The student enrolled has a right to that information?
I dunno, maybe I'm seeing it differently. Isn't it a priviledge that the student has access to the information?
I would think that millions of students miss classes, and somehow still get notes, from the TAs, the profs, their friends, etc. This bill makes sense in that it explicitly states that the lecturer/prof has the rights to their work, and that without his or her consent, no one can use their work commercially. This is about the presentation and lecture, and any recordings of them, and not specifically about notes taken during class. I imagine those are fair game, and the rights are assigned to the note-taker, and not the prof, at that point.
But the problem is that the FFMovie is at least a year, if not more, old. Someone knowledgeable know how long they've been working on it?
I would hazard a guess, that at the time, an Octane would have been the price/performance leader-that, or at least some other non-Linux box.
Think 2 years ago, what was a top of the line system on the Intel world? Probably some sort of P2, 300MHz. An Alpha would have been the preferred render box, perhaps, though at the time SGI was certainly a very popular choice. Jurassic Park, for example. Though I do remember hearing that Linux boxen were used for some movies. Anyone with more information? Maybe I'm misremembering my history.
It may very well be that they switch over *now* to Linux boxen to do their serious number crunching/rendering. Say, beowulf clusters of Athlons in a supercooled and controlled chamber? Regardless, you may be right about Octanes. SGI is not something I know much about.
CHAPTER 6.5. UNAUTHORIZED RECORDING, DISSEMINATION, AND
PUBLICATION OF ACADEMIC PRESENTATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES
66450. (a) Except as authorized by policies developed in
accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 66452, no business,
agency, or person, including, but not necessarily limited to, an
enrolled student, shall prepare, cause to be prepared, give, sell,
transfer, or otherwise distribute or publish, for any commercial
purpose, any contemporaneous recording of an academic presentation in
a classroom or equivalent site of instruction by an instructor of
record. This prohibition applies to a recording made in any medium,
including, but not necessarily limited to, handwritten or typewritten
class notes.
It never mentions that a non-commercial entity cannot distribute said materials; it specifically mentions "commercial purpose" as part of the restriction. A lawyer, of course, is free to correct my interpretation.
Another point to defend this is the fact that it mentions "contemporaneous recording" in which it means, IIRC, any recording made at the time of the lecture/presentation.
So distributing handwritten notes(not teacher's notes!) should be okay(except perhaps for the fact that your own copyright is being violated when someone else is distributing your notes), unless that counts as a "contemporaneous recording", though it is lossy, full of interpretation, and not authored at all by the professor/lecturer.
Another point is that the information handed out was not under NDA, for the most part, so any notes one has taken, under free speech and other statutes, is fair game for distribution. They are distributing their own works, and not that of the institution, lecturer, or professor.
I wasn't implying that in the OS world there was no contacts or reps. I was implying that NASDAQ's vendor/software/implementor was M$, out of anyone that they could have used: IBM, Sun, VALinux, etc.
My point was that there was an exploit, in a system, that a hacker found. It wasn't really an issue that it was a M$ problem, other than the implicit acknowledgement that there is the image that M$ code is buggy and unreliable.
Insightful would perhaps talk about what the merits and demerits the M$ OS has, and the alternative OSes have. Or perhaps about their fitness for purpose, rather than vaguely commenting on their fitness.
My own comment is supposed to be insightful. It's supposed to engender insight in people reading on what an insightful comment is supposed to be. Moderate it up, if you moderators want people to read it and note "Gee, he's right. An insightful comment would make me stop and consider something I would not ordinarily consider. Bashing groupthink or M$ is not insightful, because everyone already does that... This is really overrated, or something."
The problem is *not* the July 17th hole, allegedly. It's a different one, that the hacker has thoughtfully chosen not to disclose. Of course, it's his word, but he says it isn't the +htr hole...
It mentions(veracity aside) that the hacker did not use the July 17th exploit. Regardless of M$ or IIS, the hole was something the hacker had found and exploited.
The article also mentions that the hole was fixed and patched promptly; it never mentions if M$ fixed it, if M$ knew about it, or if M$ tried to hide it. All you are doing is spreading misinformation.
This is not about a crack reported in July. M$'s track record is not at issue, regardless of it's purity or lack therof, and M$'s press tactics are not the issue.
I never brought those points into play; I don't disagree with them, but I don't think they are relevent either...
Black Hats vs White Hats: Why is it relevent to the issue? How is it measureable or documented?
About the number of security holes: No one can know about security holes that 'no one' knows about. This is true of all OS/webserver combos. I guess it's relevent that M$ isn't disclosing it's source-but that only means that we cannot fix holes we find.
As fer incentive: Apache provides no incentive to investigate the holes. It is only the case that hackers, white or black, tend to investigate holes for their own reasons, independent of the vendor. NASDAQ is a big enough site that people will try to hack it even if it's running an Open Source package.
Open Source projects doesn't inhibit people from *fixing* security holes. Finding the hole is as easy as exploiting it, and people are always trying to find holes to exploit.
I hope this is early enough to beat all the M$ bashers et al...
The hacker denies using a known security hole. It's still M$'s bad for not *fixing* said hole, but unless the hacker is lying, that problem is not the issue.
Nor is the fact that M$ has a vulnerability-any software of sufficient complexity will have issues, bugs, and vulnerabilities.
It doesn't truly matter that M$ was involved, nor that IIS was in use. In this case, NASDAQ has someone they can talk to, debug, and fix, ultimately, and it was M$. It could have been Sun, IBM, VALinux, whatever. It isn't a bash against M$ that their server had this problem.
A trade secret cannot be protected once it's no longer secret.
But something copyrighted is always copyrighted (unless the owner fails to protect it), so Lucas, regardless of source, can go after *his* property, if someone else uses it or publishes it.
It's still an IP thing, but for now the law is on his side.
If you use your argument, that once the information is out, that free speech takes over...
All music, movies, books, etc, become 'public' property the minute they are released, because they have been 'leaked'. How is a storyboard being posted technologically different than an mp3 or a mpeg of Episode 1? IP rights mean all three are illegal.
I've only seen the letters, and they only talk about stuff like infringing on Lucas's copyrights.:
Dear Sirs:
Lucasfilm Ltd. and its affiliated and related entities (collectively "Lucasfilm")
are the sole and exclusive owners of all rights in the major motion pictures
Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Star Wars: Episode
I--The Phantom Menace, and the forthcoming feature film Star Wars: Episode
II (collectively the "Star Wars Films"). Those motion pictures and the
characters which appear therein are protected by the copyright and
trademark laws of the United States and other nations. It has come to our
attention that you have posted images, story lines, descriptions, and other
material relating to story boards from the production of Star Wars: Episode II
on your World Wide Web site at www.aldera.net and related pages. Pursuant
to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), other federal and state
copyright laws, trademark law, and other statutes, you are hereby notified
that your actions constitute infringement of Lucasfilm's rights. You may also
be in possession of stolen property of Lucasfilm.
We demand that you remove all of the items described above that are
accessible on or through your system or network, accessed by users through
your system or network, or located using your information location tools; and
disable access to any sites fulfilling these criteria. We further demand that
you immediately turn over any Lucasfilm property in your possession to us
and provide us with information regarding the source of the materials. You
must provide written assurance that you will comply with this demand
immediately.
Lucasfilm is the exclusive owner of all relevant rights in and to the Star Wars
Films. Pursuant to the DMCA, we have a good faith belief that any items
falling into the categories identified above infringe Lucasfilm's copyrights and
other intellectual property rights, and are not authorized by Lucasfilm or its
agents. I am authorized to act on Lucasfilm's behalf regarding these matters.
The information provided in this communication is accurate to the best of my
knowledge and is provided under penalty of perjury.
Sincerely,
David J. Anderman
Associate Director of Business Affairs
DJA/lm
It's the *sourcecode*, as it were. It's what makes his movie possible.
Didn't/. complain bitterly when NVIDIA included Open Source material in some of their driver software? What's the difference between someone misusing Lucas's storyboards, and NVIDIA misusing someone else's source?
These storyboards *belong* to Lucas. It is his right and will to publish or not publish them, especially as he owns the copyright and distribution.
It's different than the Lars/MP3/Metallica thing, because he really does own the rights, and not some corporation or distributor.
No one has the right to take his work and use it in ways he does not allow. In an analogous way to say, the GPL. If we allow *anyone* to infringe on Lucas's rights to his works, why would not anyone infringe on the Open Source's rights to their software/source? Why shouldn't NVIDIA include Open Source stuff in their drivers?
It's his. He owns it. He writes it. He makes it. He sells it. He produces it. He makes the special effects for it.
About the only thing worth complaining about is the quality of the movies!
Beyond it's *current* capabilities, certainly. Beyond it's projected capabilities? I dunno. I hope not. It'd be neat to be able to craft together your own MP3 player!
How about a 128mb flash card?
How about a mp3 player?
How about a NIC?
How about a disposable digital camera?
How about a portable radio?
How about an mp3 player with ethernet port, a wireless headphone interface, with 128mb memory?
Think creatively. You don't need moving parts to be cool
The nick is a joke! Really!
Yeah, useless for the common Joe:
on
3D Printers
·
· Score: 2
Like PCs, pagers, cell phones, etc, are useless for the common Joe.
Isn't it up to the market, and the common Joe to decide what is useful and not useful?
Just because *you* can't imagine how this can be used into your life, doesn't mean it's useless.
Say that the process is refined to the point that you can make your own circuit boards(!). That's just... aluminum tracings, plastic boards, copper contacts, etc. Perhaps you can also print onto this your own LEDs, which is more plastic and some silicon substrates... and then print your own resistors, which are just carbon particles... inductors, capacitors, hey, maybe even some simple transistors and microprocessors!
Want an MP3 player? Download the description file from Rio3k.com, print it out, pop in some batteries, print out a 128mb flashdisk, and play!
Or what if you wanted to modify the design? Or had the software to tie the MP3 player to a wireless transmitter? Why not roll out your own? Download the open source MP3 player and hack away!
There are things that can be done with this technology...
The nick is a joke! Really!
Not quite available...
on
3D Printers
·
· Score: 2
The polymer goop stuff is available; the article talks about systems where multiple types of goops and mixes and stuff is put together. This is news, because there isn't anything that does this right now.
It's the difference between... a black and white inkjet, and a 4 color inkjet. While technically the same process, a new procedure and setup is needed to deal with the additional colors and overhead.
In this case, instead of colors, you get metals, cermaics, different types of plastics, and colors
I certainly don't think this comment is redundant, but perhaps overrated?
It should be fairly evident that things can get mixed up. Say, two people look over the list of stories, comment about that PSX2 delay being relevant, and come out of the conversation thinking that they are the ones to approve and post the story...
So what happens is that both get stories into the queue, and don't realize that the other has already submitted/authorized it.
It's not like there's a synchronized list of events anywhere, right?
This setup is slightly different than the standard 3d pringing setup.
While basically the same, it adds the ability to color your print. The developers, if you read the article, had an epiphany-changing colors is not technologically different than changing materials, say soft plastics, hard plastics, ceramics, etc.
It's just a function of chemistry, reactions, computation, storage, etc.
And if, 5 years ago, people were paying 2k+ for computers, it stands to reason, due to inflation and all, that people would be willing to pay 3k+ or so for their PCs today. However, since PCs are actually cheaper, that leaves room for nifty Digicams, wide format color inkjet printers, etc.
The article talks about devices that are closer to a laser printer or inkjet printer, in technology, than the MDX15, which just happens to be a very nice, very advanced milling machine.
It's still about $10k for something that can 'print' 3d objects.
It really depends on how you define a Luddite. If a Luddite is a person who values his life, his culture, his identity over that of pop-mash-culture, over technology and gadgets and constraints, over someone else's fairy tales, then a cyber-column on the internet in a public forum is one of the better places to do this sort of discussion.
If you define a Luddite as a technology fearing/hating/avoiding individual, against change, against growth, against 'progress', then yes, you're quite funny.
Slashdot Mirror
The student enrolled has a right to that information?
I dunno, maybe I'm seeing it differently. Isn't it a priviledge that the student has access to the information?
I would think that millions of students miss classes, and somehow still get notes, from the TAs, the profs, their friends, etc. This bill makes sense in that it explicitly states that the lecturer/prof has the rights to their work, and that without his or her consent, no one can use their work commercially. This is about the presentation and lecture, and any recordings of them, and not specifically about notes taken during class. I imagine those are fair game, and the rights are assigned to the note-taker, and not the prof, at that point.
The nick is a joke! Really!
Though I certainly can't verify it.
But the problem is that the FFMovie is at least a year, if not more, old. Someone knowledgeable know how long they've been working on it?
