Slashdot Mirror
Peer To Peer Meets Manufacturing
Crashmarik writes "Small times has an article detailing UCB advances in desktop manufacturing. They raise the possibility for effectively downloading physical objects through the net. We have allready seen the reaction "Property Holders" over downloading music, what is the likely upshot of being able to copy physical objects. More importantly what are the implications for our society as we move out of an age of scarcity to an age of plenty ?" Great article - the author of it also won The Foresight Institute's prize in communications for 2002.
How much they're gunna charge for the ink...
Visualize the world of wine
July 25, 2003 - Imagine your kitchen blender conks out the day you're hosting a large cocktail party. You search an online catalog, decide on a model, and click the "buy" button. But instead of waiting three days for the appliance to be shipped to your door, a new kind of printer on your desk springs into action. Layer by layer, the miraculous machine squirts out various materials to form the chassis, the electronics, the motors - literally building the blender for you from the bottom up in a matter of hours.
Call it desktop manufacturing. For gadget geeks in need of instant gratification, it's a miracle. For designers deep in the iterative prototyping process, it's a revolution in product development. And thanks to small tech, it's becoming a reality.
University of California, Berkeley engineering professor John Canny and his colleagues are building such a printer. They call the technology "polymer mechatronics" or, more simply, flexonics. The revolutionary approach to desktop manufacturing is enabled by recent advances in 3-D printers, organic electronics and polymer actuators.
Three-dimensional printers are commonly used to make prototypes of new product designs. For example, a designer may load a digital design into a Fused Deposition Modeling machine. The FDM then extrudes thin beads of ABS plastic in .01-inch layers, until you have a completed passive
functional part or device. While the printers are dropping in price, the leap
from producing passive to active devices is monumental. That's where organic
electronics come into play.
Organic electronics were born in the 1970s when researchers discovered that chemically doping organic polymers, or plastics, increases their electrical conductivity. Since then, researchers have worked to develop the most effective and inexpensive organic compounds that can be patterned on flexible substrates to create useful circuits. In the private sector, companies ranging from Bell Labs to IBM to UK startup Plastic Logic are also working to develop quality organic transistors that are fabricated far more cheaply than silicon circuits. Organic semiconductors will most likely first hit the market in the form of inexpensive radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags and flexible display screens.
Canny's co-investigator in Berkeley's flexonics effort, Vivek Subramanian, is one of many researchers harnessing the microfluidic precision of inkjet printing technology to deposit organic semiconductors in desired patterns. The key ingredient in Subramanian's organic circuits is "liquid gold." Synthesized in his laboratory, liquid gold consists of gold nanocrystals that are only 20 atoms across and melt at 100 degrees Celsius, 10 times lower than normal.
The gold nanocrystals are encapsulated in an organic shell of an alkanethiol (an organic molecule containing carbon, hydrogen and sulphur) and dissolved in ink. As the circuit is printed on plastic, paper or cloth using inkjet technology, the organic encapsulant is burned off, leaving the gold as a high-quality conductor.
Combining Subramanian's circuit printing technology with a 3-D printer enables electronics to be embedded within the housing of the device being printed. The chassis and the electronics are fabricated as one single structure.
The next step is to add the actuators that provide electromechanical capabilities to the devices - for instance, a mechanism that causes the blender's blades to spin when switched on. For this, Canny plans to fill inkjet cartridges with electroactive polymers that contract when zapped with a voltage, enabling components to flex in desired directions. Additionally, the polymers generate a voltage when compressed, so buttons and switches can also be embedde
How long will it be with this system in place until you can download the most ungodly of things from adult entertainment sites? EEEEW!
stuff |
We'll all be complaining about the CIAA (Car Industry Association of America), CBAA (Coffee Brewers Association of America), BBAA (Beer Brewers Association of America) etc etc etc
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
When we have desktop universal constructors, then I expect the manufacturing world will kick up a stink, but unless I misunderstand the article the printers it describes can only make certain sorts of devices - mainly those containing plastics and certain types of electronics and specific sorts of movement in them. Sure, this is going to cut into the manufacturing market for some things, but nothing like a real UC could do...
