
The No Starch Press Foundation - jordigh
http://nostarchfoundation.org/
======
drallison
From the website:

No Starch Press publishes the finest in geek entertainment — bestsellers like
Python for Kids, How Linux Works, Hacking: The Art of Exploitation, Practical
Packet Analysis, and The Manga Guides. We focus on open source/Linux,
security, hacking, programming, alternative operating systems, and science and
math. Our titles have personality and attitude, our authors are passionate
about their subjects, and we read and edit every book that bears our name. Our
goal is to make computing accessible to technophile and novice alike, and our
readers appreciate our straightforward presentation and fearless approach to
the complex world of technology. No Starch Press titles have been included in
the prestigious Communication Arts Design Annual and STEP inside 100
competition, and have won the Independent Publisher Book Award (the "IPPYs")
from Independent Publisher magazine.

San Francisco-based No Starch Press was founded in 1994 by William Pollock,
who brings more than 20 years of publishing industry experience to the
company. Prior to launching No Starch Press, Pollock worked in professional
reference, scientific, college and trade publishing, and was a co-founder of
computer book publisher Apress. Pollock remains an active editor and works
closely with most of our authors.

No Starch Press, Inc. 245 8th St. San Francisco, CA 94103 USA Phone:
800.420.7240 or +1 415.863.9900 (9 a.m. to 5 p.m., M-F, PST) Fax: +1
415.863.9950 Email: info@nostarch.com

No Starch Press and the new No Starch Foundation is worthy of your support.

------
nickpsecurity
I’m overall loving what’s in there. I’d definitely support it. It seems like a
more realistic thing of hackers supporting other hackers instead of hoping
society will change to. Great stuff.

“The Foundation will help to create environments where hackers are welcomed,
supported, nurtured and celebrated. Creating a safer, more supportive and
accepting world for hacker will help to reduce depression and suicide among
hackers, and enable hackers to live fuller and happier lives.”

I still think someone should bring up one point when stuff like above is
mentioned. The corporate media and Hollywood, the most powerful influencers,
have totally redefined the label “hacker” to be criminality to a point where
it’s probably beyond salvage. If anyone uses it, the laypeople hearing it will
immediately have a negative mindset that creates a harder conversation for
that person. Its constant association with evil by media makes me think of it
as the geek N-word or something in terms of average person’s negative usage or
reactions, hackers arguing about why they identify with positive version of
it, and media fueling fires for ratings and profit. Although I got good at
explaining real meaning, I’ve found that there was no real effect among the
hundreds of laypeople I tried that on. There’s not enough of us doing it to
counter media’s reach. Being uncommon and marginalized group means that will
remain true a long while.

This is a marketing problem more than anything. A brand was trashed but people
keep using and defending it. Marketing practice (and results!) say we need new
brands so we start fresh in the minds of the audience to get broader support.
I’ve been using the words thinker, inventer, technologist, and recently maker.
Three already have positive connotations which correspond with what people
will be doing on software and hardware side. Lay people might be happy to
invest in locations, equipment, and support for (those words) among the
nation’s youth. Ive found that maker generates confusion (“What’s that?”) that
lets me explain the concept with positive examples from makerspaces. So, it’s
weaker initially and requires a little work but that can be as simple as
linking to a story. So, there’s some options.

I say we keep the hacker term among ourselves while garnering mainstream
support with the kind of words they understand and would back. I’ve already
been doing it with positive results. I see others doing it, too, even though
many wouldn’t call themselves hackers. They’re just folks recruiting youth to
let them do group projects, dream big, and so on. Happens in many fields. It’s
a proven model. If we use it, though, we might not call them hackerspaces
given that name leaking out to external supporters could cause conflicts or
damagen. We’d have to use makerspaces, invention/technology centers, and so
on… which again is already happening in many places. Hacker stays internal.
Alternatively, we take those little conflicts using them to educate people on
the term with positive examples risking losing support or funding on
principle. If so, I argue we don’t explain the term: use examples of people
who built amazing things that countered the status quo using their inquisitive
attitude and deep understanding. A number of them showing up in the media
overtime coming out of these (words here)-spaces might positively define the
hacker spirit in the new terms and/or slowly undue damage to original term.

It would also help if we kept collectively pushing the media for distinction
between positive and criminal hackers. Showing more of the inventive ones plus
their disdain for the damaging ones. Least there’s hackers on the cop shows
saving peoples’ asses. That’s… something… I don’t think they understand good
hacking, though. I see hints of it with characters that use tech or deep
knowledge to bypass limitations of an obstacle or tool. Maybe hackers can keep
coming up with ideas like that for major shows forwarding them to the
producers. Trickle examples into stories with wide audiences. Similarly, keep
forwarding inventive folks to local and national media outlets so they
highlight them slipping in words like maker or hacker. Need a positive
pushback against what media is already doing preferably in a way that they co-
opt it into their own, standard practice due to positive ratings. In the end,
they’ll be taking credit for their show elements with us rolling our eyes at
least being grateful that we’re a bit safer and more appreciated for our
efforts.

Just some thoughts I have after years of fighting this battle with the general
public looking at what worked and didn’t. We need to do more of what works.
It’s more about perception and influences than facts or tech. Our methods must
be likewise. Just the way it is.

