Slashdot Mirror
3D Printers For Peace Contest
First time accepted submitter Bas_Wijnen writes "3D printing is being condemned in the media because of the potential for printing guns. Engineers at Michigan Tech believe there is far more potential for 3D printers to make our lives better rather than killing one another. To encourage thinking about constructive uses of 3D printing technology Michigan Tech Open Sustainability Technology (MOST) Lab and Type A Machines sponsor the first 3-D Printers for Peace Contest. Designers are encouraged to consider: If Mother Theresa of Ghandi had access to 3D printing what would they print? What kind of designs could help reduce military spending and conflict while making us all safer and more secure? Anyone in the United States may enter and there is no cost."
3D print kevlar body armor, or maybe a ceramic ballistic plate?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Designers are encouraged to consider: If Mother Theresa of Ghandi had access to 3D printing what would they print?
Bread.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
print oil or other kinds of fuel?
Nobody gets hurt, everybody stays safe
Despite all that talk and hype, despite guns being printed by 3D printers, it is not what the poorer nations need. Simple technology well designed cheap to make and maintain. That is what they need. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_hardware_projects
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
How about a printer that can print a printer?
I think Mother Theresa would choose not to print anything.
She was a friend of poverty, not of the poor, and considered suffering to be a state of grace.
She was a rather nasty piece of work, who kept the poor in poverty, and prevented many dying people from getting access to medicine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WQ0i3nCx60
2,000 years of history says they have the wrong idea.
however there's been a rash of plowshare murders lately.
How about we put down the guns and 3D print a Peace Pipe.
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
If Mother Theresa or[sic] Ghandi had access to 3D printing what would they print?
That's easy!
Mother Theresa would 3D print destitite people suffering from horrible diseases, so that she could lock them away in 'hospice' where they will be denied medical care, pain management, and be denied visitors -- even their 3D printed family.
Ghandi would print naked, pre-pubescent girls to sleep with, so that he can 'prove his piety'.
Come on Slashdot, what's with the softball questions?
An AC replying to the parent nailed it - Gandhi would have made salt.
Not really, of course, but the point is that Gandhi led the Salt Satyagraha, a major civil disobedience movement protesting the British colonial salt taxes, which made it illegal for individuals to produce and sell their own salt.
I'll leave the analogies to others...
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
2 words: Dill dough
For pickle bread?
They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
just google '3d printed hand boy' and bring the tissues
The NRA told me so. The more guns we have the safer we will be.
Oh, and chocolate rations are being increased again.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The two causes are not mutually exclusive, and I say this as a gun enthusiast who would not fire a 3D-printed gun with his own 2 hands.
Because the media and all their "analyst" guests are ignorant, myopic, ratings-chasing, fear-mongering drama queens. Their reaction to "the potential for 3d-printed guns" is just one more manifestation of this. The Liberator may have been downloaded 100k times, but I bet at least 80% of those people don't even have a 3d printer (and never will), and less than a dozen of them will actually get printed.
Sintered ceramic teeth -- dentures and bridges, faster and more accessible dentistry.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
So, what you're saying is... war is peace?
The NRA got their start as a civil rights organization fighting those laws.
LIES.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Origins
Origins
The National Rifle Association was first chartered in the state of New York on November 17, 1871[12] by Army and Navy Journal editor William Conant Church and General George Wood Wingate. Its first president was Civil War General Ambrose Burnside, who had worked as a Rhode Island gunsmith, and Wingate was the original secretary of the organization. Church succeeded Burnside as president in the following year.
Union Army records for the Civil War indicate that its troops fired about 1,000 rifle shots for each Confederate soldier hit, causing General Burnside to lament his recruits: "Out of ten soldiers who are perfect in drill and the manual of arms, only one knows the purpose of the sights on his gun or can hit the broad side of a barn."[13] The generals attributed this to the use of volley tactics, devised for earlier, less accurate smoothbore muskets.[14][15]
Recognizing a need for better training, Wingate traveled to Europe and observed European armies' marksmanship training programs. With plans provided by Wingate, the New York Legislature funded the construction of a modern range at Creedmore, Long Island, for long-range shooting competitions. Wingate then wrote a marksmanship manual.[13]
After winning the British Empire championship at Wimbledon, London, in 1874, the Irish Rifle Team issued a challenge through the New York Herald to riflemen of the United States to raise a team for a long-range match to determine an Anglo-American championship. The NRA organized a team through a subsidiary amateur rifle club. Remington Arms and Sharps Rifle Manufacturing Company produced breech-loading weapons for the team. Although muzzle-loading rifles had long been considered more accurate, eight American riflemen won the match firing breech-loading rifles. Publicity of the event generated by the New York Herald helped to establish breech-loading firearms as suitable for military marksmanship training, and promoted the NRA to national prominence.[13]
Eight U.S. Presidents have been NRA members. They are Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush.[16]
Gandhi would have printed salt. Of course the machine would have required salt as an input, so he would have just taken the salt.