The "Age of Plenty" will make (cough) intellectual property king, until we all realise that the resources have to come from somewhere.
Intellectual Property will die out just the same, as once people learn that sharing is the better of the 2. Each item mapped gives inventors more power and leverage to work with, hence more goods. It'll turn this capitalistic country into a pure form of socialism, one where all needs are provided. Or at least, could be capitalistic with a socialism base floor.
Still, fabs would have to be made and sold, and only a large fab could make smaller fabs. You also have the problem with Energy consumption. Fusors may be the only realistic way of capturing large amounts of energy.
There will STILL be an economy, just the balance of power will be radically shifted.
As our society moved into the industrial revolution ... it meant unrealistic controlls over labor (slavery) had to go.
As society is moving into the information age means unrealistic controlls over information (copyrights, and untangable patented things) half to go.
And as our society moves into the "replicator" age. It means unrealistic controlls over invention and creation (patents) will half to go.
IMHO.
Desktop manufacturing is a long, long, long way off. You can do it with plastic bits, MAYBE circuit boards, but not much else. Technologies like these have revolutionized the manufacturing process - rapid mold prototyping for casting, and C&C machining of parts.
The fact remains though that you're not going to get the strength of cast aluminum or forged metal without very expensive equipment - that's not pessimism, that's physics.
..don't panic
I already downloaded a piece of software from a site and as soon as I ran it a cupholder appeared from my PC!
Read reviews of shopping cart software
These are cool. You can build any *shape* you want. Too bad you're limited to one (or a few) specific materials chosen more for their useability in this process than for other useful properties. What do you do when you need a copper winding for a motor? Iron core for a transformer? Hardened steel for a bearing race?
Basically, you can use these to make toys, mockups, and maybe most of the parts for certain items. But don't expect them to replace real manufacturing anytime soon.
Coming from a CNC background, I can tell you that a company would get seriously PO'ed if their CNC programs (instructions for machining parts) got posted on the web or P2P. I mean, some of the programs are rarely used, or used only once, but any company would defend those as "trade secrets." I can imagine that any sort of "desktop manufacturing" data that would allow you to duplicate something would be treated similarly.
umm, he meant the site was on cold fusion.
.cfm?
:)
You know,
Cold fusion is a red herring anyway, but that's another matter entirely
I'm holding out* for the day when we can go to the corner 7-11 and order up a beautiful woman, right through the nanobot replicator.
* Dear God, no, not in that sense.
I would agree that, currently, "Rapid Prototyping" is not a cost-effective way to produce a saleable object. But eventually I can see the technology, as in laser-solidification of polymers, being used in general manufacturing. But we're 50 years from being able to have anything beyond a monolithic product manufacturable, as in, say a VCR. It's just not possible to lay in wires and belts and things, nor things that need bearings. At least not yet.
Is it just me or are more companies actually trying to create everything that was in the Sci-fi movies back in the day. Perhaps in my lifetime I could say "beam me up scotty" and actually go somewhere else in an instant.
But who am i kidding.. We all were told we would have flying cars in the year 2000 right?
Technology can never be produced as quick as ones imagination can manifest it....
Infinite free energy, along with infinite free labor, = socialism/communism, just like the P2P networks.
You say that like it's a bad thing. You are, of course, still free to be a dirt farmer, you just won't have to.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Let me be the first to announce the open-source Car project. I'm currently on version 0.2. We have the chasis mostly bug-free, with occasional glitches on an Interstate network. Seat-Belts are available on the nightly builds, but aren't supported yet. You'll still have to use a closed-source engine module, and we're not planning on adding it until version .5 when we have the chasis, firewall, and fuel system components some-what bug free. I've heard some people saying that they've been able to use the engine module from the Open-Source-Lawn-Mower project, but it will only work under light loads. For now, I have to get back to developing the lights module. BTW, we're looking for someone to design a module-hot-swaping system, similar to linux.
