poverty as yet another imperial effort. This depends on defining “empire” as a power relationship – an unequal power relationship, where the centre holds the power (and resources) and the periphery will benefit from those resources only when the centre decides to give it to them. At the time, there was a lot of discussion around this idea, but that discussion has died now. That’s not because it’s no longer an issue: it’s because a new imperial model, more subtle than Nussbaum’s idea, has successfully taken root, and few people in the design world even realise it."



"Q&A:

During the talk I mentioned that I was planning to show video of robot dogs, but I didn’t because they freak me out. They don’t really freak me out – I think they’re astonishing feats of technology – but what they say about our attitudes towards warfare worries me. They’re being built by Boston Dynamics, who started out under military contracts from DARPA, have recently been acquired by Google X, and who post a ton of promo videos. Particularly funny is this supercut video of robots falling over.

One question raised the issue of whether our education system enables people to recognise the trap that they might be in, and give them the tools to make their own way. The short answer is no. The industrial model of education is not equipped for the 21st century, although I remain hopeful that the internet will also disrupt education as it has other sectors. At the same time I am sceptical of the impact of the most-hyped projects (such as the Khan Academy and the wide range of MOOCs) – it seems to me that we need something that learns from a wider range of educational approaches.

We also discussed whether there is an underlying philosophy to the invisible empire of the internet. I believe that there is, although it isn’t necessarily made explicit. One early artefact of this philosophy is A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace; one early analysis of aspects of it is The Californian Ideology. Evgeny Morozov is interesting on this topic, but with a pinch of salt, since in a relatively short time he has gone from incisive commentator to intellectual troll. It’s interesting that a few Silicon Valley big beasts are trained in philosophy, although to be honest this training doesn’t seem to be reflected in their actual philosophy."

[See also: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/nov/24/africa-charity-water-pumps-roundabouts
via: https://twitter.com/tealtan/status/667031543416623105 ]
designimperialism  design  via:tealtan  humanitariandesign  2015  africa  paulcurrion  control  colonialism  technology  technosolutionism  evgenymorozov  siliconvalley  philosophy  politics  mooc  moocs  doublebind  education  bostondynamics  googlex  darpa  robots  yuvalnoahharari  californianideology  wikihouse  globalconstructionset  3dprinting  disobedientobjects  anarchism  anarchy  legibility  internet  online  web  nezaralsayyad  smarthphones  mobile  phones  benedictevans  migration  refugees  fiveeyes  playpumps  water  chandbaori  trevorpaglen 
november 2015 by robertogreco
How design fiction imagines future technology – Jon Turney – Aeon
"As technological choices become ever more complex, design fiction, not science, hints at the future we actually want"



"Design fiction’s efforts to create imaginative realisations of technology, which consciously try to evoke discussion that avoids polarising opinion, have a key ingredient, I think. Unlike the new worlds of sci-fi novels, or the ultra-detailed visuals of futuristic cinema, their stories are unfinished. Minority Report is not about critical design because its narrative is closed. In good design fiction, the story is merely hinted at, the possibilities left open. It is up to the person who stumbles across the design to make sense of how it might be part of a storied future."



Design fiction’s proponents want to craft products and exhibits that are not open to this simplified response, that fire the imagination in the right way. That means being not too fanciful, not simply dystopian, and not just tapping into clichéd science‑fictional scripts. When it works, design fiction brings something new into debates about future technological life, and involves us – the users – in the discussion."



"As design fiction comes to be recognised as a distinctive activity, it will continue to find new forms of expression. The US design theorist Julian Bleecker of the Near Future Laboratory suggests that the TBD Catalog with its realistic depictions of fictional products models a different way of innovating, in which designers ‘prototype and test a near future by writing its product descriptions, filing bug reports, creating product manuals and quick reference guides to probable improbable things’. The guiding impulse is to assist us in imagining a new normality. Design and artistic practice can both do that.

Design fictions are not a panacea for some ideal future of broad participation in choosing the ensemble of technologies that we will live with. Most future technologies will continue to arrive as a done deal, despite talk among academics of ‘upstream engagement’ or – coming into fashion – instituting ‘responsible research and innovation’. The US Department of Defense, for instance, and its lavishly-funded, somewhat science-fictional Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has an extensive catalogue of research and development (R&D) projects on topics from robotics to neural enhancement, selected according to a single over-riding criterion: might they give the USA a military advantage in future? DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office tells us, in a ghastly combination of sales talk and bureaucratese, that it is ‘looking for the best innovators from all fields who have an idea for how to leverage bio+tech to solve seemingly impossible problems and deliver transformative impact’. Here, as in other fields, military, security and much commercial R&D will probably go its own way, and we’ll get weaponised biology whether we like it or not.

