hiya - you can check out the dozens of other articles, talks and overviews for what you're looking for - just google around or you can also email me and i can point you to a few. this article was specifically about the rules we all seem to follow, not "how open source hardware filters down to users". if you're interested in a specific one about that, here's one i wrote about someone who took a design we worked on and funded a kickstarter, by doing open source we enabled people to build better, and innovate quicker:

Open Source Hardware is Kick-Starting Kickstarter!
http://blog.makezine.com/2011/10/20/how-open-source-hardware-is-kick-starting-kickstarter/

wow, this is the best comment i've seen on /. in forever.

>>No, you're smart, about some things, I think. You seem to know your way around electronics, for example. You're terribly dumb about argument and logic, though. This is a common problem for technical people: they think because they are smart at some things, that this intelligence carries over. It doesn't.

take it back!

>>You still think you have a point, for example, even though it's clear you do not. But at least you wised up and stopped trying to talk about what I've published.

i'm going to keep pulling this string. say "ALL" again :)

>>I've repeatedly pointed out the fact that you claimed ALL makers SHOULD learn Chinese, and you've refused to retract that claim, and you've repeatedly and directly argued in support of that claim. To shrug it off as just a headline is dishonest. Either directly retract the claim, or it stands. That's how it works.

did you read past the headline? did you read the article? ...**yes, I think a lot of us are going to find speaking, reading, and writing the language of the soon-to-be biggest economy in the world and, who makes almost everything, is a good idea. It’s something to consider learning, starting now, particularly for makers, especially the ones who run maker businesses.**

"good idea, something to consider" - see those words. you need to read past a headline on slashdot to get to them. now that it's settled.

based on your name calling, i hearby ask you to retract your statement! you said "I mean honestly ... this guy is smart, and he says it's going to take him more than two years of ALL his free time, and a total of about 5 years, to become fluent."

obviously you do not agree with yourself, retract it!

>>It's amazing that you don't realize that everything you're attacking me for in this regard, necessarily also applies to you. It's not like you're not writing as much as I am, and throwing around at least as many insults; worse, for you, I'm the one trying to focus on the actual argument, and you're the one continually engaging in ad hominem by trying to compare whom I know, what I've written, etc.

i think this is a blast, you're completely bonkers. this is like a fun toy that never runs out of batteries. i pull the string and you keep saying "ALL". i pull the string now.

>>Look, I know you're very slow-witted, but I already explained this. Try to keep up. I'll say it again: it is logically irrelevant. I won't mention them because it literally doesn't matter to the argument, and it debases it. Whom I know doesn't matter, and what I've done doesn't matter, to my case, which is built on fundamental logical principles, as outlined in my example with the sets. If you could explain to me how any of those things could matter to my case, I would gladly provide a list. But I don't think you'll be able to do it.

you can't list anything because they only exist in your head, just list *any* of them already :)

>>Honestly, in truth, I cannot remember them all. There's been many, and it's been a long time. In addition to the two books I've co-authored, there's been maybe several newspapers and tech magazines ... and that's not even including the online publications, like Slashdot and oreilly.com. And I've turned down at least twice as many as I've written for, including an offer to write a book for O'Reilly, many moons ago.

ok, again - be specific - post a link to the books you've co-authored! ISBNS please!

>>I have won several awards for writing and news, including an award -- sponsored by O'Reilly, with a cash prize, no less -- for a news web site I ran. I don't see how awards mean anything at all, though. It just means one or more people at one time thought they should recognize you for something. That's pretty boring to me, and if I had a Pulitzer it would not make any difference to me.

which award, when, post a link :)

>>You apparently do not realize that the only evidence that I "love to argue on Slashdot" also directly implies that YOU love to argue on Slashdot.

this is like a studying some goo one finds in a swamp. stay still and answer the questions already or no sugar for you my fine specimen! :)

>>It's funny that you think you're a big deal, and that you think you've won a single argument here.

>>Yes, specifics that could not possibly help or hurt your case that all makers SHOULD learn Chinese, nor my case that this is an asinine claim for you to make.

again, read the article. it's about makers who run maker businesses that work with companies in china, i even list out ones that do this now and how they're either learning mandarin or visiting frequently. look, i know it's hard to read past headlines. maybe you don't leave slashdot that often, but try it out sometime! if you read the comments no one is debating about "should" or the title or the title of the article because it's clearly explained in the first paragraph. the MAKE reader are extremely smart and can hold many ideas and thoughts together. slashdot trollers are not know for that ability as seen here :)

>>Perhaps, perhaps not. But I am unburdened by caring what most people think of me. It's a gift. I am not upset, in fact. I do have a problem: a nearly, but not quite, pathological need to point out the logical fallacies of people who are being douchebags, whether anyone's watching or not.

that's called trollin' trolly dude, and you're in the right place. you're completely bonkers and it's awesome to watch :)

please tell me more!

in 2011 it's awesome to watch a meltdown like this, throwing tantrums, resorting to calling people "douchebags" when they ask you to back up anything you're saying with specifics and just instead freaking out in the slashdot comments that no one reads - keep the dream alive man, this is your life :)

>>Sigh. No. Do your own homework, if you care.

just list'em out, what's the big deal? really, you why can't you name all the publications you've written for? is the list too long for the meager form here? :)

>>Correct. And? [slashdot.org]

Logitech Buys Slim Devices
On October 18th, 2006 with 80 comments

haha! that's what you're considering "articles"? it's a news item with 3 sentences from almost *5 years ago*. where do you store all the pulitzers!?

make way everyone, william blake coming through here!

>>However, I do take your response as confirmation that you really do find worth and value in relative comparison of publication credits. And I find that to be extremely sad and pathetic.

i'm still bummed you won't consider me for your future publication that you may start. maybe we can work something out where i intern or something!

look dude, just face it - you love to argue on slashdot, that's your hobby. mine is making open source hardware and now learning mandarin. think of the hours you're spending talking to me about *my article* and walking around all pissed after getting smacked down here. you thought this would be the usual trolling, but i asked you for specifics you can't provide and you look, foolish. not to anyone here, no one reads this, just yourself and that's why you're so upset :)

>>You're a damned liar.
>>You're a damned liar.
>>You're a damned liar.
>>You're a damned liar.
.

this is *awesome* i imagine a big ole' man-child meltdown, complete with jumping up and down screaming the same thing over and over.

>>I'd go over my significant list of publication credits, but I'll just note that I've writen articles and contributed to books -- as a writer, and tech editor -- at O'Reilly, just to make you feel more foolish, and leave it at that.

great, name a few. i'm morbidly curious about you vast library of accomplishments at o'reilly! you also spelled "written wrong", it's not "writen". but you knew that, perhaps this is some type of grammar test! perhaps now i can get that gig at troll-weekly you dangled.

>>... and? Are you trying to imply something? I can't see what. I've written hundreds of articles on Slashdot ... so? It seems like you are trying to make yourself seem superior to me just because you've written things, and you (ignorantly) assume I have not. Even if I didn't have a ton of publication credits, that would STILL be stupid.

trolly comments on slashdot calling people "douchebags" is not an "article" :) but hey, it's what defines who you are, live it, love it - way to set the world on fire, you are living the dream :)