Golan Levin at fffff.at writes:
Yep, it’s a QR code stencil generator! We present QR_STENCILER, a free, fully-automated utility which converts QR codes into vector-based stencil patterns suitable for laser-cutting. Additionally, we present QR_HOBO_CODES, a series of one hundred QR stencil designs which, covertly marked in urban spaces, may be used to warn people about danger or clue them into good situations. The QR_STENCILER and the QR_HOBO_CODES join the Adjustable Pie Chart Stencil in our suite of homebrew “infoviz graffiti” tools for locative and situated information display.
More:
94 thoughts on “QR Stenciler”
Comments are closed.
Once again, Make is promoting better ways to deface our neighborhoods.
@tonyvr:disqus really, once again? can you provide a specific time and link that anyone from MAKE said “deface our neighborhoods” using the skills, projects or how-to information here we cover?
i have a laser cutter, i plan to make these – it’s a cool project.
Yeah, how about the machine that painted rainbows on walls…
Oh here it is:
“Bike-Mounted Rainbow Graffiti System” – Feb 27/2011
@byron madge where did MAKE say “deface our neighborhoods” ?
It’s implied. Kind of like those websites that provide links to pirated music but don’t actually SAY “go pirate music”.
@yahoo-SP7RALYGCXA3TXO3LIAUX4TMUE:disqus it’s not implied at all – you’re the one who chooses to think that, luckily for you thought crimes are still totally cool.
if you’d like to think up more crummy analogies – i can help with that. lots of companies make hard drives, we all know pirates store their stolen content on hard drives, therefore any site that talks about hard drives is promoting piracy. sites that link to hard drive makers are just implying what they will be used for. just like ipods are only for pirated music right? bad analogy right?
unless you have specific examples that you can source where the MAKE team says “deface our neighborhoods” – please do not imply that, thanks.
Your hard drive analogy is laughably weak. Here is something a little more specific to the point I made:
Crummy analogy? Nope. Federal Law.DMCASec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems.
@yahoo-SP7RALYGCXA3TXO3LIAUX4TMUE:disqus my analogy was purposely weak, just like yours! you said “It’s implied. Kind of like those websites that provide links to pirated music but don’t actually SAY “go pirate music” – but it’s not implied here, no where does MAKE say “deface our neighborhoods” – and linking to a bicycle posts from earlier in the year didn’t make your case. you’re welcome to keep trying though :)
what does “Federal Law.DMCASec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems. ” have to do with anything here, there are plenty of other sites where folks can armchair lawyer about laws that don’t matter or make sense, this isn’t one of them :)
unless you have specific examples that you can source where the MAKE
team says “go vandalize” please reconsider muddying up the comments :)
you said:’but it’s not implied here, no where does MAKE say “deface our neighborhoods”‘. That’s what “implied” means. You don’t have to actually say “go deface our neighborhoods”.
no one is implying that, it’s really clear we do not – as far as we know the millions and millions of visitors to the MAKE site, from around the world, of all ages, have never felt compelled to go out and vandalize anything and suggest it had anything to do with MAKE. somehow they had the will power to resist the temptations you are suggesting we are dangling around.
if you can’t read about a laser cut project or a bicycle art device without destructive impulses, please consider seeking help :)
I bought a can of spray paint with a special wide nozzle to paint my barn. It could be used to deface public property. I bought gas for my car. It could be used to start arson fires. I built a QR template to paint my website on my car/house/stain my t-shirt. It could also be used to tag my neighborhood with my website. Your point is weak and invalid.
You are quite a naive person.
You are quite a naive person.
Yes. I am naive. I believe anything anybody tells me.
Your hard drive analogy is laughably weak. Here is something a little more specific to the point I made:
Crummy analogy? Nope. Federal Law.DMCASec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems.
Your hard drive analogy is laughably weak. Here is something a little more specific to the point I made:
Crummy analogy? Nope. Federal Law.DMCASec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems.
It’s implied. Kind of like those websites that provide links to pirated music but don’t actually SAY “go pirate music”.
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/04/giant-inkjet-printer-uses-paintball.html
again, where does it say “MAKE says deface our neighborhoods”.