For the rest, though, there is a real contribution to be made through a playful, freewheeling design practice, open to many new ideas, and which is technically informed but not constrained by immediate feasibility. There are already enough examples to show how design fiction can invite new kinds of conversations about technological futures. Recognising their possibilities can open up roads not taken.

Design fiction with a less critical (and more commercial) edge will continue to appeal to innovative corporations anxious to configure new offerings to fit better with as yet undefined markets. Their overriding aim is to reduce the chances of an innovation being lost in the ‘valley of death’ between a bright idea and a successful product that preys on the minds of budget-holders.

But the greatest potential of this new way of working is as a tool for those who want to encourage a more important debate about possible futures and their technological ingredients. This is the debate we’re still too often not having, about how to harness technological potential to improve the chances of us living the lives we wish for."
design  designfiction  2105  jonturney  technology  science  participatory  future  complexity  debate  futures  potential  howwelive  lcproject  openstudioproject  darpa  scifi  sciencefiction  change  nearfuturelaboratory  julianbleecker  tbdcatalog  fiction  prototyping  art  imagination  tinkeringwiththefuture  paulgrahamraven  alexandraginsberg  christinapagapis  sisseltolaas  syntheticbiology  alexiscarrel  frederikpohl  cyrilkornbluth  margaretatwood  anthonydunne  fionaraby  dunne&raby  koertvanmensvoort  hendrik-jangrievink  arthurcclarke  davidnye  julesverne  hgwells  martincooper  startrek  johnunderkoffler  davidkirby  aldoushuxley  bravenewworld  minorityreport  jamesauger  jimmyloizeau  worldbuilding  microworldbuilding  thenewnormal 
march 2015 by robertogreco
Oscillator | On Democratization
"In the early 1970’s, several Dutch universities created “science shops” (wetenschapswinkels) with the aim of democratizing science. The science shops connected public interest groups who had scientific questions with university students and researchers who could provide answers. Opening access to university research would help activist groups achieve their goals, and would also have an impact on the universities themselves. In an essay for the journal Science, Technology & Human Values, Joseph Wachelder writes about the more radical goals of the science shops early on:
The democratization of science in fact implied a general and even radical transformation of society. The aim was to reorient science toward the social needs of workers and disadvantaged groups and to fight the vested interest of the establishment and the so-called military-industrial complex. In those early days, the political Left pushed science shops as one means of transforming both science and society in radical ways. Unions, targeting issues such as occupational health, social security, and working conditions; environmentalists; patients’ groups; third-world activists; and, slightly later, women’s liberation groups considered themselves as partners in pursuit of a new and better society.
I read about the science shops for the first time over the holidays in Making Genes, Making Waves, Jon Beckwith’s autobiography about his research in molecular biology and his political activism. Given the current fad for “democratizing science” I was surprised that I’d never heard them mentioned before.


Indeed, today’s democratization looks a lot different from the democratization pushed by science shops and radical science movements of the 70s. Science for the People, an activist group of scientists and engineers founded in the early 1970s, organized against the misuse of science by military and corporate interests and advocated that science work for marginalized people rather than maintaining the status quo. A powerful symbol for the group was a fist raised in solidarity next to a hand holding a flask. Alice Bell notes in a recent article on activist science that, “The fist of solidarity stood in front of the chemist’s flask here, not simply used to hold science up high.”

[image]

Compare that with Science for the People, a Canadian radio program about science, which rebranded in 2013 from “Skeptically Speaking.” Their logo echoes the Science for the People cover image from 1970, but here the fist holds up a test tube—literally holding science up high. In a blog post about their rebrand, the producers discuss what “science for the people” means to them:
We’re about getting the word of something we love to people who might not hear about it anywhere else, in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, they’ll love it a little too. We’re about taking tough scientific concepts and teasing out what matters. We’re about taking the latest in scientific progress and relate it to people like our friends and our families, and our communities, and our society.


[image]

Telling people about your love for science is great, but as Bell notes (referring to the flask-toting fist on the cover of the Geek Manifesto), “Looking back at these earlier radicals, [it] seems to pale to a Che Guevara T-shirt in comparison.”

Other efforts seem similarly pale when you begin to examine their claims about democratization in light of what democratization meant to more political generations of scientists. Like the Science for the People radio program, many of these efforts are focused on the one-way transmission of science from the academy to the public, rather than a radical transformation of science itself to address public interests.