If Ghandi had been able to print guns, maybe the Indians would have been able to eject the British sooner, and with fewer innocent Indian deaths.
Mother Teresa would not have printed anything to help people. She spent most of the money she raised on building convents, not on the poor. Mother Teresa wanted the poor to suffer, because she thought it made her closer to Jesus.
I have a great suggestion for using 3D printers to promote peace: build guns, since the worst violence of the 20th century was from authoritarian governments against their own disarmed populations. Nazi, Commie, Fascist, etc. thugs are a lot more hesitant to go into a town, if they're not sure who in the town might have a gun, or worse, if they suspect everybody in the town has one.
[citation needed]
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Why do the engineers at Michigan equate guns with killing people? Why not self-defense or the defense of others?
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
- Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.
Humans are pretty much obsessed with 2 things, well, actually, all lifeforms are: Killing and Sex.
Things eat other things to live, even trees try to poison the ground or overshadow undergrowth to kill the other plants so that they may survive... So, if we can't do the violence thing, then it's the other one.
DILDOS FOR ALL!
USAToday, May 22, 2013 - Researchers at the University of Michigan have used a 3-D printer to create a custom-made, life-saving implant for baby boy, they report in a letter in 'The New England Journal of Medicine.'
Researchers at the University of Michigan have used a 3-D printer to create a custom-made, life-saving implant for a baby boy, they report today in a letter in The New England Journal of Medicine.
The baby, Kaiba Gionfriddo, suffered from a rare disorder in which one of the airways in his lungs collapsed when he exhaled. The problem caused him to stop breathing and turn blue when he was only 6 weeks old. Even with a mechanical ventilator, Kaiba stopped breathing virtually every day, requiring doctors to perform emergency resuscitations.
"We'd recently had a child in the hospital who died of this, and I said, 'there has got to be a solution that we can find for these kids,' " says co-author Glenn Green, Kaiba's doctor and an associate professor of otolaryngology.
So Green and his Michigan colleagues tried something new.
Using a 3-D printer, they custom-built a tiny, flexible splint that will grow with Kaiba. Researchers used a special material designed to be absorbed by Kaiba's body in about three years, says co-author Scott Hollister, a professor of biomedical and mechanical engineering.
Instead of making a cast of Kaiba's airway with plaster, they used a CT scanner, which gave them a 3-D blueprint.
Like a vacuum-cleaner hose, the C-shaped splint is flexible enough to move when Kaiba breathes. But it's also firm enough to prevent his air tube from flopping shut, says Green.
Kaiba was able to come off the ventilator three weeks after his surgery in February 2012. "Our prediction is that this will be a cure for him," Green says. "The splint will go away and the process will be done."
The porous splint is made from the same material as dissolvable stitches, Green says. Just as a wisteria vine grows through a trellis, Kaiba's body will create new cells to permeate the scaffold. By the time the splint is completely absorbed, doctors hope that Kaiba's own tissue will be sturdy enough to keep his airway open.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/22/3d-printer-implant-baby/2348091/
There's been a lot of progress with organic materials and it's almost at the point of printing organs. Livers are at the top of the list.
That's a typo (well, 2), but it is interesting that they picked these two, which shows that they understand basically nothing about the philosophy and work of either figure.
Here is a hint - Mother Theresa did not treat the dying, only comforted them, and Gandhi believed in rejecting technology and returning to a simpler era. So, the simplest answer for both is, nothing.
If you want peace, then prepare for war.
Guns are tools of the weak and afraid. They clutch them close to their chests to make them feel like they have some power in this crazy, cruel world.
But all we really want is love, approval, and security. Hence, teddy bears.
At least it's better than my first impulse to print a vagina.
