Tag Archives: looms

Artefacts in the classroom with Museum in a Box

Post Syndicated from Alex Bate original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/museum-in-a-box/

Museum in a Box bridges the gap between museums and schools by creating a more hands-on approach to conservation education through 3D printing and digital making.

Artefacts in the classroom with Museum in a Box || Raspberry Pi Stories

Learn more: http://rpf.io/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel: http://rpf.io/ytsub Help us reach a wider audience by translating our video content: http://rpf.io/yttranslate Buy a Raspberry Pi from one of our Approved Resellers: http://rpf.io/ytproducts Find out more about the Raspberry Pi Foundation: Raspberry Pi http://rpf.io/ytrpi Code Club UK http://rpf.io/ytccuk Code Club International http://rpf.io/ytcci CoderDojo http://rpf.io/ytcd Check out our free online training courses: http://rpf.io/ytfl Find your local Raspberry Jam event: http://rpf.io/ytjam Work through our free online projects: http://rpf.io/ytprojects Do you have a question about your Raspberry Pi?

Fantastic collections and where to find them

Large, impressive statues are truly a sight to be seen. Take for example the 2.4m Hoa Hakananai’a at the British Museum. Its tall stature looms over you as you read its plaque to learn of the statue’s journey from Easter Island to the UK under the care of Captain Cook in 1774, and you can’t help but wonder at how it made it here in one piece.

Hoa Hakananai’a Captain Cook British Museum
Hoa Hakananai’a Captain Cook British Museum

But unless you live near a big city where museums are plentiful, you’re unlikely to see the likes of Hoa Hakananai’a in person. Instead, you have to content yourself with online photos or videos of world-famous artefacts.

And that only accounts for the objects that are on display: conservators estimate that only approximately 5 to 10% of museums’ overall collections are actually on show across the globe. The rest is boxed up in storage, inaccessible to the public due to risk of damage, or simply due to lack of space.

Museum in a Box

Museum in a Box aims to “put museum collections and expert knowledge into your hand, wherever you are in the world,” through modern maker practices such as 3D printing and digital making. With the help of the ‘Scan the World’ movement, an “ambitious initiative whose mission is to archive objects of cultural significance using 3D scanning technologies”, the Museum in a Box team has been able to print small, handheld replicas of some of the world’s most recognisable statues and sculptures.

Museum in a Box Raspberry Pi

Each 3D print gets NFC tags so it can initiate audio playback from a Raspberry Pi that sits snugly within the laser-cut housing of a ‘brain box’. Thus the print can talk directly to us through the magic of wireless technology, replacing the dense, dry text of a museum plaque with engaging speech.

Museum in a Box Raspberry Pi

The Museum in a Box team headed by CEO George Oates (featured in the video above) makes use of these 3D-printed figures alongside original artefacts, postcards, and more to bridge the gap between large, crowded, distant museums and local schools. Modeled after the museum handling collections that used to be sent to schools, Museum in a Box is a cheaper, more accessible alternative. Moreover, it not only allows for hands-on learning, but also encourages children to get directly involved by hacking its technology! With NFC technology readily available to the public, students can curate their own collections about their local area, record their own messages, and send their own box-sized museums on to schools in other towns or countries. In this way, Museum in a Box enables students to explore, and expand the reach of, their own histories.

Moving forward

With the technology perfected and interest in the project ever-growing, Museum in a Box has a busy year ahead. Supporting the new ‘Unstacked’ learning initiative, the team will soon be delivering ten boxes to the Smithsonian Libraries. The team has curated two collections specifically for this: an exploration into Asia-Pacific America experiences of migration to the USA throughout the 20th century, and a look into the history of science.

Smithsonian Library Museum in a Box Raspberry Pi

The team will also be making a box for the British Museum to support their Iraq Scheme initiative, and another box will be heading to the V&A to support their See Red programme. While primarily installed in the Lansbury Micro Museum, the box will also take to the road to visit the local Spotlight high school.

Museum in a Box at Raspberry Fields

Lastly, by far the most exciting thing the Museum in a Box team will be doing this year — in our opinion at least — is showcasing at Raspberry Fields! This is our brand-new festival of digital making that’s taking place on 30 June and 1 July 2018 here in Cambridge, UK. Find more information about it and get your ticket here.

The post Artefacts in the classroom with Museum in a Box appeared first on Raspberry Pi.

Notes on open-sourcing abandoned code

Post Syndicated from Robert Graham original http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/06/notes-on-open-sourcing-abandoned-code.html

Some people want a law that compels companies to release their source code for “abandoned software”, in the name of cybersecurity, so that customers who bought it can continue to patch bugs long after the seller has stopped supporting the product. This is a bad policy, for a number of reasons.

Code is Speech

First of all, code is speech. That was the argument why Phil Zimmerman could print the source code to PGP in a book, ship it overseas, and then have somebody scan the code back into a computer. Compelled speech is a violation of free speech. That was one of the arguments in the Apple vs. FBI case, where the FBI demanded that Apple write code for them, compelling speech.

Compelling the opening of previously closed source is compelled speech.

There might still be legal arguments that get away with it. After all state already compels some speech, such as warning labels, where is services a narrow, legitimate government interest. So the courts may allow it. Also, like many free-speech issues (e.g. the legality of hate-speech), people may legitimately disagree with the courts about what “is” legal and what “should” be legal.

But here’s the thing. What rights “should” be protected changes depending on what side you are on. Whether something deserves the protection of “free speech” depends upon whether the speaker is “us” or the speaker is “them”. If it’s “them”, then you’ll find all sorts of reasons why their speech is a special case, and what it doesn’t deserve protection.