Open access publishing has made it easier to publish and read scientific articles, and is gradually (hopefully) chipping away at the tyranny of the impact factor in academic career advancement. These are worthy goals which I support whole-heartedly—I’ve published most of my papers in open access journals—but making papers open to download doesn’t necessarily make science democratic and open to everyone.

Likewise, recent efforts to get more people involved in scientific research have been branded “citizen science,” but unlike the science shops where the citizens dictated research directions, citizen science projects simply allow non-scientists to volunteer their time collecting or analyzing data for professional researchers. These projects can be great learning experiences, allowing non-scientists to get a better picture of the scientific process, as well as great research experiences, allowing scientists to explore topics that they couldn’t have done without the expanded team. But letting people do free work for you isn’t the same as doing work for people.

In synthetic biology, “democratization” has recently been used as a marketing ploy for companies that are selling DNA or DNA editing software. Cambrian Genomics and Genome Compiler both claim to “democratize creation,” an empty statement that helps drive press coverage and TED invitations in the crowded genetic engineering market. Both companies are selling slightly different, cheaper, or easier to use versions of things that have been sold to molecular biologists for decades, but claiming that their versions will suddenly make it possible for “anyone” to do genetic engineering. Making cheaper and more accessible laboratory tools is great, but it’s worth asking what else is necessary to truly make “creation” accessible (I’m not going to get into the differences between synthesizing DNA and “creating life” here, but suffice it to say that I don’t agree with that part of their phrasing either). There are many other tools, training, and above all a reason to do it that are all necessary in order to make a “creature.” It’s no surprise then that, according to SF Gate, Cambrian currently sells DNA primarily to biotech giants like Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and Thermo Fisher. If you don’t work to really democratize science, you’re just making cheaper tools for the people who already had access to them. (Also hype, lots of hype.)

[image]

The contemporary projects that seems most like the 70s Dutch science shops are today’s hackerspaces and community labs, where non-expert scientists can explore techno-scientific questions on their own time (and usually on their own dime). While there are a huge variety of projects and educational goals in these spaces, a particular kind of “hacker” has gone mainstream (and even received DARPA funding). Tinkering in a garage is now seen as the first step towards starting the next multibillion dollar Silicon Valley company. Hackerspaces can be the site of anti-establishment thinking, but they are also becoming part of the military-industrial complex.

None of these projects are necessarily bad. By and large, they all point towards a broader positive shift happening in the scientific community towards more transparency, accountability, diversity, and public involvement. But we shouldn’t let something as important as democratization become an empty label. We need to be critical of self-proclaimed democratizers—who is benefitting and who remains left out? Who is calling the shots and who is working for whom? Where does the money come from? How can we do science better?"
christinaagapakis  democratization  science  history  politics  1920s  netherlands  wetenschapswinkels  scienceshops  canada  scientificallyspeaking  transmission  citizenscience  scientificprocess  learning  education  accessibility  hackerspaces  communitylabs  labs  laboratories  darpa  tinkering  makerspaces 
january 2015 by robertogreco
DEMILIT: The Dark Matter of the Security State
"The everyday of the security state is an always emerging rabble. What’s actually going on behind the scenes would not be terribly surprising, truth be told. It is the business of surveillance, run as a giant institution, with hierarchies and command chains, jealousies and dirty tricks, dry-erase boards, office rules, and sworn allegiances and company barbecues. One could take the approach of measuring stuff in purely physical forms: How many miles of fiber optic does the NSA require? How many teraflop-bytes of data storage? How many Sharpies? How many cubicles; how many codenames—how much of all this stuff? In the end, one would gets an almost infinite and Borgesian infographic—but an infographic nonetheless.

Meanwhile, what are the common extensions of the NSA and the rest of the security state: the next-door neighbor that makes a trust app on a laptop in their garage and licenses it to the government? What are the very particular machinations—the NSA jokes, for instance? Where are the mom-and-pop shops that devise a few lines of code? Who are the otherwise unemployed Hollywood or New York actors, screenwriters, producers, and gaffers that make an NSA recruitment video? Who installs the internet wiretaps, and where do they buy their lunch? Where does the paralegal grab drinks with the data analyst, and what banal intimacies do they share with the bartender?