Another 3d printer. Everybody knows that capitalism is peace. This way, the 3d printer is just another form of money that creates its own interest. Eventually we'll be up to our necks in printers. We'll be so rich and it'll spawn fabulous new businesses like 3d-printer landfill operations, 3d-printer recylcing, and 3d-printer central banks to slow or speed up the production of 3d-printers.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Why would they limit this to the US? That's only a small portion of the world's population. And not the most peaceful country in my mind, too, with all those guns around and wars they started and so.
And on top of that, both Mother Teresa and Mahatma Ghandi are not Americans either.
Yeah, that's about it.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Those designs will be protected by IP laws. And what will they say when you can pirate the design for a new liver?
"Drink up, me hearties, yo ho!"
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I really, really want to be for this. Not because I have anything against 3D-printed guns, I'm all for those, but because some of the things on their list are good ideas and make sense. Some of the other stuff is pure nonsense, however.
"Low-cost medical devices." Excellent idea. "Tools to help people out of poverty." Also excellent. Lots of potential in both of these to improve, and in many cases save, people's lives.
But then we get to "Designs that can reduce racial conflict." Err, what? Someone is waaay overestimating how effective their "Coexist" bumper sticker is. It would be nice if 3D printers could produce some sort of object for people to brandish at racists like crucifixes at vampires, but it's not going to happen. "Tools that would reduce military conflict and spending while making us all safer and more secure." Look, I'm for reducing conflict and increasing safety and security, too, but if an object to do that hasn't been created using more-mundane fabrication methods, a 3D printer won't be able to make it, either -- and there aren't any such objects, unless (like me and apparently unlike the folks sponsoring this) you think that being armed makes you more secure.
This is being run by Michigan Tech's Department of of Material Science and Engineering, but it looks like someone from one of the squishy majors snuck in and added items to the list. I hope there are a lot medical and tool ideas submitted (pity they don't have a way to donate money to increase the prize), but I really wish they hadn't included the silly, groan-inducing stuff.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
I mean, these liver designs will be protected by IP laws. So what will we hear when the pirates steal this work and you can print a new liver on your own home machine?
"Drink up, me hearties, yo ho!"
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:52538
Axes, buckets, shovels, saws, knives, cooking pots, tarps, harnesses, fishing poles, gardening tools to start with. Later they will need more complex tools, such as auto parts.
While it's true that most if not all of the gun control laws between the Civil War and World War I were part of the 'Jim Crow' system of creating separate systems of "justice" delineated on race, it is, as the AC who responded to you notes, false to say the NRA was a 'civil rights organization' and indeed it had little political function until after the NFA. You overreach into fiction degrades the value of your facts.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Engineers at Michigan Tech believe there is far more potential for 3D printers to make our lives better rather than killing one another.
Guns aren't for killing one another.
They are either for sport, or for keeping people from killing/harming you.
Guns have historically protected groups that might otherwise just have been removed altogether. Travel back in time, ask Martin Luther King and his followers how "bad" guns are.
It's nice that 3D printers can make our lives better in other ways too, but we should not exclude one of them through irrational fear.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Well, reading through all of these responses I see that we have managed to prove that 3D printers are basically useless toys.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
1. Stopping an attacker more quickly is often the important consideration to designers. Modern firearms achieve that 'more quickly' by increasing lethality. Hollow point rounds, Glazier slugs, and high capacity magazines are generally all methods of stopping more people faster, but the 'stopping' part converts pretty directly to killing more often, or in larger numbers, and trying to make a semantic distinction there is psychobabble. 'Stopping' by deterence is far from all 'stopping', and if we are talking logically here, show me one perp who has ever claimed he would have continued with his attack except he realized the pistol he faced had 17 rounds and not just 6. Yes, I'll freely concede that deterrance sometimes works. Hell, I've used it myself. Now what about all that other stopping?
2. I'm a former enlisted soldier who eventually took a comission as a military officer, and who has actually trained people with things the professionals call guns (up to 120 mm MBT pieces) and not just those silly pistols and rifles and such. I can't count the number of times I have disagreed with someone on the NRA right and recieved that lecture that starts with "Guns don't kill people...", as though anyone who disagrees with any point in their playbook must be that totally ignorant. I've had my claim to service challenged, by people who admit they have never served, but can't believe anyone who disagrees with them over any point at all might have given more to the USA than they did. I've had people tell me that only people who were wounded count as real patriots, or that Desert Shield/Storm didn't count as real combat or even real service, because I disagreed with an NRA talking point. I've had self professed NRA spokesmen accuse me of war crimes, saying without any evidence what-so-ever that if I really served at all, I was probably the kind of bad soldier who shot unarmed civilians and ran from real combat. Your post is more of the same - defending verbal tricks by insulting everybody who disagrees with you.