Oh great. Instead of the RIAA wondering about those songs on your hard disk, you'll have the NAM (National Association of Manufacturers) getting after you because you have 60 full-sized plastic Cadillacs downloaded from Repster in your back yard.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Infinite free energy, along with infinite free labor, = socialism/communism, just like the P2P networks.
SO you've perfected a way to turn energy into food? I don't think these printers will make a nice juicy steak as well as they make blenders.
I seem to recall reading about this concept in Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age. Has it been used elsewhere in sci-fi?
" in a world with no jobs and no work."
The concept that the ability to duplicate infinitely physical objects would result in "no jobs and no work" is a fallacy at best. The ability do duplicate these physical objects would result in a massive loss of jobs for those in the manufacturing industry, no doubt. However, there would be a nearly equal if not greater than equal increase (eventually) in the need for knowledge and service workers. Even if you could create a new computer every time a new technology comes out, you'd still need software developers to write the software, and someone to troubleshoot it when you get the latest outlook virus. In the same sense, we could shift a lot of jobs to industries such as the pharmaceutical industry and try and extend life or at least quality of life for humans.
The economy would need to be restructured, capitalism will probably not be the driving force any more, but I doubt the suicide rate will surge, for most people with deserving jobs already, there would be no need for drastic changes. The guy who dropped out of high school and now solders connections in the blender plant might be SOL, but that's the price paid for progress. Eventually the guy will find another job, even if its sweeping the floors, flipping burgers, or rotating tires.
Go ahead resist progress, hey, that always worked in the animal kingdom, oh wait....
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
And it was intended as a joke...
Like science? Comics? Wicked...
Funny By Nature
I just noticed on the Nightly build that one of the seatbelts hacks I put in will lock-up the steering wheel if you try to lean too far forward. I think the cause is an oil leak in one of the components. One of my testers reported a Red-windsheild of death after this happened on a Pennsylvania backroad.
"More importantly what are the implications for our society as we move out of an age of scarcity to an age of plenty?"
Why would it be the age of plenty? Probably it will be the "age of more-power-to-the-DIYers", but you will still need the raw materials (which are scarce) and the design (which is scarce, too). Of course, it has the potential to cut down on costs, but there are lots of things that has cut the costs of manufacturing but we still live in the age of scarcity - and frankly, I don't see how it could change anytime with any technological advance: people will always find something that is scarce.
Real life is overrated.
Yeah, right, keep on dreaming mate.
Was it Iain M Banks that introduced this term? Anyway, it doesn't look bloody likely anymore if you ask me. We are running out of environment to fuck up and rapidly.
According to several articles recently in mags. like New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/) et al. things like fishstocks and other wild species are on the brink of plummeting and we are going to see species disappear in significant numbers in the near future. Go on, call me a tree hugger, but I think it is sad (to say the least) - and it will probably have catastrophic consequences for most of us.
On top of that, resources such as oil and clean drinking water are soon to become scarce. So I think instead of dreaming about 'The Age of Plenty' you should prepare yourself for 'The Age of Only Just Enough If You Are Lucky'.
This technology is going to be bought out and buried, just like hydrogen combustion engines in the mid-nineties. Big Business will never let this go through, ever. Watch and see: they'll wait until it's perfected before they buy it out, and they'll keep it in their own internal design studios forever after.
This is an enabling technology, which permits ordinary people to create their own design, fabrication, and manufacturing shops -- it reduces the barrier to entry so that anyone can play in the product design game. We've already seen from the open source movement what motivated individuals can do without corporate support. Corporations, with their long product cycles, their relatively low rate of innovation, and their habit of producing products that are "just good enough", would get STOMPED in the market if everyone could start selling their own designs. Also, product designers and engineers wouldn't desire corporate jobs anymore -- they'd strike out on their own, and the corps would have a hell of a time finding talent, even in the third world (in our wired world, *anyone* would be able to start fielding their designs via the internet, so why would a cash-poor engineer in, say, Southeast Asia work for a corp?). These facts are not lost on manufacturing companies, ok?