It’s a video showing a neighborhood getting defaced by a project that’s been covered by MAKE since 2006. Clearly this video is showing an act of vandalism, and it’s being praised by MAKE. So while MAKE may not explicitly say “deface our neighborhoods”, MAKE sure isn’t saying “don’t deface our neighborhoods”; unless it’s in the form of a plainly satirical disclaimer, as in the
Adjustable Infographic Graffiti post I mentioned above.
It’s a video showing a neighborhood getting defaced by a project that’s been covered by MAKE since 2006. Clearly this video is showing an act of vandalism, and it’s being praised by MAKE. So while MAKE may not explicitly say “deface our neighborhoods”, MAKE sure isn’t saying “don’t deface our neighborhoods”; unless it’s in the form of a plainly satirical disclaimer, as in the
Adjustable Infographic Graffiti post I mentioned above.
It’s a video showing a neighborhood getting defaced by a project that’s been covered by MAKE since 2006. Clearly this video is showing an act of vandalism, and it’s being praised by MAKE. So while MAKE may not explicitly say “deface our neighborhoods”, MAKE sure isn’t saying “don’t deface our neighborhoods”; unless it’s in the form of a plainly satirical disclaimer, as in the
Adjustable Infographic Graffiti post I mentioned above.
@jonathan_q:disqus did you read matt’s post “”Of course, we don’t actually condone defacing property that doesn’t belong to you; 100% of those that do so are breaking the law.” – it’s possible to cover a variety of topics and also be able to stick to one’s moral compass, perhaps you can’t?
@jonathan_q:disqus did you read matt’s post “”Of course, we don’t actually condone defacing property that doesn’t belong to you; 100% of those that do so are breaking the law.” – it’s possible to cover a variety of topics and also be able to stick to one’s moral compass, perhaps you can’t?
Why the mean spirited remarks? I never mentioned anything about a “moral compass”, and of course I read the post I quoted. You asked for examples of MAKE promoting vandalism, and I provided examples where MAKE is showing photos and videos of people
committing acts of vandalism using the skills, projects, or how-to
information that MAKE provides.
I’m only pointing out that MAKE regularly posts these type of projects and, while they could be used to create art on private property, MAKE instead presents them in a way that emphasizes the use of these projects to vandalize public space. In the video I linked to above, MAKE posted a video showing the “paintball inkjet printer” in action, spraying a large scale design on what is obviously a public space. If you click through to the project’s homepage, there are videos showing the project spraying a design inside a private art gallery. So why does MAKE post the video showing vandalism instead of the video showing a legal use of the project?
In this post about the QR Stenciler, the quote MAKE uses in the post is “we present QR_HOBO_CODES, a series of one hundred QR stencil designs which, covertly marked in urban spaces, may be used to warn people about danger or clue them into good situations.” The emphasis appears to be on covertly marking urban spaces, e.g. vandalism. But anyone can cut out a stencil and mark up an urban space without reading about it in MAKE first. The real novelty of the QR Stenciler isn’t mentioned in the post by MAKE, but it is described on the project’s website, “QR codes contain stencil islands in unpredictable configurations. QR_STENCILER automatically detects and bridges these islands, using thin lines that are minimally disruptive to the highly robust QR algorithm.” So why not emphasize that?
In the “Laser Cut a Stencil for Adjustable Infographic Graffiti” post, MAKE writes “you can act like an infographic rebel in your own neighborhood. Of course, we don’t actually condone defacing property that doesn’t belong to you; 100% of those that do so are
breaking the law.” The photo in that post shows a stencil graffiti
and a can of Montana spray paint, it’s unclear whether this is on
private or public property. But in this post, it’s the editorial
content written by MAKE that’s problematic. MAKE is not quoting
somebody else here, MAKE is saying “act like an infographic rebel
in your own neighborhood”. Simply adding a disclaimer doesn’t
insulate you from what the post and associated links are advocating,
especially when the disclaimer is one that sounds like an attempt at
humor.
I unsubscribed from the print edition because of this stuff, as it’s
been a persistent theme ever since the “LED throwies” came out.
If I wanted to read about graffiti, there are plenty of magazines,
books, and websites dedicated to that. I want to read about DIY
projects that make innovative use of technology. MAKE is unique
because of the wide range of innovative technology that gets
presented. Showcase the technology itself and present it responsibly.
If a reader decides to use a project for vandalizing public space,
let them come to that decision on their own. There’s no need to
present these projects with such an emphasis on vandalism when, in
many cases, the project creators themselves have photos or video on
their websites showing the projects used legally and on private
property.
I wrote the post about the infographic graffiti stencil. I think the term “infrographic rebel” is absurd enough to indicate that the entire statement is very much tongue-in-cheek. And in case anyone gets the wrong idea the sentence after that one (“Of course, we don’t actually condone…”) is meant to clear up any misapprehension. I assure you that I was not attempting any kind of doublespeak there.
@jonathan_q it sounds like MAKE print and the MAKE web site expose you to things you are not comfortable with or able to see without assuming things that are not correct. i’m really sorry to hear you can only see the projects as commandments to do wrong and not see any value in them.
while i don’t agree with most of what you said, i do agree with this ” MAKE is unique because of the wide range of innovative technology that gets presented”. while you might not think a laser cut QR code is innovative and interesting, we do – and do many others.
don’t try to dictate what others can *chose* to read more about or skip to the next post.
thanks!
@jonathan_q it sounds like MAKE print and the MAKE web site expose you to things you are not comfortable with or able to see without assuming things that are not correct. i’m really sorry to hear you can only see the projects as commandments to do wrong and not see any value in them.
while i don’t agree with most of what you said, i do agree with this ” MAKE is unique because of the wide range of innovative technology that gets presented”. while you might not think a laser cut QR code is innovative and interesting, we do – and do many others.
don’t try to dictate what others can *chose* to read more about or skip to the next post.
thanks!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKK933KK6Gg
Here’s one where you guys say “you can act like an infographic rebel in your own neighborhood” — http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2011/06/laser-cut-a-stencil-for-adjustable-infographic-graffiti.html
oh please, read the full post..
“Of course, we don’t actually condone defacing property that doesn’t
belong to you; 100% of those that do so are breaking the law.”
‘Once again’, ;) … i still can’t find an algorithm/pseudo-code (in english) for decoding QR_code. yes there are Japanese publications, and yes there are odd already compiled libraries (mostly Java); but i want a “accept core block [i][j] as polynomial coeff[k] for byte[m]”. anyone seen such? thankee.
cool stencil, by the bye. shouldn’t be too hard to turn into a T-shirt silk-screen…?
I’d recommend starting by taking a look at the standard.
ISO No.18004 (google it and you should find a pdf)
It is a 122 page document, all in english, and it’s incredibly detailed.
thank you! that’s it! i guess my major mistake was assuming it had not been “standardized”.
Chalk spray paint. Defacing argument diffused.
Chalk spray paint. Defacing argument diffused.
Respectfully, no it isn’t. Defacing property is vandalism whether it’s permanent or only here until the next rainfall.
@byron madge at this point you’re just trolling the comments here, stop -thanks.
@byron madge at this point you’re just trolling the comments here, stop -thanks.
I have to defend @Bryon Madge here. He is being a troll. I’m not denying that, but chalk is still defacement under U.S. law. If I get some soap and water and clean a public wall, but only clean it off so that a clean image shows up amongst the dirt, it’s still vandalism.
@JammitTimmaj:disqus this project has nothing to do with chalk, he’s claiming we are encouraging vandalism “like piracy site” and other nonsense.
I agree. We are on the same side. I’m probably not helping by “feeding the troll”, but need to mention that just because something exists and it can be abused doesn’t mean that it should be banned. It doesn’t matter if it’s chalk, soap and water, spray paint, high powered RF transistors, caffeine, turbo lasers, computer code, QR codes, guns, religion, torrent protocol, etc. What I feel we need to do is to is to explain how this is simply an idea that has been transformed into a real life object and not simply a tool to destroy for the sake of lulz, and to stay away from trying to define the concept of good and bad to each other. My defense of Bryon Madge was to keep the truth in, and to steer us away from something uncivilized.
agree :)
agree :)
agree :)
Respectfully, no it isn’t. Defacing property is vandalism whether it’s permanent or only here until the next rainfall.