Snowden (and others before him) revealed a certain “globality” to the NSA. But it is with a whole, vast array of human relationships, transactions, and negotiations with which the security apparatus wraps the world several times over. There seems to be a certain shared pleasure pulsating through the networks, as if delighting in the publicness of their own transgressions—which makes the Snowden revelations something quasi-theatrical; another hedonistic chance to show state power by disciplining him. This flow would be the actual “dark matter” that a salivating agency like DARPA could never boil down into a business requisition. Through the tendrils of this mesh, furthermore, flow the very constructs like “bravery” and “justice,” repeated as mantra, like a glue that bonds the intersections—words that are lobbed against those who poke out of the darkness. Snowden did his part, but it is never enough. Now it’s time to start."
2013  demilit  nsa  edwardsnowden  journalism  security  us  global  darkmatter  darpa  flow  cia  surveillance 
june 2013 by robertogreco
Design for the New Normal (Revisited) | superflux
"I was invited to talk at the NEXT Conference in Berlin by Peter Bihr, as he felt that a talk I gave last year would fit well with the conference's theme Here Be Dragons: "We fret about data, who is collecting it and why. We fret about privacy and security. We worry and fear disruption, which changes business models and renders old business to ashes. Some would have us walk away, steer clear of these risks. They’re dangerous, we don’t know what the consequences will be. Maintain the status quo, don’t change too much.Here and now is safe. Over there, in the future? Well, there be dragons."

This sounded like a good platform to expand upon the 'Design for the New Normal' presentation I gave earlier, especially as its an area Jon and I are thinking about in the context of various ongoing projects. So here it is, once again an accelerated slideshow (70 slides!) where I followed up on some of the stories to see what happened to them in the last six months, and developed some of the ideas further. This continues to be a work-in-progress that Superflux is developing as part of our current projects. "

[Video: http://nextberlin.eu/2013/07/design-for-the-new-normal-3/ ]
anabjain  2013  drones  weapons  manufacturing  3dprinting  bioengineering  droneproject  biotechnology  biotech  biobricks  songhojun  ossi  zemaraielali  empowerment  technology  technologicalempowerment  raspberrypi  hackerspaces  makerspaces  diy  biology  diybio  shapeways  replicators  tobiasrevell  globalvillageconstructionset  marcinjakubowski  crowdsourcing  cryptocurrencies  openideo  ideo  wickedproblems  darpa  innovation  india  afghanistan  jugaad  jugaadwarfare  warfare  war  syria  bitcoins  blackmarket  freicoin  litecoin  dna  dnadreams  bregtjevanderhaak  bgi  genomics  23andme  annewojcicki  genetics  scottsmith  superdensity  googleglass  chaos  complexity  uncertainty  thenewnormal  superflux  opensource  patents  subversion  design  jonardern  ux  marketing  venkateshrao  normalityfield  strangenow  syntheticbiology  healthcare  healthinsurance  insurance  law  economics  ip  arnoldmann  dynamicgenetics  insects  liamyoung  eleanorsaitta  shingtatchung  algorithms  superstition  bahavior  numerology  dunne&raby  augerloizeau  bionicrequiem  ericschmidt  privacy  adamharvey  makeu 
april 2013 by robertogreco
The ARPANET Dialogues
"an archive of rare conversations within the contemporary social, political and cultural milieu"

Vol. I
Published on 9 October 2010
ARPANET Test 1975 with Marcel Broodthaers, Jane Fonda, Ronald Reagan & Edward Said…

Vol. II
Published on 14 March 2011
ARPANET Test June 1976 with Samir Amin, Steve Biko, Francis Fukuyama & Minoru Yamasaki…

Vol. III
Published on 1 November 2011
ARPANET Test March 1976 with Joseph Beuys, Juan Downey, Rosalind Krauss & Henry Moore…

Vol. IV
Published on 4 March 2012
ARPANET Test April 1976 with Jim Henson, Ayn Rand, Sidney Nolan & Yoko Ono…"

