3 ms·

Regarding tinkering with electronics, I imagine microcontrollers are both cheaper, information about hacking them more readily available, and the choice of arch

by andreyf 17y ago

Regarding tinkering with electronics, I imagine microcontrollers are both cheaper, information about hacking them more readily available, and the choice of architectures more numerous than they were in your childhood [1]. So now you can tinker with things which have a network stack and an IP. Pretty nifty, if you ask me. Regarding the IP issues: there is a lot more investment involved developing the software and chipsets which runs a modern cell phone compared to the rotary phone you took apart. Without the patents and copyrights protecting Apple's rights to the MacBook in front of you (and me), it would never have come to exist, because there would be no economic incentive for Apple to invest the billions that created it into R&D in the first place. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_microcontrollers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_microcontrollers

lutorm 17y ago
Patents don't prevent you from reverse engineering something you buy -- in fact it should already be made public in the patent application. Neither does copyright. It prevents you from using that knowledge in a new or cloned product. Its more the DMCA and maybe-enforceable licenses you "agree" to when buying something that try to prevent you from figuring out how things work. And that comes perilously close to "thought police" IMHO. I also remember taking apart rotary phones and realizing that you could dial them by hitting the hangup lever at the right frequency and number of times. If that had been "forbidden", I think it's very reasonable that my natural curiosity had just been rejected at an early age. This story reminds me of the TED talk about how you can't buy a chemistry set anymore.
- andreyf 17y ago
  Except 13 year olds pay attention to maybe-enforceable license and the DMCA a lot less than the author cared about the KGB - at least he was aware of them. I doubt any 13 year old knows what EULA or DMCA stands for. Chemistry sets are readily available, just as they always have been [1]. The big difference is that now, video games are a hell of a lot more fun than any chemistry set. 1. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00007B8M6/ http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00007B8M6/

by andreyf 17y ago

lutorm 17y ago

Patents don't prevent you from reverse engineering something you buy -- in fact it should already be made public in the patent application. Neither does copyright. It prevents you from using that knowledge in a new or cloned product. Its more the DMCA and maybe-enforceable licenses you "agree" to when buying something that try to prevent you from figuring out how things work. And that comes perilously close to "thought police" IMHO. I also remember taking apart rotary phones and realizing that you could dial them by hitting the hangup lever at the right frequency and number of times. If that had been "forbidden", I think it's very reasonable that my natural curiosity had just been rejected at an early age. This story reminds me of the TED talk about how you can't buy a chemistry set anymore.

andreyf 17y ago
Except 13 year olds pay attention to maybe-enforceable license and the DMCA a lot less than the author cared about the KGB - at least he was aware of them. I doubt any 13 year old knows what EULA or DMCA stands for. Chemistry sets are readily available, just as they always have been [1]. The big difference is that now, video games are a hell of a lot more fun than any chemistry set. 1. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00007B8M6/ http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00007B8M6/