You don't know me. You probably didn't mean any of your remarks about illogical libtards and such to apply to me. But I have met enough of the people on your side that stoop to that that I do hold you responsible for standing alongside them. Please don't ever thank me for my service, it would sound too much like you spitting on it.
Who is John Cabal?
Peace through strength works every time. This is precisely why globalists detest it. Peace at any price leads to Soap, Pillow Fill and Lampshades®.
Damn Godwin!
If Linux's foaming-at-the-mouth zealots harm the adoption of Linux, why don't leftism's zealots harm the adoption of leftism?
I'm not disputing what you're saying; I'm honestly curious.
For it to be that way the Leftists first had to obtain positions of power in schools, universities, and media. The absurd "zero tolerance" means it begins early and defines a reality. At no point does any school logically explain in a calm, rational manner that or any other policy to the students, nor how society existed for so long without it. It's just vigorously enforced. The mainstream media has a well documented leftist bias. So do universities and colleges.
Remember when McCarthy conducted crazy witch hunts trying to find Communists? His methods were batshit insane. That sorely discredited any point he might have had. But he definitely had a point. What he worried about actually happened. Not like a conspiracy. More like the spread of a religion. Religions are also not based on rational principles. Religions are also relatively benign unless they are backed by financial and political and PR power. Then they become abominations made from the worst parts of dogmas and abuses of power.
What leftism has great difficulty doing is converting people who don't already adhere to it. There is little power to its message. That is why it's done through the schools and through biased media. Rarely is it ever presented openly and honestly in a form where its proponents can be legitimately questioned. It's why leftism does poorly in mediums like talk radio despite efforts being made - callers can question the host. See, with Linux both its zealots and their opposition are on the same (many-to-many, not one-to-many) medium and must make a rational case to persuade potential users.
This is not at all like expelling a child from school not because pointing a frenchfry actually harmed anyone, but because you want to instill in the young and impressionable a certain fear of guns. There is no rational defense for that. There are certainly visceral, emotional, irrational reasons for that based on one's own fear of guns and the refusal to conduct one's own factual research on the topic. Linux has rational advocates who quickly reveal how unreasonable the zealots are. Leftism has no such blessing.
To the intellectually immature emotional thinkers leftism is designed to appeal to, the presence of zealots gives them the false security of being part of a herd. Like the more weak-hearted religious people, being among the likeminded is important to them. It's the other reason why character attacks, childish name-calling, subject changing, demonization, getting easily offended, this obsession with group identity, and the desire to make absolutely everything a personal matter is so characteristic of leftist rhetoric. That list describes their playbook for most every situation.
i was going with el-cheapo printers but you went professional.... im guessing lots and lots of doctors are starting to use this stuff
Not the GP,
If you have served in any military then you know that guns do kill. That is their purpose. That is why they exist. For good or bad is not the question. You have probably seen the outcome of that.
Are guns designed to kill?
How many armed random people do you want around your neighbourhood?
I am not a soldier. Never have been and never will be hopefully.
You'll have to bear in mind that the democrats and republicans used to occupy very different areas of the map then they do now, and philosophically were opposite from where they are now with respect to each other. Somehow the worst of the KKK and its ill all stayed in the same general zone. Just look at any interactive electoral college map (this one works fine) and look back in time for 1956, 1960, and 1964 to watch the change. The southern democrat as they existed then, do not exist now, but the people who made up that population still do.
And now, somehow, republicans think everyone will believe that they're not the same as they were 4, 8, or 12 years ago, when really, demographically, they trace their roots to slavery, and their policies have long followed.
><));>
Please don't ever thank me for my service, it would sound too much like you spitting on it.
Nothing you did in Iraq concerns me one way or the other. The US military hasn't fought an enemy because it posed a threat in a very long time. I assume you served for your own personal reasons, not for my thanks or that of anyone else.
I assume your combat was quite real. That's what troubles me in fact. Personally I need a much MUCH stronger reason than "my gov't (trustworthy institution that it is) doesn't like these people who were planning to leave us alone". Hypothetically, I could shoot a burglar that broke in at night and threatened my family. I hope it never, ever comes to that but if it did, I'm not hesitating. Bad call, burgler. You see, that person is actually a threat and knew they would be perceived as such. Some dude in Iraq's so-called elite republican guard within the borders of Iraq, not so much. And I am not interested in the propaganda about what a terrible dictator Hussein was. If we feel that way perhaps we should not have given him such great CIA training and support. You were aware of that before signing up, right?