[See also: http://meaning.boxwith.com/projects/the-arpanet-dialogues and http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/04/so-reagan-signs-into-this-chatroom.html ]
satire  humor  internet  darpa  donaldlupton  artdubai2011  manifesta8  1975  1976  yokoono  sidneynolan  aynrand  jimhenson  henrymoore  rosalindkrauss  juandowney  josephbeuys  minoruyamasaki  francisfukuyama  stevebiko  samiramin  edwardsaid  ronaldreagan  janefonda  marcelbroodthaers  conversations  culture  philosophy  politics  netart  history  arpanet  from delicious
december 2012 by robertogreco
3 BIG questions (and lots of smaller ones) about DARPA & Make · demilit · Storify
"Concluding, all of these questions are no mere trouble-shooting aiming to 'get things right.' These questions point to a more fundamental problem of how science and technology can best thrive. Is it under a culture of militarism, or under a culture where disagreement, debate and doubts can be fostered? While it's been shown here that DARPA and Make/Otherlab have somewhat disparate goals from each other, we know full well that DARPA pays for the program. Nonetheless, one can't help but marvel at how Make's version of MENTOR obviously poses no threat to DARPA's overarching dictates. Different goals, and yet harmless. Perhaps that is why it can sit so comfortably with them to take the money. It's almost enough to wonder if such complacency can lead to real science. Ironically, it's precisely what motivates the Pentagon to tap hacker teens: their irreverence and fresh take, only to then begin the process of disciplining that initial irreverence away."
saulgriffith  otherlab  policy  money  2012  darpa  oreilly  make  javierarbona  demilit 
january 2012 by robertogreco
Make, DARPA, and teens: A match made in hackerspace · demilit · Storify
"Well, well, well... What have we here? How painfully ironic this is. How shocking, in fact. And yet, this bit of news has flown under the radar for the past week. To put it bluntly, Tim O'Reilly's Make magazine and his cohort are working with the Pentagon. More specifically, DIY-zine Make and its folks are taking money from DARPA to create "makerspaces" for teens (aka the "Manufacturing Experimentation and Outreach," or "MENTOR" program)."
pentagon  teens  hackerspaces  makerspaces  militaryindustrialcomplex  military  education  2012  saulgriffith  oreilly  makemagazine  make  ethics  darpa  demilit  javierarbona 
january 2012 by robertogreco
The invention of social computing
"As is the case with many of his movies, Morris uses the story of a key or unique individual to paint a broader picture; in this instance, as the story of his brother's involvement with an early email system unfolds, we also learn about the beginnings of social computing…

It seems completely nutty to me that people using computers together -- which is probably 100% of what people use computers for today (email, Twitter, Facebook, IM, etc.) -- was an accidental byproduct of a system designed to let a lot of people use the same computer separately. Just goes to show, technology and invention works in unexpected ways sometimes...and just as "nature finds a way" in Jurassic Park, "social finds a way" with technology."
kottke  errolmorris  socialcomputing  email  ctss  arpa  darpa  technology  social  2011  from delicious
june 2011 by robertogreco
Darpa Wants to Sniff Your City’s Distinct Chemical Scent | Danger Room | Wired.com
"Darpa’s big idea, according to a new solicitation, is to collect trace elements of chemicals at different places in a city and then derive a model for determining that city’s chemical smell. It’ll have to vary with place, as high levels of petroleum-based chemicals are going to be more suspicious near a florist’s than at, say, a gas station.

Then Darpa wants researchers to represent the results in a “high-fidelity, three-dimensional chemical-composition map.” So-called “chemical cartography” is the first step in “identifying ‘dual-use’ substances with legal and illegal/illicit uses.”"
environment  measurement  darpa  smells  scents  chemistry  from delicious
november 2010 by robertogreco
OSU and DARPA building UAV nano planes that can fit in a pocket - Engadget
"miniaturized plasma propulsion system being developed at Oklahoma State University promises some exciting new Unmanned Ariel Vehicle spy plane designs for the folks at DARPA. The engine is about the size of a cigarette, contains no moving parts, and will
future  flight  darpa  planes 
january 2008 by robertogreco