I think that one of two things are going to happen.
Possibility number 1: the technology and all patents related to it are bought outright by a group of manufacturers, who limit it strictly to their own internal R+D offices. Of course, patents only last 17 years, right? So one would think that eventually, the tech would get out. Perhaps... Unless they manage to legislate increased patent protection, using this specific issue as a wedge ("Senator, this will destroy the whole economy! We have to do something, blah blah"). Result: the public doesn't get their hands on this for decades, if at all, and big business wins.
2. A group of manufacturers act in collusion, purchasing the company that owns the patents, and they drive the price up so high that only industrial design firms can use the device. They use the patents to prevent cheap models from being made, and have the whole thing declared a trade secret to increase their protection beyond that offered by patents. Result: the device is never offered to the public, big business wins.
It's a shame, but it's the way of the world.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
I don't see this replacing manufactured goods in price. Where this process would be invaluable would be for mechanics, construction workers, etc. All sorts of things could be repaired with this. So many items go in the garbage, not because they are useless, but because they are in need of one minor, obscure part that is no longer in stock. Anyone who has done mechanical or construction work can appreciate the need to be able to duplicate one trivial part that cannot be purchased. I am thinking any auto mechanic would go nuts over such a machine.
HenryJamesFeltus.com
Diamond Age, Neal Stephenson...
They have those replicators (printers) connected to "feeds" (component reservoirs) and can get/create almost anything they want on the molecular level.
AND the society of this age is a thriving nanotech/Private Community mix.
AND diamond, coming from carbon (the most inexpensive stuff possible), is so common it's a natural construction base...
Go read it, its a good book
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
You'd still have to buy raw materials, energy, designs, software, Repairs to your fabricator, newer versions of the fabricator that can make more elaborate products, etc...
Maybe economies will be more centralized around this method of production...
Maybe a lot of blender-assemblers will loose their jobs, but the overall system would still be the same... Think of when Automotive assembly lines went robotic... did that destroy the market for AutoWorkers? did the UAW collapse? no. Some jobs changes, some were ended, but new ones were created too (maybe nobody welds the frames, but somebody welds the robots!)
Think of the infinite new permutations the marketplace would develop for thes products too -
- Your Target/Michael Graves Fabs (everything comes out pastel blue and gray and bulbous)
- etc.
And then theres the Fabs that build Fabs, and those that build them... and all the materials that THEY'RE made of, and all the energy needed to create them.. and all of the food and entertainment and transportation and services and drycleaning and telecomunications and everything else that this development would hardly affect at all!"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Benjamin Franklin
No, no, no.
What you are concerned about was "totalitarianism", i.e. the philosophy that the state was all, and all citizens were subservient to it, existing only for the state. This is a separate concept from communism and socialism. The USSR, the Fascists under Mussolini, and the Nazis, were all good examples of totalitarian governments. "1984" was written as a warning against totalitarian policies.
Communism is a little different. It suggests that the means of production should be shared equally by all, and the fruits of the labor be equally divided as well. Communism as suggested by Marx was not evil at all. Modern-day china seems to be making a pretty good go of the idea; I think that aside from being a little overzealous in censorship (and their organ donor program, ha ha), they're doing fairly well.
Socialism (different yet again) suggests that a society's first duty is to its citizens, and that the purpose of government is to take care of the people (rather than, for instance, ensure the welfare of corporations, or wage ridiculous wars to help the oil industry). Canada, the most innocuous nation in the history of nations, is mostly socialist. Do you consider the canucks evil? Aside from the Kids in the Hall, I mean.
Let's be fair, kids.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Since electronics (though I doubt we're talking about the latest Intel CPU!) and display screens can be made with this technology, along with simple buttons and actuators... I think I could come up with a short list of some fairly nifty items that *I'd* want, anyway.
Throw the geeks of the world at the issue, and I'm pretty sure there WILL be a "Napster of Solid Objects" and a whole mess of trouble with governments and corporations trying to restrict the spread of certain types of plans.
On the other hand, this all depends on the cost of the raw materials and energy requirements, right?
When the printing press was born, together with gunpowder in weapons it brought about the distruction of fudal opression. It allowed new ideas to spread promoting revolution and eventually democracy, the availability of religeous texts lifted the oppressive and conservative warping of the bible propergated by the clergy of the day. The publishing of the classics in vast quantities allowed the commoners to become educated and eventually stand up for themselves.
It was centuries later that it was decided that things printed on these presses should be copied, before then everything was for accidemic uses or was timless like the bible or classical plays or histories. Then someone found out a way to make money from this, create new laws to force royaties. Machinery started to be patented and builders were forced to not use new technology.
Today we stand in a world where entire countries have incomes less than individuals, where the worlds most ecconomically prosperous country exports almost nothing phisical, except maybe old el-paso barito kits, coca-cola concentrate and the occasional calefornian orange. Where the holders of the "interlectual property" that they obtained though a little bit of tenacity or luck, or simply bought like an officer from victorian england buying his commision can dictate the price of the sale of their intangible chattles and the public must buy. Where streamlining, efficiency and outsourcing are the measure of good buisiness in an effort to have as few workers who will work for as little as possible so those who simply manage can take everything.
Today the measure of a physical object is not what it is, it is what it represents. Western "worksmanship" is simply a swoosh slapped onto a shirt made for nearly nothing in a third world country, rather like the way a five hundred dollar program is arranged in dints upon the surface of a worthless disk. If you live in a western country, you already live in a world where the construction is nothing and the concept, or interlectual property is everything. This new manufacturing won't change anything.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Holding back technology just to keep enough menial jobs around for everyone is very short-sighted.
Most Americans are poorly educated regarding the Russian revolution (or just about any historical event really). Stalin was the one who founded the dictatorship model, something which Lenin warned people about. Lenin's last writing contatins a warning about the growing bureucracy, and specifically mentions Stalin as a highly unsuitable successor. Due to Russias underdevelopment in the industrial area, Lenin predicted that a reaction to the revolution would follow if countries in Europe didn't join the revolution. The tool for this reaction became Stalin, whose ideology very few marxists support.
The stars that shine and the stars that shrink
in the face of stagnation the water runs before your eyes
what if you could download a cd, literally. Download the iso and actually physically make the cd. Piracy in it's ultimate form, I love it!
None of us are as dumb as all of us.
SPOILER ALERT!
In the end, we all get allas, which can create anything (up to a certain size) by rearranging and transforming the atoms in the area, and depend on a big catalog of what to make. The allas can make others, so in a few weeks, everyone has one. The book shows what would happen with reasonable accuracy: intellectual property and real estate become the only valuable things. There are artists who sell cool T-shirt designs, and pirates who hang out by the door and make cheap imitations of them. All the manufacturing companies fail, but it doesn't really matter, because everyone has an alla.
The book didn't mention the manufacturing companies attemps to survive, and I think it underestimated them. If the allas had been less user-friendly and not everyone had them, I'm sure the manufacturing companies could have made them illegal, and the short-sighted government would have let them. Obviously this wouldn't work; it's difficult to kill someone who has an alla, so it would be similar to P2P today: illegal but mostly unenforcable.
SPOILER ALERT!
Eventually, the men realize they can hurl huge blocks of TNT at each other, and the aliens and their god take the allas away at the behest of a few humans. Allas are too dangerous for one-dimensional time.
Litigious bastards
what happens when we want tea? we get
'...a plastic cup filled with a liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.'
neopets.com
Imagine the peer-to-peer conspiracy then. Everybody wearing Armani shits, driving performance cars, and downloading the MP3 player to play the free downloaded music.
Hell, I'll just download the actual bands and keep them in my squalid basement, just like the RIAA.
Previous empires, like Rome and Byzantium, have tried to control everything from IP to the status of individuals, in an effort to protect the interests of the ruling classes. They all collapsed, but after hiccups progress continued.