If you think anything George H. W. Bush told you was a good reason to travel thousands of miles and start killing some of your own species, so be it. We must each decide these things for ourselves. Like I said, I very much believe that the combat was quite real. I don't imagine anything could be more real. Your courage and your dedication are not what I question.
As you see, I think for myself. I am sorry that some unreasonable NRA types hurt your feelings and now you falsely feel justified assuming I am one of them. That's about as reasonable and respectable as those who disparaged your military service or called you a liar because you disagreed with a talking point. Apparently you are just like them and now it is I who disagreed with your talking point. You are now illustrating the difference between someone who finds merit in liberal thought, and a libtard (my post did mention both). I wish you had done it by being the former, but we must each decide these things for ourselves.
You see, I am not a member of the NRA. NRA has never received a penny from me. I am a pragmatist who views guns as a necessary evil. If criminals have guns then the law-abiding also need to have guns. Criminals definitely have guns. I view it as a balance of power and nothing more. The data on conceal-carry and gun-free zones is just too compelling to deny that. I am not a "my team vs. your team" kind of guy. I don't root for a team. I don't delight in carrying some organization's card. I am an individual. I offered my opinions. Is that so hard to understand?
I mean truly, if you are so easily insulted and made to become emotional and irrational, perhaps Internet discussion is going to be too rough for you.
A slightly different question. How many people do you trust to handle a firearm safely?
Thank you for having the courage to stand up to the nutjobs who would demean your service.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
In a bit of convenient timing, found this news story via Instapundit a few minutes ago, about medical use of a 3-D printer saving a baby suffering from a rare lung ailment.
With hopes dimming that Kaiba would survive, doctors tried the medical equivalent of a “Hail Mary” pass. Using an experimental technique never before tried on a human, they created a splint made out of biological material that effectively carved a path through Kaiba’s blocked airway.
What makes this a medical feat straight out of science fiction: The splint was created on a three-dimensional printer.
Here's hoping that the competition helps stuff like this.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
$20 or less at Home Depot will buy you everything you need to make a .410 or 12 ga. shotgun. No machining required, either.
"If Linux's foaming-at-the-mouth zealots harm the adoption of Linux, why don't leftism's zealots harm the adoption of leftism?"
They do.
The supposed rebuttal, to which you linked, cites a single study, which did not rebut the original assertion by John Lott. The large collection of people authoring it could not come up to any conclusion — in their esteemed opinion, there is no link between the carry laws and the murder rate. From your link:
So, if John Lott is right, relaxing concealed carry laws will help. If he is wrong, it will not hurt. What grounds are there, again, for the massive violations of the 2nd Amendment, that you and yours are demanding?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Even more humorous is that the modern NRA is currently trying to overturn many of the gun control laws it helped write before 1977.
Yes and no:
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
(1) Gun toting murderous thugs? None. (2) Armed guards protecting me? The more the better
Gun control does nothing to affect the size of population (1), but it reduces the size of population (2).
The world is much more peaceful because people are armed.
-- Jimtown Kelly
It's because the rich who own the means of production are absolutely terrified of teh disruptive power this tool gives the poor. They can see what's coming and they want it legislated such that the machines have to be registered because you know, people might print up a gun or knife... but they really want them tied up with loads of red tape to keep them out of the hands of the people.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
This has nothing to do with left wing politics - you don't have that in USA anyway. Just saying.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
I've got the perfect 3d-printed device that will stop wars, infighting, greed, jealousy, and so forth! It's a tall and wide-jawed set of calipers At its center point, there's a long and razor-sharp blade attached to a spring-loaded release mechanism. Simply press the calipers against whatever item is contested as belonging to two different people and depress the plunger. Behold! a precisely even split of a cupcake, pizza, or whatever else the kids or roommates are fighting over,
First World Problems, I hear you scoff?? Not so fast! Eliminate this sense of perceived injustice amongst middle-class brats, and they'll be less likely to grow into the folks wanting to invade other lands for their natural resources and exploitable citizens. Surely Gandhi would have approved of that! Still think this idea still only directly benefits self-entitled Westerners? Imagine how useful this device would have been for Solomon when he was dealing with those ladies fighting over a baby!