related tags

3dadditivism  3dprinting  23andme  1920s  accessibility  adamharvey  adamsmith  additivism  afghanistan  afl-cio  africa  agameforsomeone  aldoushuxley  alexandraginsberg  alexiscarrel  algorithms  alternative  anabjain  anarchism  anarchy  andystern  anne-marieslaughter  annewojcicki  anthonydunne  arnoldmann  arpa  arpa-e  arpanet  art  artdubai2011  arthurcclarke  augerloizeau  aynrand  bahavior  benedictevans  benefitcorporations  bgi  biobricks  bioengineering  biology  bionicrequiem  biotech  biotechnology  bitcoins  blackmarket  books  bostondynamics  bravenewworld  bregtjevanderhaak  brickhouse  byronauguste  californianideology  canada  capitalism  caregiving  chaddickerson  chandbaori  change  chaos  chemistry  children  christinaagapakis  christinapagapis  cia  citizenscience  climatechange  collectiveaction  collectivebargaining  colonialism  communitylabs  complexity  control  convenience  conversations  corporations  crapfutures  crowdsourcing  cryptocurrencies  csr  ctss  culture  cyrilkornbluth  danteran  darkmatter  darpa  davidkirby  davidnye  davidplouffe  davidricardo  davidrolf  debate  demilit  democratization  design  designfiction  designimperialism  development  digital  digitization  disobedientobjects  diversity  diy  diybio  dna  dnadreams  donaldlupton  doublebind  droneproject  drones  dunne&raby  durability  dynamicgenetics  dystopia  economics  education  edwardsaid  edwardsnowden  efficiency  eleanorsaitta  elonmusk  email  employment  empowerment  energy  environment  equity  ericschmidt  errolmorris  ethics  etsy  evgenymorozov  evwilliams  experimentation  fablab  fablabs  facebook  farrionsjoquist  fiction  fionaraby  fiveeyes  flight  flow  francisfukuyama  frederikpohl  freelancing  freicoin  future  futures  gdp  ge  gender  genetics  genomics  gigeconomy  global  globalconstructionset  globalvillageconstructionset  globalwarming  goodworkcode  google  googleglass  googlex  governance  government  gps  green  hackerspaces  health  healthcare  healthinsurance  hendrik-jangrievink  henryford  henrymoore  hgwells  history  howwelive  humanitariandesign  humor  ideo  imagination  india  inequality  innovation  insects  insurance  internet  intuit  invention  investment  ip  jamesauger  janefonda  jasonrohrer  javierarbona  jesskutch  jimhenson  jimmyloizeau  jitneys  jobs  johnmaynardkeynes  johnunderkoffler  jonardern  jonturney  josephbeuys  josephschumpeter  journalism  juandowney  jugaad  jugaadwarfare  julesverne  julianbleecker  karlmarx  katearanoff  kickstarter  kimberlybryant  koertvanmensvoort  kottke  labor  laboratories  labs  laszlobock  lauratyson  law  lcproject  learning  legibility  liamyoung  libertarianism  limorfried  litecoin  lizschuler  logangreen  lyft  maciejceglowski  maciejcegłowski  make  makemagazine  makermovement  makerspaces  makeup  making  managedbyq  manifesta8  manufacturing  marcelbroodthaers  marcinjakubowski  margaretatwood  marianamazzucato  marketbasket  marketing  martincooper  materials  measurement  medicine  medium  michellemiller  microsoft  microworldbuilding  migration  military  militaryindustrialcomplex  minimumwage  minorityreport  minoruyamasaki  mobile  money  mooc  moocs  multipliereffect  nationalization  nearfuturelaboratory  neeratanden  netart  netherlands  nextberlin  nextberlin2013  nexteconomy  nezaralsayyad  nickhanauer  nih  normalityfield  nsa  numerology  online  openideo  opensource  openstudioproject  oreilly  ossi  otherlab  palakshah  participatory  patents  paulcurrion  paulgrahamraven  pentagon  peterthiel  pharmaceuticals  philosophy  phones  physiocrats  planes  plastic  playpumps  policy  politics  potential  poverty  power  precarity  privacy  privatization  prototyping  publictransit  publictransportation  purpose  quicktrip  racism  raspberrypi  refugees  regulation  reidhoffman  replicators  research  retail  rethinkingeconomics  robots  rolandbarthes  ronaldreagan  rosalindkrauss  salaries  samiramin  satire  satyanadella  saulgriffith  scents  science  sciencefiction  scienceshops  scientificallyspeaking  scientificprocess  scifi  scottsmith  security  seiu  shapeways  shingtatchung  sidneynolan  siliconvalley  sisseltolaas  slack  slow  smarthphones  smells  social  socialcomputing  society  solarcity  solyndra  songhojun  spacex  startrek  stephenlevy  stevebiko  stevejobs  stewartbutterfield  strangenow  subversion  superdensity  superflux  superstition  surveillance  syntheticbiology  syria  taskrabbit  tbdcatalog  technologicalempowerment  technology  technosolutionism  teens  tesla  thenewnormal  time  tinkering  tinkeringwiththefuture  tipping  tobiasrevell  tomo'reilley  toread  transit  transmission  transportation  trevorpaglen  uber  ubi  uk  uncertainty  unemployement  unions  unionsquare  universalbasicincome  unschooling  us  ux  value  valuecreation  venkateshrao  venturecapital  via:tealtan  walmart  war  warfare  water  wealth  weapons  web  wetenschapswinkels  wickedproblems  wifi  wikihouse  wood  work  worldbuilding  yahoo  yokoono  yuvalnoahharari  zemaraielali  zeynepton  zoebaird 

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: