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."

53 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. Armor? by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
    1. Re:Armor? by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ghandi's protests were just people sitting down or standing without any protection at all. Perhaps one could emulate such a thing?

      I guess you could 3D print a diner and then just sit in it.....

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Armor? by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

      For sitting down, how about chairs?

    3. Re:Armor? by rwa2 · · Score: 2

      Oooh, you just had to go the self-immolation route, you insensitive clod!

      Oh, EMulate. OK.

    4. Re:Armor? by shri · · Score: 3, Funny

      You got it all wrong. We're discussing "Mother Theresa OF Ghandi" ... time to load up google maps and discover this harbinger of peace who can program 3D printers. :)

    5. Re:Armor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Dudes, Mother Theresa was a bitch.

    6. Re:Armor? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not sure what Mother Theresa would print.

      Nothing.

      Poverty and pain are good for people. "'the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ"

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  2. Easy answer by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Designers are encouraged to consider: If Mother Theresa of Ghandi had access to 3D printing what would they print?

    Bread.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Salt

    2. Re:Easy answer by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

      Mother Theresa would no doubt have printed a medical tool for removing IUDs.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    3. Re:Easy answer by sgt+scrub · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was thinking brains. They are dead and would have to be brought back as zombies so it is just logical.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    4. Re:Easy answer by turp182 · · Score: 2

      Maybe yeast culturing systems? Or a better, sealed bread box that supports humidity controls (desiccants)?

      We can't print food (well, maybe meat, but it's not affordable at this point), but we could print things that help people better store and preserve food.

      Of course we can't print salt either, the most historically used food preservative...

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    5. Re:Easy answer by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Funny

      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. It'd be like me building a car in the middle of a desert. Okay, now I have a car. Cool. Now, what about the roads? Or fuel? Bread, on the other hand, is universal: No matter what your situation, bread is useful. Bread is life. Especially in places where she worked... nevermind the religious connotations of giving bread to the poor.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    6. Re:Easy answer by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      "How much birth control does the average person give to impoverished nations?"

      Not as much as we should, because it's unpopular with the religious lobby?

    7. Re:Easy answer by webgiant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Mother Theresa would have printed signs reading "Non-Christian Clergy Unwelcome Here" so her nuns wouldn't have to say that as often as they did. 99% Hindu in Calcutta, but not one of them were permitted to see Hindu clergy once they entered the house of the "Ghoul Of Calcutta" (as locals referred to Mother Theresa).

      Then there's her refusal to use FREE diagnosis charts, so her nuns could commit act after act of medical malpractice, because she felt her vow of poverty should extend to her patients. There was her refusal to accept FREE drugs pressed on her by pharmaceutical companies, because she felt her vow of poverty should extend to her patients. And then there was her $10,000 in FREE medical care that she accepted from the Swiss for herself, because "what vow of poverty?" Maybe she thought of that medical care as her very own jar of oil, rubbed on her feet by her Swiss doctors and wiped with their hair.

      Then there was her fundraising for natural disasters, then taking the money and giving it to the Vatican instead of to the refugees from the natural disasters. And her acceptance of huge donations from warlords, and her simple refusal to return the money stolen from the warlord's citizens.

      The woman did enough hateful things all on her own, very little of it relating at all to her Church's dogma.

  3. Mother Theresa is an unfortunate choice by Richard_J_N · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Mother Theresa is an unfortunate choice by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      Yeah, that sounds like a good description of someone who won the Padma Shri, Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding, Bharat Ratna, Ramon Magsaysay Award, the first Pope John XXIII Peace Prize, Pacem in Terris Award, Honorary Companion of the Order of Australia, Order of Merit, Honorary US citizenship, Albanian Golden Honour of the Nation, Balzan Prize, Albert Schweitzer International Prize, Nobel Peace Prize...

      A real nasty piece of work she is, yup. It's amazing it's gone on for so long without anybody notice. Thank goodness for Youtube publishing a inflammatory "documentary" by a man whose life work was tearing apart anyone who claimed to be religious, said that 9/11 was "exhilarating" for him, and published a book titled "God Is Not Great", if that doesn't give enough of an indication of this man's, achem, axe to grind. Who else has he grilled? Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger, Lady Diana, Ayn Rand, Pope Benedict XVI...

      Well, I'm sure this one dude with an axe to grind was better qualified to assess this person's character than over two dozen governments and private interests who gave her awards. Oh, I forgot -- She made #1 on Gallup's List of Most Widely Admired People. 18 times. So make that most of the world that she's bamboozled.

      Yes, if you dig down hard enough you'll find something that even the most saintly person has done that could seem controversial. Just ask the Republicans how their whole "Bengazi" crusade is going, if you want a current-events example. With enough scrutiny, everyone can be demonized. And if you don't believe me on that, feel free to sit in an interrogation room with a trained interrogator with 30 years experience. See if you can go a few hours without admitting something that'll crucify your sorry ass. To date, nobody has beaten the Police Interrogation Reality Challenge!(tm)

      I tend to believe that all those awards were for good things done by a largely good person. If she slipped a couple times, it only proves she's human... not a "nasty piece of work".

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:Mother Theresa is an unfortunate choice by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you're saying she was a Republican?

      Backwards. The party with a vested interest in keeping people dependent on professionals who dole things out to them is the Democrats. That's the backbone of their entire constituency and the framework within which they describe everybody: needing a handout, or needing to be used to pay for handouts. Without playing middlemen to that one-way street, there would be almost not power in that camp. And so they seek to preserve it at every turn.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Mother Theresa is an unfortunate choice by Richard_J_N · · Score: 2

      Hmm... it's not the relations with dictators that I find so repulsive, nor even her absolute opposition to abortion. Those might be what you call "slip-ups".
      But she did, in fact, preside over awful standards of care, people were denied access to medical treatment, and suffering was not alleviated, because it was considered "spiritually noble". MT also campaigned agains family planning and contraception. So while, by religious lights, she might have been "moral", the effect was deeply cruel and wicked, keeping people in poverty and away from real medical care.

      Also, if you want to take issue with Hitchens,I don't really think you should imply that Henry Kissinger was among the better specimens of humanity! Nor, for that matter, was the previous Pope (whose time in the Hitler Youth one may overlook, as the actions of a child under compulsion, but who fully deserves to go to Hell for knowing inaction on child-abuse, and opposition to condoms despite HIV).

      That said, I do entirely agree with you that nobody is perfect and anyone can be made to look bad. Your "exhilaration" quote is one example... I checked the context of this, and while I don't find it in good taste, it's not an uncommon description of how some people feel at the start of a war, even those on the good side.
      (You might consider imagining yourself as Churchill, at the moment when Hitler invaded Poland - a rather strange mix of gloom at the inevitable impending tragedy, combined with some excitement that, finally, because the evil thing has become so bad, that the world can delay acting no longer and that it will stand up and fight.)

    4. Re:Mother Theresa is an unfortunate choice by Richard_J_N · · Score: 2

      There seem to be quite a lot of references, usually well researched and with eyewitness testimony about poor care. Cases where her victims suffered and died because they went to her care centers, rather than to the existing hospitals. Not to mention the awful waste of giving money to support missionaries rather than medical care. Another example: http://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/the-curse-of-mother-theresa/

      As for defending the right to oppose contraception... yes, I agree with you in a Western context, where it's just a debate, and people can rationally choose. But in many less secular societies, this is the equivalent of "fire in a crowded theatre" - her advocacy actually denied people access to birth control, keeping the uneducated poor poor - at this point, it goes from an issue of free speech to one of moral culpability (in the same way that the previous South African president has the blood of millions on his hands for his continued assertions that AIDS was caused by poverty, not by HIV).

      Also, we do actually need the occasional contrarian. Our democracy is weak enough without further deference to the strong, wealthy and powerful! Also, to be a "troll", it's usually implicit that the argument itself is weak. I've not yet seen Hitchens lose a debate.

    5. Re:Mother Theresa is an unfortunate choice by brit74 · · Score: 2

      MT also campaigned agains family planning and contraception.

      Which, as someone who isn't a medical professional, I have no special problem with. I disagree with it philosophically, but I defend her right to say it.

      There's a difference between "defending someone's right to say something" and arguing that they are a model human being. I'm sure you can think of a few examples of nasty things that people have said in the past (e.g. Fred Phelps or the KKK) where you might say "they have a right to say it" but you'd never hold them up as exemplars. Here's the thing: you can defend someone's right to say something, and still think they're an asshole for saying it and believing it.

      ...keeping people in poverty and away from real medical care.

      You should point the finger at the governments that turned a blind eye to the suffering of their own people, not MT's attempts to provide the most basic of medical care to an otherwise totally neglected population.

      Pointing out that some governments acted worse than Mother Teresa doesn't elevate Mother Teresa into a model human being. That's a cheap tactic, actually. If I went and robbed my neighbor and people blamed me for doing it, it would be a poor arguing tactic to start pointing out other people (serial murderers, etc) who are worse than me that "everybody should be pointing the finger at".

      Mother Teresa certainly gave up a lot to help the poor, but her sacrifices were marred by the fact that she did have a particular love for the "sanctifying" effects of suffering ("“There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering,”") and that she did things like discriminate against homosexuals who wanted to be helped. For whatever reason, there's a particular strain of Catholicism that seems to value suffering - as if God will show exceptional mercy and reward for people the more that they suffer in this world. When you believe that the afterlife is eternal, and this life is temporary and short by comparison, it can open up a whole series of perverse beliefs and behaviors.

    6. Re:Mother Theresa is an unfortunate choice by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hitchens was not the only one. I've seen interviews with people who worked at her hospice were shocked at the degrading, restrictive, at times deadly treatment of people who weren't always terminally ill. Her and her church's despicable decision not to return stolen money (they probably could and would have been criminally charged if they weren't the Catholic Church) is a matter of public record, not anyone's opinion. Her decision to not spent the donations she received on improving her original hospice's conditions, but instead on a religious-geared order modestly bearing her name, is also public record.

      The fact that there was virtually no controversy over these events is not evidence that they didn't happen. It is evidence that the public at large didn't care because once she reached a certain level of fame she was far more useful as a figurehead for anyone to bother looking at what she'd actually done.

    7. Re:Mother Theresa is an unfortunate choice by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The contrary view to the attacks of Hitchens and others of Mother Teresa deserves ahearing, too.

    8. Re:Mother Theresa is an unfortunate choice by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Another example: http://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/the-curse-of-mother-theresa/

      Of all the things you say you can cite about this, you choose something with the words "futile democracy" and "the curse" in it? Do I even need to look at it to know it's biased?

      But in many less secular societies,

      Where, exactly, are you going with this? So what if some people think that; It doesn't make it right. You even say so. So at best this is a populist argument.

      Also, we do actually need the occasional contrarian. Our democracy is weak enough without further deference to the strong, wealthy and powerful! Also, to be a "troll", it's usually implicit that the argument itself is weak. I've not yet seen Hitchens lose a debate.

      He lost to Death. I have yet to see anyone win that argument. And I get that you're some kind of Hitchens fan, but maybe he won every last debate he had... but he lost in the court of public opinion. Miserably. This woman won dozens of awards and was loved by millions. Hitchens was a social malcontent whose only claim to fame was being an irritating thorn in famous people's asses... and at that, only a mediocre fame.

      And democracy will survive just fine on the facts; We don't need to carve out special groups to hold above criticism -- strong, weak, rich, poor, powerful, weak... what matters in a democracy is the truth, and having discourse. If you think it's gotten "weak", then you either need to re-examine what you consider democracy, consider that maybe democracy itself is fundamentally flawed, or that there is insufficient participation.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    9. Re:Mother Theresa is an unfortunate choice by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 2

      "But I'm not arguing she's a model human being... Those twenty-odd rewards, public opinion polls, and numerous committees and governments are arguing she's a model human being are."

      Those are not 'arguments'. Those are statements, and the apparent unanimity you highlight emphasizes just how much they are NOT arguments at all, but blind, popular adoration on par with Bieber fever.

      If you wish I could drag out a very long laundry list of once-popular things (people, social customs, 'scientific' ideas, whatever) that are in hindsight clearly very stupid or undesirable, but I hope you get my point.

      Theresa was famous specifically for supposedly alleviating the suffering of the dying. All evidence shows that she did an incredibly bad job at this, with no painkillers (even after she had millions in donations), dehumanizing policies (enforced bed rest, discouraged visitors), and no attempt to separate the curable from the dying. Running a hospice without painkillers and claiming you're doing good is like... I don't know, running a barber shop and claiming you're doing fine because you're successfully cutting hair along with the steady rain of earlobes. She took money that could have gone to actual caring hospices/charities instead. If you have any evidence she ran a rather good hospice we're all ears. Right now, your argument is the equivalent of pointing at the view counter on a youtube video.

    10. Re:Mother Theresa is an unfortunate choice by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that there was virtually no controversy over these events is not evidence that they didn't happen.

      Everyone moderating me down on these later replies, because if there's one thing us Americans love more than sex, it's watching famous people get cut to pieces. But for your statements to be true, thousands of people who's credibility is at stake if they get it wrong vetted this person and found no problems. She didn't get a Nobel Peace Prize for eating babies and screaming "SATAN!" ... she got it for improving the lives of millions.

      Now you can pitch your conspiracy theory like everyone else here, and collect mod points from the "We Love Watching Bigger People Than Us Fall" crowd, or you can look at this objectively: There's no way so many people could look at her life and so few find a problem.

      We laugh when people deny climate change here and call them retarded, but the moment someone says someone who was fiercely religious has done real and considerable good, it's grab the pitch forks and haraaaaaah...

      Who's wearing the tinfoil hats now, mmm?

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    11. Re:Mother Theresa is an unfortunate choice by webgiant · · Score: 3, Informative

      So you're saying she was a Republican?

      Backwards. The party with a vested interest in keeping people dependent on professionals who dole things out to them is the Democrats. That's the backbone of their entire constituency and the framework within which they describe everybody: needing a handout, or needing to be used to pay for handouts. Without playing middlemen to that one-way street, there would be almost not power in that camp. And so they seek to preserve it at every turn.

      No, the guy to whom you replied got it right: Republicans are the most dependent on a culture of people dependent on professionals who dole things out to them. Red States are more dependent on the Government Dole than Blue States, because Red State policies create a constituency which needs a handout just to survive. Poverty-stricken, uneducated white people vote Republican more often than middle class educated people (who tend to vote Democrat), so Republicans seek to preserve a constituency trapped in poverty, voting Republican on social issues even as Republicans pull the economic rug out from under their collective feet.

    12. Re:Mother Theresa is an unfortunate choice by girlintraining · · Score: 2

      Those are not 'arguments'. Those are statements, and the apparent unanimity you highlight emphasizes just how much they are NOT arguments at all, but blind, popular adoration on par with Bieber fever.

      If all those awards were granted based on popularity, you might have a point. But these aren't just committees of private people, but governments offering things like honorary citizenship and awards that are only rarely handed out, and the people handing them out vet it carefully.

      You're saying that entire branches of major world governments have "bieber fever". I'm sorry, but that's an incredibly stupid thing to say. I'm not even going to dignify the rest of your post with further commentary -- it's sufficient to point out that all you're doing is sticking your fingers in your ear and going "NYAAAAAAH!" without a lick of actual thought beforehand.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  4. Si vis pacem, para bellum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    2,000 years of history says they have the wrong idea.

  5. Re:print oil or other kinds of fuel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    print oil or other kinds of fuel?

    Cut down on the Star Trek, dork, and learn some real science. Even if rearranging atoms were possible, conservation of mass/energy means you have to also feed in the energy difference between the energy you get from the fuel that comes out and the energy available from whatever you put into the machine. That's the bare minimum; it's more because of process losses.

    In other words, there's no free lunch (or oil).

  6. Re:um by OhSoLaMeow · · Score: 2

    2 words: Dill dough

    For pickle bread?

    --
    They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
  7. Teeth. by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sintered ceramic teeth -- dentures and bridges, faster and more accessible dentistry.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  8. Re:This just in by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

    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.

    I shoot with my 3D printed hand. You should see the looks on peoples' faces when I have my hands in the air, and suddenly the 3D printed hand whips out a 3D printed gun and shoots them right between the eyes.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  9. Re:3D printers are toys. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    3D printers, it is not what the poorer nations need.

    Poor countries often have problems getting spare parts. They tend to have old no-longer-supported gear, such as tractors or irrigation pumps. Even when the parts are available they are too expensive to ship, or are pilfered by the postal workers. If a part for your pump or manure spreader arrives two months late, you have already missed the planting season. A printer that can make a part from a spec downloaded over a cellular network would come in very useful. You don't need one on every farm or in every shop, just within a day's walk.

  10. Gandhi was a gun rights advocate by Syphilis · · Score: 2

    "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.

  11. For medecinal purposes? by SternisheFan · · Score: 4, Insightful
    instead of printing weapons to hurt and kill each other, how about using this tech for good-ness, and not 'bad-ness? (just a crazy thought) Like, oh I don't know..., this:

    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/

  12. Weird focus on killer when can almost print liver by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:3D printing is being condemned in the media... by Migraineman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The tag line "The potential for guns made from commodity parts found at the local hardware store" just isn't sensational enough to move copy. Folks have been hand-crafting zip guns for the better part of a century now, if not longer. Hell, half a century ago you could order a firearm (long or short) through the Sears catalog and have it delivered to your doorstep via the Postal Service. No oversight. No license. No FFL. Wasn't the end of the world until the ignorant, myopic, ratings-chasing, fear-mongering drama queens made it so.

  14. Re:Guns are, what ensures peace by Freddybear · · Score: 2

    If you want peace, then prepare for war.

  15. Re:here's an idea by mark-t · · Score: 2

    First all, reprap doesn't print a printer. It prints a kit which you can assemble into a printer. Sure a kit can be useful, but it's not the same thing as printing an actual usable printer.

    Secondly, reprap prints only the plastic parts of the printer,but misses out on the electronics and few metal components which are actually required to make a complete functional device, and which must be purchased separately.

  16. Teddy Bears by rwa2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  17. Why only US? by wvmarle · · Score: 2

    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.

  18. Re:3D printers are toys. by Immerman · · Score: 2

    An even better solution? Stop buying fragile first-world machines that are designed with the assumption that first-world infrastructure is available. Something like the Global Village Construction Set makes *far* more sense in a developing nation. Sure, you pay as much for your butt-ugly DIY tractor as you would for a second-hand mass-produced model that's probably a bit superior when operating well. But your DIY mostrosity is damn near indestructible, easy to fix if you do break something, and the few complicated parts are bog-standard industrial components so that if something fails you've got lots of sources to get replacements from.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  19. Some of these things are not like the others by Dave+Emami · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
  20. Re:Guns are, what ensures peace by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2

    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
  21. Re:Hmm, Humans are obsessed with 2 things. by godrik · · Score: 2

    maybe you can combine the two obssession into... dildo-bayonettes

  22. Re:Just wanna say by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  23. Re:Oh really? by Beeftopia · · Score: 2

    Guns are a "high karma" device. Capable of great good and great evil.

    On the one hand, they can be used to defend the innocent, save lives, and fight evil. On the other they can be used to kill the innocent, take lives and cause great evil.

  24. Who needs a 3D printer to make a gun? by Roblimo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    $20 or less at Home Depot will buy you everything you need to make a .410 or 12 ga. shotgun. No machining required, either.

  25. Re:Just wanna say by Roblimo · · Score: 2

    "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.

  26. A world without guns is more scary. by JimtownKelly · · Score: 2

    The world is much more peaceful because people are armed.

    --
    -- Jimtown Kelly
  27. The Reason for all the Scaremongering? by advocate_one · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  28. Re:Just wanna say by nospam007 · · Score: 2

    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.