IP and the threat of IP litigation is in the end an attempt to buck the free market. It gets represented as free-market economics (protecting property is the basis of rule of law etc.) but in reality ALL IP is shared to a greater or lesser degree. It's increasingly hard to point to any genuine "invention" because more and more shared, non-IP education is needed to get to the point of inventing anything (and music is the same - just about all music is now derivative of earlier work.) Once upon a time the calendar and writing were protected secrets. Once upon a time you needed to be a skilled plumber to connect a faucet, now you can get a couple of tools and some simple compression fittings and do it easily and safely yourself. People have not stopped writing, telling the time and plumbing because these are no longer secret. Far from it. The moral seems to be that extending knowledge and power to the people benefits everybody in the long run. It may cause painful readjustment to people who have got very rich by getting into positions of power, but ultimately the world owes nobody a free lunch.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
does this meen i can now download a 60" flat screen of kazaa??? when this goes go live my internet connections going to get bent over a table and brutaly shafted till i have enough screens to wall paper my room with :) oh what a glorious sight it will be any one know of a video card that can support 60 or so monitors? (wipes foam from mouth while ignoring nerious looks of surounding office workers)
Roses are Red Violates are Blue im not very good a poetry but i have many other redeming qualitys
The value of items based on their scarcity would fade to the cost of their raw materials and energy in such a situation. The only items that would have a high value would be those with a story (the item's historical significance), and that value would be an emotional one.
The value of, say, drugs would only be the cost of the instructions to make them. There would still be a way to profit then. It would be an intellectual property based society.
One problem if such a concept was taken to it's extreme conclusion (the end of manufacturing) would be how anyone would make enough money to pay for the intellectual property needed to produce what they need. Not everyone is going to be an inventor themselves. You still need a way for people to convert their time into money. At the same time, however, once you had the instructions for your basic needs the effort needed to satisfy them would shrink to a trivial amount and most of your efforts would be focused on acquiring plans for luxuries.
You'd end up having a situation similar to the towns of Middle Ages Europe where they were basically self-sufficient and indistinguishable in their products (barring differences in crops). Until manufacturing started (such as the textile mills of Flanders) their biggest distinguishing factors were cultural ones mainly.
One side note, I hope recycling would be able to keep up with all of this home manufacturing. Judging from the amount of paper wasted on unnecessary and botched printouts I could imagine heaps of white test runs dumped in front of people's homes every trash day.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
The article misses the whole point. This isn't a efficient way to make things you can make now. It's a way to make things you can't make now. Things with detailed microstructure. Things with moving parts and electronics inside.
This is inherently a slow technology, because you have to build up thick objects layer by layer. But it produces objects that are more "organic", not in the hippie sense, but in the sense of having "internal organs." The first applications will probably be medical devices.
What else? Photonics parts such as switching mirror arrays. Peristaltic pumps. Cell sorters. Sensing devices. Once it's clear what you can do with this approach, there will be new, interesting things to be made that way. But they'll be small, high-detail objects. You're not going to make an I-beam that way, even if you could.
Almost all manufactured objects made in quantity (with the notable exception of wood products) are produced by some kind of "moulding" process. Casting, stamping, lithography, injection moulding, hydroforming, etc. are all "moulding" processes, where material is formed to match a master pattern. All these processes are fast and cheap. That's the great achievement of the first half of the twentieth century.
Machining, by contrast, is slow and expensive. Almost nothing you buy in a store is carved out of a solid block of metal. Many things could be, but that's only done for the prototype. Volume products are made by moulding-type processes. There may be a bit of finish machining, but it started with a moulded blank that looked almost like the finished part.
You can have a computer-controlled milling machine, and all the software to drive it, at home right now. I know two people who do. They don't use them for making routine household objects. It's too slow and too much trouble.
