This guy doesn't do this right, if he wants to make better guns of higher quality he shouldn't be printing PARTS for guns, he should be doing something else, printing molds and figuring out ways to use thermal molding and composite materials, like carbon fibers and plastics to make really durable quality parts.
It would be even better if the new machine actually made money, though yes, a penny saved is a penny earned, if the new equipment helps to earn some new money that wasn't earned previously, then you will definitely get attention.
I am sure it would give you those abilities, but probably so would this mask and this one wouldn't even look as weird if you wear it outside. (ok, technically it wouldn't give you any super powers, but it could hide 2 directed microphones and a camera with a nice zoom.
For a business in an actual free market reputation is everything, brand name is everything. The owners of the business know that the only thing that actually is worth something is their brand. If people know that a company has been in the market for years and it consistently puts out good reliable products, then people are more willing to accept that their next product is good and reliable.
I don't know, this story should probably start with "Good news, everyone!" or something similar.
And then the following sentence must put to rest the very idea that the news were in fact any good at all. Something like: Intel processors now will only do computations in ternary reverse polish notation so you have to recode and recompile everything. Good luck now.
He is blaming IBM for government buying its products and services, he is blaming IBM for securing government contracts.
Of-course that is actually true, IBM does that. However it is not true that IBM is a monopoly, it is an economy of scale that is successful in its niche.
Is Google or FB buying mainframes and services from IBM? Very unlikely. There is competition, as per usual, when it is uneconomical to create a fully repeating product or service something much cheaper comes around, same with cheap generic server farms.
And here is a commercial enterprise, doing scientific work in order to achieve some goal in the future of-course, but while having a particular task in mind, they are pushing the envelope of what is known, they discover new things.
No comment in this/. story mentioned that this is a company, a business doing scientific research. That's how all things should be done.
The KGB of the past would have salivated even at the idea of 1/100th of what these modern social networks and products can do to collect private information and crush dissent.
Governments really hate actual money, but they can't even stand the thought that 2 parties may transact without government getting a cut.
If you are a farmer, a manufacturer or any other type of worker, government wants to take a cut of every apple you grow, every product you create, every transaction you engage in. Imagine what politicians see in their dreams: cashless society, every transaction, every move, every step, everything you do is taxed, regulated, licensed, documented and filed.
They even want to get rid of the paper they create, so that you couldn't pay some contractor without reporting a transaction, guess what, the more you tighten the grip, the more will slip through your clenched fist. Bitcoin is an interesting experiment, I expect more and more Internet based currencies of all kinds, the kinds that cannot be traced and tracked and documented and filed.
Once entire supply chains can operate in those, all of a sudden you cut out the toll booth in between all of your transactions. I'd rather see it sooner than later but it will happen eventually.
Denmark spends more per as a percentage of GDP than the USA. I know that it doesn't fit what you WANT to be true, but it turns out reality isn't subject to your fantasy.
- I take it you slept through the part of the comment that addressed the fact that Denmark is using the tax revenue to pay down its debt.
Your argument is nonsense, Denmark is using the revenues to pay down the debt, not to increase government spending. Government spending in Denmark is lowest in decades.
Again, you are mistaken, you don't know where you came from and where you are.
USA has a tax that is over 50% on those who actually pay taxes, and those who do not are getting a subsidy that grows the debt and thus the inflation (money printing), which is what is destroying the US economy in the first place. As a percentage of GDP USA government is spending much more than Denmark, because real GDP in USA is not the number that is given to you. That number includes things that have nothing to do with production, that number is absolutely irrelevant and you can't rely on it for anything. Real GDP in USA has been shrinking for over 2 decades now, USA government spends about twice as much money as it collects in revenues and it prints the difference (Fed is not a private bank, it's a government monopoly on fake credit).
Comparing an actual productive output of a country to a made up number is nonsensical, the only thing that should be looked at when all other numbers are nonsense is the trade deficit or surplus, USA has a deficit of 50 Billion a month, Denmark has a surplus, which it uses to pay down its debt (if it didn't finish paying it down yet), so at least in Denmark the taxes are going towards PAYING THE DEBT.
In USA the taxes and all the debt and inflation go toward growing the government.
Because the government is twice as big, not smaller.
- you are mistaken, you don't know where you are.
Denmark has a trade surplus, not a 50 Billion / month trade deficit. Denmark has a tiny debt compared to its GNP, USA is in a hole that it can't get out of.
You are mistaken that Denmark has a larger government, Denmark has a much smaller government, insignificant by USA standard. Denmark is not fighting wars around the globe, by the way, it doesn't have about 85 or so MILLION unemployed people that could work if it weren't for a huge welfare state.
You should watch something before you come back with other comments.
Real economy is the producing economy, economy that produces products and services, economy that allocates resources according to the overall emerging direction of the market.
You should watch this before you come back with other questions to me.
The fact is that American government is about 80 times the size that it should be, Canadian government is probably 60 times the size that it should be, basically those government should be cut to about 2-4% of their current size and the economies would strive.
But this also means disassembling the existing welfare state (I mean completely dismantling it, kicking people off their government pensions, off government provided health care, shutting down all gov't 'insured' loans, getting rid of public education, public transit, public utilities, public everything.
BTW, for those who don't know it, USA is the LARGEST tax haven in the world. That's right, USA will not collect taxes for foreign governments on money that belongs to foreigners in USA and that is made in USA (capital gains, dividends, etc.) If CRA wants to tax Canadian Bitcoin savers, Canadians can just use USA exchanges.
Quite the opposite is the case, if there was no way to escape government taxes, if there were no tax havens, if there was no way to move money offshore, where government could not put its hands on it, then all taxes would be much higher.
You are under the wrong impression that government just needs that specific money to operate and if you give it that specific money then government will be satisfied and will do what you think it should do.
Nothing is further from the truth, the truth is that government is a way to extract money from the real economy. Every government worker exists only as a parasite appendage to the real economy, and the more the parasite can extract from the real economy the more it will extract.
All the competition among different tax jurisdictions, and yes, among currencies and different types of money prevent government from attempting to take away all of your money. It is a good thing for the Californians that Texas exists (in the context of States within USA itself) and it's a good thing that offshore tax havens exist, it's a good thing that there are other countries with their own banking systems, it's a good thing that there are competing currencies, including Bitcoin, it's because if there was no Texas and no other countries and no offshore zones and no Bitcoin, etc., the taxes would always go up, government spending would always go up, of-course there is a breaking point, when people stop working above table and go underground into black markets (which exist today and also act as competitive markets to the rigged official economies).
CRA is pro-active, not willing to leave a stone unturned, but they are not going to succeed in this case, many transactions will benefit from the pseudo-anonymity that Bitcoins provide, somewhat similar to anonymity that cash provides, and it's a good thing that the government cannot and will not be able to tax everything.
Back in 2004-5 I built a printer from parts that I salvaged from a bunch of printers and photocopiers, bought some very expensive and precise stepping motors, made the base and the entire rig out of steel parts, built electronics around a programmable Atmel processor, had 4 degrees of freedom. Didn't know what to do about the printer head though, that's why my entire experiment came to a halt. Wrote controller software in Java out of all things:) had it process images as if they were printing layers, but never had a printer head, only a holder for it. I tried various materials, mostly experimented with hot glues and waxes.
It never panned out, the machine is in storage, I haven't turned it on since 2007 I think.
That's how some experiments end, I hope yours goes better.
- total reality. That's how all wealth is created in the first place, it's not created by consumption and it's not created by any type of government spending. All wealth is created privately.
Allowing capital
- there is your problem, you think that you have the authority to take fruits of people's labour away from them.
to pool
- it's called capitalism. Private ownership and operation of property. That's what created all the wealth that never existed before, that's what made the society as wealthy as it is today.
allows that capital to buy up all the means of production
- again, means of production are created by capitalists. Some capitalist has to create means of production even if somebody else buys some of them.
driving others out of business
- nonsense, nobody is preventing you from building your own private capital regardless of what others do. In fact you first statement here is what would prevent people from building their businesses, by stealing their own productive output you would drive them out of business.
and further concentrating profits
- in a free market (equal treatment of people by law regardless of their personal circumstances) the profits are only concentrated by businesses that provide the most productive output, give the most bang for the buck. Nobody forces you to buy from one company and avoid buying from another, you are making that choice by comparing their products and the more one company gives you compared to another, the more likely you are to take that deal.
The deluded thinking that you invest in 'new' means of profit generation belongs alongside money trees
- people build new products all the time, they have to build new tools and apply resources efficiently to give you the product and service you want. Apple's iPad didn't exist in nature before the company built it, they didn't remove it from one place and put it into another, they created it. Same with all products and services.
you alter existing, shutting down current business
- we should be so lucky. It is crucial to a healthy market to get rid of inefficient allocations of resources, unfortunately that's exactly what governments prevent from happening, which is why the resources and credit are misallocated, destroying the economy in process.
buy out all access to resource
- the more efficient a company is, the more it can bid to get access to some resources, in a competitive market that's exactly the best thing that can happen.
What's a better use of oil mines, for Greenpeace to have them to their exclusive use or for Standard Oil to buy access to them?
The market says: Standard Oil.
In any case, the market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. I don't need to think about every detail of every transaction, it's impossible and counter-productive. All I need to know is what I pay for the end product.
If one company provides a better price and higher quality, I will buy from them, thus providing them with more profit and encouraging the market to allocate resources to them, thus allowing them to buy more of the resource and give me more of the product I want in return.
forcing out small business
- size of business is irrelevant, only the end price and quality and distribution is relevant.
course use size to brutalise the labour market and corrupt government
- in a free market (market free of government intrusion and preference setting) nobody is different in terms of law. That entire sentence is propaganda, not economics or logic. Nobody is 'brutalising labour market', the companies give you the best opportunity that you can get, otherwi
Paying income related taxes hurts the economy, doesn't help it. There is no such thing as "fair share" when it comes to income or corporate or wealth taxes, none of that is fair at all, it's also unconstitutional, it's collected illegally and it must be stopped. Giving up any amount of money from income, not from consumption, but from production and allowing government to use it for any purpose at all hurts the economy by reducing private capital available for investment and of-course it pushes investment capital somewhere else, especially given the insane regulatory and inflationary environment.
Allowing government to steal income and transfer it in any way at all is what destroys the economy, regardless whether this is done through taxes or through inflation. There should be no federal government spending actually beyond minimum military protection.
Yes, but it's not MS that caused Nokia to tank and it's not MS that is causing USA to tank either. Pretty bad timing though, I would not have taken that job unless I was given a green light to cut all government spending close to 0.
Never mind privacy, all of your rights are off the table. I imagine that fighting this is a bit like fighting windmills, but all this oppression does is it creates more negativity and more negativity will cause more violence.
Cody Wilson is exactly what is needed, he is great. He is NOT violating any laws by making a gun for himself either.
When he succeeds printing a gun, people will pay more attention to 3D printing, it just may be THE killer application (sort of a pun) that will accelerate development of all sorts of 3D printers.
It is a good thing in a sane rational world, it is the insane irrational world that would try to destroy individual freedoms.
Every individual must be able to have any weapon he can acquire, I am talking about every form of weapon, every type of weapon. If a government can have a weapon, the public must be able to acquire it.
That is exactly why 3D printers that can print guns are a GOOD thing, they will be part of the solution to the government oppression. At the minimum hand guns and rifles (machine guns) are weapons that the public must be able to access to fight against the government oppression. Too bad 3D printers can't print missiles and nuclear bombs though (for now), so those will remain tools of oppression in the foreseeable future.
Slashdot Mirror
This guy doesn't do this right, if he wants to make better guns of higher quality he shouldn't be printing PARTS for guns, he should be doing something else, printing molds and figuring out ways to use thermal molding and composite materials, like carbon fibers and plastics to make really durable quality parts.
It would be even better if the new machine actually made money, though yes, a penny saved is a penny earned, if the new equipment helps to earn some new money that wasn't earned previously, then you will definitely get attention.
I am sure it would give you those abilities, but probably so would this mask and this one wouldn't even look as weird if you wear it outside. (ok, technically it wouldn't give you any super powers, but it could hide 2 directed microphones and a camera with a nice zoom.
Some Americans don't need to shoot themselves or anybody and they own and operate more firepower than some small countries.
For a business in an actual free market reputation is everything, brand name is everything. The owners of the business know that the only thing that actually is worth something is their brand. If people know that a company has been in the market for years and it consistently puts out good reliable products, then people are more willing to accept that their next product is good and reliable.
It is EXTREMELY EASY to lose good faith with stupid business decisions.
Of-course governments don't give a shit if your private property is harmed, your business is harmed as long as governments can achieve their oppressive nefarious goals. The worst part is that by not cooperating you are putting yourself into the cross-hairs of the government thugs that are absolutely willing to pull the trigger. Of-course the smaller fish you are, the easier it is to punish you for not giving the government thugs what they want.
I don't know, this story should probably start with "Good news, everyone!" or something similar.
And then the following sentence must put to rest the very idea that the news were in fact any good at all. Something like: Intel processors now will only do computations in ternary reverse polish notation so you have to recode and recompile everything. Good luck now.
He is blaming IBM for government buying its products and services, he is blaming IBM for securing government contracts.
Of-course that is actually true, IBM does that. However it is not true that IBM is a monopoly, it is an economy of scale that is successful in its niche.
Is Google or FB buying mainframes and services from IBM? Very unlikely. There is competition, as per usual, when it is uneconomical to create a fully repeating product or service something much cheaper comes around, same with cheap generic server farms.
And here is a commercial enterprise, doing scientific work in order to achieve some goal in the future of-course, but while having a particular task in mind, they are pushing the envelope of what is known, they discover new things.
No comment in this /. story mentioned that this is a company, a business doing scientific research. That's how all things should be done.
The KGB of the past would have salivated even at the idea of 1/100th of what these modern social networks and products can do to collect private information and crush dissent.
Governments really hate actual money, but they can't even stand the thought that 2 parties may transact without government getting a cut.
If you are a farmer, a manufacturer or any other type of worker, government wants to take a cut of every apple you grow, every product you create, every transaction you engage in. Imagine what politicians see in their dreams: cashless society, every transaction, every move, every step, everything you do is taxed, regulated, licensed, documented and filed.
They even want to get rid of the paper they create, so that you couldn't pay some contractor without reporting a transaction, guess what, the more you tighten the grip, the more will slip through your clenched fist. Bitcoin is an interesting experiment, I expect more and more Internet based currencies of all kinds, the kinds that cannot be traced and tracked and documented and filed.
Once entire supply chains can operate in those, all of a sudden you cut out the toll booth in between all of your transactions. I'd rather see it sooner than later but it will happen eventually.
it's beige
Denmark spends more per as a percentage of GDP than the USA. I know that it doesn't fit what you WANT to be true, but it turns out reality isn't subject to your fantasy.
- I take it you slept through the part of the comment that addressed the fact that Denmark is using the tax revenue to pay down its debt.
Your argument is nonsense, Denmark is using the revenues to pay down the debt, not to increase government spending. Government spending in Denmark is lowest in decades.
Again, you are mistaken, you don't know where you came from and where you are.
USA has a tax that is over 50% on those who actually pay taxes, and those who do not are getting a subsidy that grows the debt and thus the inflation (money printing), which is what is destroying the US economy in the first place. As a percentage of GDP USA government is spending much more than Denmark, because real GDP in USA is not the number that is given to you. That number includes things that have nothing to do with production, that number is absolutely irrelevant and you can't rely on it for anything. Real GDP in USA has been shrinking for over 2 decades now, USA government spends about twice as much money as it collects in revenues and it prints the difference (Fed is not a private bank, it's a government monopoly on fake credit).
Comparing an actual productive output of a country to a made up number is nonsensical, the only thing that should be looked at when all other numbers are nonsense is the trade deficit or surplus, USA has a deficit of 50 Billion a month, Denmark has a surplus, which it uses to pay down its debt (if it didn't finish paying it down yet), so at least in Denmark the taxes are going towards PAYING THE DEBT.
In USA the taxes and all the debt and inflation go toward growing the government.
Because the government is twice as big, not smaller.
- you are mistaken, you don't know where you are.
Denmark has a trade surplus, not a 50 Billion / month trade deficit. Denmark has a tiny debt compared to its GNP, USA is in a hole that it can't get out of.
You are mistaken that Denmark has a larger government, Denmark has a much smaller government, insignificant by USA standard. Denmark is not fighting wars around the globe, by the way, it doesn't have about 85 or so MILLION unemployed people that could work if it weren't for a huge welfare state.
You should watch something before you come back with other comments.
Real economy is the producing economy, economy that produces products and services, economy that allocates resources according to the overall emerging direction of the market.
You should watch this before you come back with other questions to me.
The fact is that American government is about 80 times the size that it should be, Canadian government is probably 60 times the size that it should be, basically those government should be cut to about 2-4% of their current size and the economies would strive.
But this also means disassembling the existing welfare state (I mean completely dismantling it, kicking people off their government pensions, off government provided health care, shutting down all gov't 'insured' loans, getting rid of public education, public transit, public utilities, public everything.
BTW, for those who don't know it, USA is the LARGEST tax haven in the world. That's right, USA will not collect taxes for foreign governments on money that belongs to foreigners in USA and that is made in USA (capital gains, dividends, etc.) If CRA wants to tax Canadian Bitcoin savers, Canadians can just use USA exchanges.
Quite the opposite is the case, if there was no way to escape government taxes, if there were no tax havens, if there was no way to move money offshore, where government could not put its hands on it, then all taxes would be much higher.
You are under the wrong impression that government just needs that specific money to operate and if you give it that specific money then government will be satisfied and will do what you think it should do.
Nothing is further from the truth, the truth is that government is a way to extract money from the real economy. Every government worker exists only as a parasite appendage to the real economy, and the more the parasite can extract from the real economy the more it will extract.
All the competition among different tax jurisdictions, and yes, among currencies and different types of money prevent government from attempting to take away all of your money. It is a good thing for the Californians that Texas exists (in the context of States within USA itself) and it's a good thing that offshore tax havens exist, it's a good thing that there are other countries with their own banking systems, it's a good thing that there are competing currencies, including Bitcoin, it's because if there was no Texas and no other countries and no offshore zones and no Bitcoin, etc., the taxes would always go up, government spending would always go up, of-course there is a breaking point, when people stop working above table and go underground into black markets (which exist today and also act as competitive markets to the rigged official economies).
CRA is pro-active, not willing to leave a stone unturned, but they are not going to succeed in this case, many transactions will benefit from the pseudo-anonymity that Bitcoins provide, somewhat similar to anonymity that cash provides, and it's a good thing that the government cannot and will not be able to tax everything.
Look at this pathetic moderation, completely out of touch with reality.
Here is what you, moderator trolls, need to watch, so that you have something to think about.
Back in 2004-5 I built a printer from parts that I salvaged from a bunch of printers and photocopiers, bought some very expensive and precise stepping motors, made the base and the entire rig out of steel parts, built electronics around a programmable Atmel processor, had 4 degrees of freedom. Didn't know what to do about the printer head though, that's why my entire experiment came to a halt. Wrote controller software in Java out of all things :) had it process images as if they were printing layers, but never had a printer head, only a holder for it. I tried various materials, mostly experimented with hot glues and waxes.
It never panned out, the machine is in storage, I haven't turned it on since 2007 I think.
That's how some experiments end, I hope yours goes better.
Total fantasy.
- total reality. That's how all wealth is created in the first place, it's not created by consumption and it's not created by any type of government spending. All wealth is created privately.
Allowing capital
- there is your problem, you think that you have the authority to take fruits of people's labour away from them.
to pool
- it's called capitalism. Private ownership and operation of property. That's what created all the wealth that never existed before, that's what made the society as wealthy as it is today.
allows that capital to buy up all the means of production
- again, means of production are created by capitalists. Some capitalist has to create means of production even if somebody else buys some of them.
driving others out of business
- nonsense, nobody is preventing you from building your own private capital regardless of what others do. In fact you first statement here is what would prevent people from building their businesses, by stealing their own productive output you would drive them out of business.
and further concentrating profits
- in a free market (equal treatment of people by law regardless of their personal circumstances) the profits are only concentrated by businesses that provide the most productive output, give the most bang for the buck. Nobody forces you to buy from one company and avoid buying from another, you are making that choice by comparing their products and the more one company gives you compared to another, the more likely you are to take that deal.
The deluded thinking that you invest in 'new' means of profit generation belongs alongside money trees
- people build new products all the time, they have to build new tools and apply resources efficiently to give you the product and service you want. Apple's iPad didn't exist in nature before the company built it, they didn't remove it from one place and put it into another, they created it. Same with all products and services.
you alter existing, shutting down current business
- we should be so lucky. It is crucial to a healthy market to get rid of inefficient allocations of resources, unfortunately that's exactly what governments prevent from happening, which is why the resources and credit are misallocated, destroying the economy in process.
buy out all access to resource
- the more efficient a company is, the more it can bid to get access to some resources, in a competitive market that's exactly the best thing that can happen.
What's a better use of oil mines, for Greenpeace to have them to their exclusive use or for Standard Oil to buy access to them?
The market says: Standard Oil.
In any case, the market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. I don't need to think about every detail of every transaction, it's impossible and counter-productive. All I need to know is what I pay for the end product.
If one company provides a better price and higher quality, I will buy from them, thus providing them with more profit and encouraging the market to allocate resources to them, thus allowing them to buy more of the resource and give me more of the product I want in return.
forcing out small business
- size of business is irrelevant, only the end price and quality and distribution is relevant.
course use size to brutalise the labour market and corrupt government
- in a free market (market free of government intrusion and preference setting) nobody is different in terms of law. That entire sentence is propaganda, not economics or logic. Nobody is 'brutalising labour market', the companies give you the best opportunity that you can get, otherwi
Paying income related taxes hurts the economy, doesn't help it. There is no such thing as "fair share" when it comes to income or corporate or wealth taxes, none of that is fair at all, it's also unconstitutional, it's collected illegally and it must be stopped. Giving up any amount of money from income, not from consumption, but from production and allowing government to use it for any purpose at all hurts the economy by reducing private capital available for investment and of-course it pushes investment capital somewhere else, especially given the insane regulatory and inflationary environment.
Allowing government to steal income and transfer it in any way at all is what destroys the economy, regardless whether this is done through taxes or through inflation. There should be no federal government spending actually beyond minimum military protection.
Yes, but it's not MS that caused Nokia to tank and it's not MS that is causing USA to tank either. Pretty bad timing though, I would not have taken that job unless I was given a green light to cut all government spending close to 0.
Never mind privacy, all of your rights are off the table. I imagine that fighting this is a bit like fighting windmills, but all this oppression does is it creates more negativity and more negativity will cause more violence.
Cody Wilson is exactly what is needed, he is great. He is NOT violating any laws by making a gun for himself either.
When he succeeds printing a gun, people will pay more attention to 3D printing, it just may be THE killer application (sort of a pun) that will accelerate development of all sorts of 3D printers.
It is a good thing in a sane rational world, it is the insane irrational world that would try to destroy individual freedoms.
Every individual must be able to have any weapon he can acquire, I am talking about every form of weapon, every type of weapon. If a government can have a weapon, the public must be able to acquire it.
That is exactly why 3D printers that can print guns are a GOOD thing, they will be part of the solution to the government oppression. At the minimum hand guns and rifles (machine guns) are weapons that the public must be able to access to fight against the government oppression. Too bad 3D printers can't print missiles and nuclear bombs though (for now), so those will remain tools of oppression in the foreseeable future.