Javascript, cookies, flash, and ActiveX must be enabled in order to view this sig.
The army prefers wounding people, they don't care about stopping power and they're not allowed hollow points. A 18 year old enemy who is shot dead, just gets a mass grave, no money for any wife or kids, that's it.
A wounded guy might still shoot for a couple of hours but sooner or later, they have to be dealt with, binding medical personnel, supplies, hospitals, transportation, logistics, disability, pensions etc, all things that hurt the enemy financially.
Check what the US has to pay for veteran care and you'll know. These things still hurt the enemy _decades_ after the fact.
Even people with carpet knives know that.
You've been reading too much XKCD.
Those mouth to mouth guards used for CPR.
cheaper to make by casting.
pretty much everything is.
3d printing is not for mass production. except for producing the mass production tools.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
my brother worked for mother theresa's hospice in india, 25 years ago. it wasn't what you'd think. they had a number of people come in from different outside organisations who tried to order people around: this being india they of course didn't listen, because why should they listen to foreigners?
so my brother stayed there and worked with them for six months before advising them to build a brick out-house for effluent, to change the sheets on the beds when somebody died, and to wash the needles in between injecting one patient and the next.
it also didn't help that as mother theresa got older, she began to lose her memory and would wander off, go to sleep, taking the key to the medicine cupboard with her so that nobody could get access to it for an entire day.
ghandi on the other hand is a far better choice for discussion, here. i love the story where he was asked by a mother to tell her son to stop eating sweets: he told her to come back in 2 weeks. when they came back, he said, "stop eating sweets!" and the son went "yes yes mr ghandi!!". the mother, perplexed, asked "why didn't you do that 2 weeks ago??" and he said "because i had to first give up sweets myself".
now *that's* inspiring, and it tells you something that we can learn from this fuss over 3D printing. there's no point asking "what would ghandi do with a 3D printer" because it's the principles that ghandi applied in his life *whenever he met someone* that are the key. it's never about the technology: it's about the people and what they face.
the point is: asking this question is silly. what you need is just to have the 3D printer, and go wander around the world, meeting people. you'll soon find problems that can be solved with it.
It's a telling sign of the state of the human species when 3D printers are finally invented and the first thing we make with them is weapons and armor. Anthropologists are probably having a field day, or certainly will 100 years from now.
If the rest of the media is anything like slashdot, you would think that the ONLY thing you can do with 3D printers is print media. I see about 3 articles a week in slashdot about printing guns and zero articles a week about printing anything else. I am smart enough to know that there are 3D printers being used for thousands of other purposes, but if the only one being reported is printing guns, then what is the public to think other than that this tool's only purpose is to print gun? Shame on you, fearmongering media. Anything for clicks, huh? This is why we can't have nice things.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
People using guns kill. People using knives kill. People driving cars kill. People using piano wire kill. People using rocks, sticks, baseball bats, frying pans, pillows, rolling pins and poison kill. The objects themselves do not kill, they can be used to kill.
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
If Mother Theresa of Ghandi had access to 3D printing what would they print?
I suppose Ghandi is a place, now? Nice editing.
If Mother Theresa had access to 3D printing she would use it to print money.
If Gandhi had access to 3D printing he might have used it to print farm implements. He certainly never fired a gun...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In every country, there is terrorism of some citizen. We've seen it all too often on the news media, but more so in high profile areas. Third World Countries (I hate that term) have a lot of terrorism of it's citizens, I thing specially fitted prosthetic limbs would be a good start.
Of course, someone may have already come up with this already.
Peace Out.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
Ah, so your true intentions come out: you're not talking about gun control, you're talking about prohibiting private ownership of guns altogether and mislabeling it as gun control.
Obviously, I meant "guards" metaphorically as any person who would come to my defense.
Parts for simple, cheap, reliable water purification machines, IUDs, parts for machines to process local resources into raw materials for printers, and parts for printers.
Ah, so your true intentions come out: you're not talking about gun control, you're talking about prohibiting private ownership of guns altogether and mislabeling it as gun control.
There is no rational reading of what I wrote to mean that. My comment simply proved yours incorrect.
I conclude you are irrational.
Obviously, I meant "guards" metaphorically as any person who would come to my defense.
Which is not the meaning of guards, in any sense.
But then it is the computer doing the killing not the gun.
Yes, shooting implies a gun, or some type of projectile, like an arrow or a rock from a slingshot but shooting != killing.
It is 100% accurate is that guns do not kill people. Just like hammers don't hammer nails. It takes a person, or in the case you mentioned, some type of automaton.
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
It's the only rational reading: the guns Adam Lanza obtained were legally owned by a citizen with no criminal convictions, firearms experience, and no mental illness. The only way Lanza could not have obtained those guns would have been if such citizens were prohibited by law from owning guns at all.
Therefore, if you support laws intended to prevent tragendies like Adam Lanza's, you necessarily support laws that keep law abiding, sane citizens from owning guns.
No. You are simply parroting the same false and inconsistent promises that progressives like to make; you resolve inevitable and uncomfortable tradeoffs by putting fingers in your ears and pretending they don't exist.
Guns that shoot the person who is pulling the trigger.
Good job. Now you've turned a simple rapist into a necrophiliac. He could have had a nice warm, live, victim to rape if she had not been armed with your "kill the user" defense weapon.
Hard to blow a "rape whistle" when the rapist has the unarmed woman around the throat.
If anyone thinks gun control or gun bans protect those who need protecting most over the long term, please watch this historical documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa-lNiIDsFM
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
It's the only rational reading: the guns Adam Lanza obtained were legally owned by a citizen with no criminal convictions, firearms experience, and no mental illness. The only way Lanza could not have obtained those guns would have been if such citizens were prohibited by law from owning guns at all.
That is incorrect. All forms of gun control have the effect of reducing the number of guns in circulation, even if they don't ban them outright. And a reduction in the number of guns means reducing the chance that a "murderous thug" can get hold of a gun.
Ergo, you claim (1) is logically incorrect.
Where you depart from rationality is saying that your incorrect logic then reveals anything about my particular preferences for gun control. Even if your logic had been correct it wouldn't have said anything about my position.
Some guns are designed to be able to be used to more effectively kill but some guns are designed around being able to shoot at paper targets very accurately. Granted such guns could be used to kill but seldom are because they are too clumsy to use for such purposes or they are too small a caliber to serve that purpose.
But then it is the computer doing the killing not the gun.
But not the person.
Is it the computer doing your clothes washing and not the washer? Is it the computer sweeping your floor and not the Roomba?
You can separate out one technological part from another if you like, but doing so makes no philosophical difference. A machine incorporating a gun can kill or a machine can kill with a gun. Either way it makes the silliness of the phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" obvious.
A gun is a tool to kill people. It's normally operated by people, but not necessarily.
The motivation behind the catchphrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is to do nothing about the tool, and only deal with the people. The motivation is no more rational than the catchphrase.
Don't be injecting facts into a discussion about gun control. The 'fraid of my own shadow crowd doesn't like facts.
Please get this right.
Ater all, It has only been a few years since he has been famous /sarcasm.
You gave Adam Lanza as an example. What form of gun control would allow legal gun ownership that would have kept Adam Lanza from obtaining a gun?
As far as I can tell, you have no logically consistent preferences at all. I'm just saying that your justifications for gun control are wrong.
The wiki is quite interesting, and I'm hoping to build some of the things from the site once I get my Shapeoko http://www.shapeoko.com/ up and running again.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
You gave Adam Lanza as an example. What form of gun control would allow legal gun ownership that would have kept Adam Lanza from obtaining a gun?
You're not being logical. Adam Lanza was an example of someone killing with a gun that was legally held be a relative and then stolen. That doesn't mean that the effectiveness of the many variants of gun control are judged by the one case of Adam Lanza. Using an example does not men that that example becomes the entirety of the topic.
All forms of gun control reduce the number of legal guns in circulation. Murderous thugs find it more difficult to get hold of guns when there are fewer guns in circulation. To argue the contrary is not logical.
Does any of that mean that the Adam Lanza case is not part of this, of course not. An example gun control measure that is not a total ban, but would have meant that Lanza's mother would have had hers: Only allow people who are cops, security guards or otherwise have a job with a specific set of justifications for firearms to have one. There. Done. QED.
You have no rational argument against this.
Guns are constructive and pro-peace. People who think otherwise may not have the perspective of ever living in fear or under oppression.
Human nature exists; there are people that for, whatever reason, have poor impulse control, no ethics -- whatever. There are humans who are prone to preying on those whom they feel are weaker.
In the past, the law of nature was simple: the stronger prevailed over the weaker. The youth prevailed over the old. The men subjugated the women.
Ruthlessness, strength, youth, aggressiveness... these things decided the outcome of most human interactions, for most of human history.
The gun changed that.
Put a handgun (or preferably, a carbine) into the hands of both of them, and a 90 year old grandmother can now have a meaningful conflict with an 18 year old 300lb musclehead. The conclusion is no longer foregone. And the musclehead knows it.
Arm the common goodfolks in society, and total violence decreases. Data supports this conclusion.
(to say nothing of the _moral_ imperative that honest people not be denied the use of arms)
The bottom line is this: arming good people reduces the aggregate amount of evil in the world. It turns the history of victimization on its head. The number of bad people who are "more effective" at being evil because of _their_ use of firearms doesn't compare to the amount of good that results from arming the good guys and thereby preventing more victimization, both in better outcomes when victimization is attempted, and from "herd immunity" because thugs are less inclined to attack people who will be harder marks.
Finally, the article summary is especially ignorant for implicating that Ghandi wouldn't 3d print guns.
Mohandas K. Gandhi, Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Chapter XXVII, Recruiting Campaign, Page 403, Dover paperback edition, 1983. This book was originally published by Public Affairs Press in 1948.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Hence, teddy bears.
At least it's better than my first impulse to print a vagina.
Someone out there shares your way of thinking.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I.e. you do want to ban private gun ownership by law abiding citizens, you're just misleading people by calling your ban "gun control".
(Why any European would want to hand exclusive power to a combination of corporations and governments is beyond me; have you learned nothing from your history? How stupid can you be to repeat the same mistakes over and over again?)
I.e. you do want to ban private gun ownership by law abiding citizens, you're just misleading people by calling your ban "gun control".
You're still confusing a universal logical truth, reachable by anyone, with what I "want".
(Why any European would want to hand exclusive power to a combination of corporations and governments is beyond me; have you learned nothing from your history? How stupid can you be to repeat the same mistakes over and over again?)
Are you actually capable of rational argument, or is your entire capability to claim another person says or believes something they did not say?
Is your faith in your own beliefs really that weak? It's like you know you're on the wrong side of reality, but you want guns anyway.
You've switched from UK to European. I'll switch back, because every country in Europe is different. There are no "corporations" involved. No corporation nor it's employees have any more right to carry firearms than anyone else. You're silly attempt to connect with the Nazis, isn't only a failure, it flies in the face of the facts. And that's par for the course for you.
Again, the irrationality that seems to be going through your head is not what happens in the UK, but ascribing a desire to me which I do not have. Corporations and their employees are the last people I'd give extra gun rights to.
Mother Theresa would no doubt have printed a medical tool for removing IUDs.
Which would have been totally useless since most of the countries and places she setup shop didn't have access to birth control to begin with.
India, with its huge population, had a large program making IUDs available at no cost to people in the poorer regions who wanted them.
Mother Theresa's work included providing medical treatment to the poor in many of these same regions. Her clinics were noted for removing the government-provided IUDs of women who were there for other procedures, without seeking permission or even informing the woman that it had been done.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The NRA Myth of Gun-Free Zones Data shows the gun lobby's chief argument for more firearms in schools, malls, and beyond is just plain wrong.
FWIW you can't interrogate a mass murderer that committed suicide during the spree, so it's pretty obvious there's no data about why they selected where they committed their crimes.
It's a little like trying to find data I ate a grilled cheese sandwich two days ago.
More Twoson than Cupertino
I wish I could, but rather than post a good long explanation of deeper politics of USA versus other western countries with most have parties all along the left-right axis - which in itself may not be that good indicator, for example there's a party here in Finland which is economically on left but socially on right.
The best I can say is that the parties have very little difference on large things that truly matter. And even of these things the differences are only on areas they've chosen to be used as weapon against other, so usually moral/social issues (like gay marriage). USA democracy seems sad enough because it's trapped in nearly impossible to break two-party game - without a huge percent of people starting to vote for "3rd parties" anyway. But economically these parties are very close from my Nordic point of view, and while socially Democrats might be a bit more noticeably on left the truth is that in comparison to most mixed-system democracies the only two parties currently seriously (as seen by others) in the game are clearly on the right from the middle of the fictionary axis.
If someone can really explain/write about this better/deeper I'd be glad too. Even just to read it myself.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Change that as it is not correct.
Most guns are designed to be able to be used to more effectively kill.
Others exist but they are in the minatory. (and still allowed even in countries such as the UK that have very strict laws against purchasing guns)