If you want a sense of what one-off manufacturing is like today, download eMachineshop. It's a free CAD program with a difference. After you design the part, use the Job->Material menu to specify the material, and use the Job->Price menu to get an estimate. Then use Order->Place Order to have one made. An automated machine shop in New Jersey will make one and send it to you. Most parts cost $100-$300 for the first one, and a small fraction of that for each additional copy.
Errors like this are pardon parcel with someone having learned the language from speaking and not from reading. This is slashdot, after all, and we're not looking for people to post pullet surprise quality comments, but it is discouraging to see people make mistakes like using the wrong word. The original poster could of used a dictionary or thesaurus to avoid that mistake. For all intensive purposes your words are the only measure that others can use to judge your credibility. You loose credibility if you can't form a coherent and compelling argument. This is the affect of writing poorly.
So, to the original poster I say this: "Your a idiot."
Read.
The whole idea of selling people a magic machine whose uses are barely known is new to our generation, but this isn't the first instance. We've already seen the publishing house in a box and the multimedia studio in a box. Now we're looking at the factory in a box.
Of course the holders of certain government-granted rights (copyrights, patents) that are threatened by these new things will want to keep them inside the box. I think we are about to live through a Dark Age of legal repression and control that will make the DMCA look like a parking meter. But at some point it will become impossible to limit this technology to a small set of rights-restricted uses. At the other end of that tunnel is a world we can't even imagine.
P2P Replicators! Imagine an episode where Picard & Pals visit some forlorn world, cast in societal chaos because of P2P replicating. Wesly of course uses a diothermal tectride coated coconut to offer a compromise solution and Picard offers some sage advice about the Prime Directive at the end. If only I was a couple of years earlier :(
One man's pink plane is another man's blue plane.
"...just like hydrogen combustion engines in the mid-nineties. "
if this was true, and the egine was actually practical, what ever company who bought it would manufactures it. why? simple. money.
You announce and pruduce engine, use your political power to force the end of the gasoline engine for rnviromental reasons.
You own the Patent on anything to do with the only viable alernative. you would make a fortune. A petroleum company tat did this would have a huge increase in stock price, you would have no competitors, and you would still make money for petroleum for other markets(plastics, etc...)
not all countries support patents.
"They use the patents to prevent cheap models from being made, and have the whole thing declared a trade secret to increase their protection beyond that offered by patents"
by definition, you can not patent a trade secret.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The Republican party has long had an average contribution of around $50. The average Democrat party contribution is much higher, in the hundreds and the amount of millionaire money going to Democrats v. Republicans is heavily skewed towards the Democrats.
As for systems, The US is a republic as is most of the 1st world, the rest being monarchies. The republics generally get their leaders via democratic means and always have. It's technically true that the US is not a Democracy but so what? Pure democracy sucks compared to democratic-republicanism. The only thing wrong with democratic-republicanism is that it's just too long a label.
This eMachineshop is just the kind of thing that I was a bit curious (and maybe concerned) about when I first read this article. Setting up legit machine shops around the nation would be easier and probably cheaper, from a criminal point of view, than buying weapons off the black market. Once that had been done, it would be no great task to send out the newest designs for replicas, or even improvements, of illegal weaponry. Once a shop had the designs, they could start making their own weapons. It would be a perfect front, and in the long run, it would be a time and money saver. Wonder why nobody's doing that already?
Unpleasantries.
We have allready seen the reaction "Property Holders" over downloading music, what is the likely upshot of being able to copy physical objects[?]
Interesting to think about, but in all likelihood, the fallout will not be as scary as the current RIAA witchhunt -- for two reasons.
One, it's a lot easier for a layperson to design, say, a chair than to write a good song. There will be plenty of designs floating around for freeware versions of most household objects.
Two, song swapping is easy because you can copy the original product very simply. Physical objects are far different in this regard -- there is no way in the foreseeable future to copy them, given the object itself. It's not like you can just snap a picture of your blender, feed it into your computer, and have it print one out for you. Designs will have to start from scratch, and as such, will typically end up rather different from the original.
What scares me is the idea of people trading designs that are a far cry from being UL listed...
I object to that article, and to the next reply.