That’s what’s happening here. The legitimate government purpose of “product safety” looms large, the “code is speech” doesn’t, because they hate closed-source code, and hate Microsoft in particular. The open-source community has been strong on “code is speech” when it applies to them, but weak when it applies to closed-source.

Define abandoned

What, precisely, does ‘abandoned’ mean? Consider Windows 3.1. Microsoft hasn’t sold it for decades. Yet, it’s not precisely abandoned either, because they still sell modern versions of Windows. Being forced to show even 30 year old source code would give competitors a significant advantage in creating Windows-compatible code like WINE.

When code is truly abandoned, such as when the vendor has gone out of business, chances are good they don’t have the original source code anyway. Thus, in order for this policy to have any effect, you’d have to force vendors to give a third-party escrow service a copy of their code whenever they release a new version of their product.

All the source code

And that is surprisingly hard and costly. Most companies do not precisely know what source code their products are based upon. Yes, technically, all the code is in that ZIP file they gave to the escrow service, but it doesn’t build. Essential build steps are missing, so that source code won’t compile. It’s like the dependency hell that many open-source products experience, such as downloading and installing two different versions of Python at different times during the build. Except, it’s a hundred times worse.

Often times building closed-source requires itself an obscure version of a closed-source tool that itself has been abandoned by its original vendor. You often times can’t even define which is the source code. For example, engine control units (ECUs) are Matlab code that compiles down to C, which is then integrated with other C code, all of which is (using a special compiler) is translated to C. Unless you have all these closed source products, some of which are no longer sold, the source-code to the ECU will not help you in patch bugs.

For small startups running fast, such as off Kickstarter, forcing them to escrow code that actually builds would force upon them an undue burden, harming innovation.

Binary patch and reversing

Then there is the issue of why you need the source code in the first place. Here’s the deal with binary exploits like buffer-overflows: if you know enough to exploit it, you know enough to patch it. Just add some binary code onto the end of the function the program that verifies the input, then replace where the vulnerability happens to a jump instruction to the new code.

I know this is possible and fairly trivial because I’ve done it myself. Indeed, one of the reason Microsoft has signed kernel components is specifically because they got tired of me patching the live kernel this way (and, almost sued me for reverse engineering their code in violation of their EULA).

Given the aforementioned difficulties in building software, this would be the easier option for third parties trying to fix bugs. The only reason closed-source companies don’t do this already is because they need to fix their products permanently anyway, which involves checking in the change into their source control systems and rebuilding.


So what we see here is that there is no compelling benefit to forcing vendors to release code for “abandoned” products, while at the same time, there are significant costs involved, not the least of which is a violation of the principle that “code is speech”.

It doesn’t exist as a serious proposal. It only exists as a way to support open-source advocacy and security advocacy. Both would gladly stomp on your rights and drive up costs in order to achieve their higher moral goal.

Bonus: so let’s say you decide that “Window XP” has been abandoned, which is exactly the intent of proponents. You think what would happen is that we (the open-source community) would then be able to continue to support WinXP and patch bugs.

But what we’d see instead is a lot more copies of WinXP floating around, with vulnerabilities, as people decided to use it instead of paying hundreds of dollars for a new Windows 10 license.

Indeed, part of the reason for Micrsoft abandoning WinXP is because it’s riddled with flaws that can’t practically be fixed, whereas the new features of Win10 fundamentally fixes them. Getting rid of SMBv1 is just one of many examples.

The Raspberry Pi-powered loom

Post Syndicated from Liz Upton original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/the-raspberry-pi-powered-loom/

We’re a small organisation full of makers, and I think at least two of us own a hand loom for weaving textiles. (One of the reasons I enjoy the TV show Vikings so much is the casual looming that’s going on as backdrop in many of the indoor scenes – the textile sort, not the impending-doom sort, although there’s plenty of that too.)

siggy laergatha loom

Siggy and Laergatha (personal role model) get down to a spot of light weaving before commencing to crush skulls and pillage.

Here in the 21st century, Lorna and I use hand looms because powered looms are very expensive. They’re also usually pretty enormous, being meant for enterprise rather than home use. This is pesky, because there’s a lot of repetitive action involved, which can be hell on the carpal tunnels; weaving can be slow, tough work.


Suspicious automation

Enter the Raspberry Pi.

Fred Hoefler has taken a desktop loom and added a Raspberry Pi to automate it. (Your computer’s fine: this video has no sound.)

Loom Operation

The general sequence of events for running my Raspberry Pi controlled loom. The project was really a proof of concept idea rather than an actual production model. This video is intended to supplement my blog at www.photographic-perspectives.com Sorry, there is not audio with this.

Fred wrote about the project on his website, explaining that he came up with the idea for very personal reasons. His wife Gina has been a weaver for 30 years, but she began to experience difficulties with the physical aspects of using her loom as she grew older. Conversations with other unwillingly retired weavers told Fred that Gina’s situation was not uncommon, and led him to design something to help. His device is intended to help older weavers who have trouble with the hard work of throwing the shuttle and holding down the pedals. Assistive looms cost upwards of $10,000: Fred’s solution comes in at a tidy $150, factoring in loom, Pi, and some motors from Amazon. So this isn’t for hobbyists like me: this loom can be a way for people whose livelihoods depend on being able to weave to continue working long after they might have had to retire.

One of the most satisfying things about the Raspberry Pi for me is its power to drive cost out of devices like this, and to change the way we work. This is a simple build, but it has so much potential to keep someone’s income flowing: we hope to see more as Fred develops the project.

The post The Raspberry Pi-powered loom appeared first on Raspberry Pi.