I would hazard a guess, that at the time, an Octane would have been the price/performance leader-that, or at least some other non-Linux box.
Think 2 years ago, what was a top of the line system on the Intel world? Probably some sort of P2, 300MHz. An Alpha would have been the preferred render box, perhaps, though at the time SGI was certainly a very popular choice. Jurassic Park, for example. Though I do remember hearing that Linux boxen were used for some movies. Anyone with more information? Maybe I'm misremembering my history.
It may very well be that they switch over *now* to Linux boxen to do their serious number crunching/rendering. Say, beowulf clusters of Athlons in a supercooled and controlled chamber? Regardless, you may be right about Octanes. SGI is not something I know much about.
The nick is a joke! Really!
This seems to be the relevent passage:
CHAPTER 6.5. UNAUTHORIZED RECORDING, DISSEMINATION, AND
PUBLICATION OF ACADEMIC PRESENTATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES
66450. (a) Except as authorized by policies developed in
accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 66452, no business,
agency, or person, including, but not necessarily limited to, an
enrolled student, shall prepare, cause to be prepared, give, sell,
transfer, or otherwise distribute or publish, for any commercial
purpose, any contemporaneous recording of an academic presentation in
a classroom or equivalent site of instruction by an instructor of
record. This prohibition applies to a recording made in any medium,
including, but not necessarily limited to, handwritten or typewritten
class notes.
It never mentions that a non-commercial entity cannot distribute said materials; it specifically mentions "commercial purpose" as part of the restriction. A lawyer, of course, is free to correct my interpretation.
Another point to defend this is the fact that it mentions "contemporaneous recording" in which it means, IIRC, any recording made at the time of the lecture/presentation.
So distributing handwritten notes(not teacher's notes!) should be okay(except perhaps for the fact that your own copyright is being violated when someone else is distributing your notes), unless that counts as a "contemporaneous recording", though it is lossy, full of interpretation, and not authored at all by the professor/lecturer.
Another point is that the information handed out was not under NDA, for the most part, so any notes one has taken, under free speech and other statutes, is fair game for distribution. They are distributing their own works, and not that of the institution, lecturer, or professor.
IANAL!
The nick is a joke! Really!
No, I don't believe M$ is very good, either...
I wasn't implying that in the OS world there was no contacts or reps. I was implying that NASDAQ's vendor/software/implementor was M$, out of anyone that they could have used: IBM, Sun, VALinux, etc.
My point was that there was an exploit, in a system, that a hacker found. It wasn't really an issue that it was a M$ problem, other than the implicit acknowledgement that there is the image that M$ code is buggy and unreliable.
The nick is a joke! Really!
It's just a matter of caring enough to make sure the moderation system works. If it works for me, it should work for everyone.
/. useless to me, and prolly useless to others.
If it works well, then I'm happy. If it doesn't work, then it makes
The nick is a joke! Really!
Insightful would perhaps talk about what the merits and demerits the M$ OS has, and the alternative OSes have. Or perhaps about their fitness for purpose, rather than vaguely commenting on their fitness.
My own comment is supposed to be insightful. It's supposed to engender insight in people reading on what an insightful comment is supposed to be. Moderate it up, if you moderators want people to read it and note "Gee, he's right. An insightful comment would make me stop and consider something I would not ordinarily consider. Bashing groupthink or M$ is not insightful, because everyone already does that... This is really overrated, or something."
Oh well. That's my rant ^^
The nick is a joke! Really!
The problem is *not* the July 17th hole, allegedly. It's a different one, that the hacker has thoughtfully chosen not to disclose. Of course, it's his word, but he says it isn't the +htr hole...
The nick is a joke! Really!
Read the article!
It mentions(veracity aside) that the hacker did not use the July 17th exploit. Regardless of M$ or IIS, the hole was something the hacker had found and exploited.
The article also mentions that the hole was fixed and patched promptly; it never mentions if M$ fixed it, if M$ knew about it, or if M$ tried to hide it. All you are doing is spreading misinformation.
This is not about a crack reported in July. M$'s track record is not at issue, regardless of it's purity or lack therof, and M$'s press tactics are not the issue.
Hate M$, but this article is *not* about M$!
If you like the details... read the article.
The nick is a joke! Really!
I never brought those points into play; I don't disagree with them, but I don't think they are relevent either...
Black Hats vs White Hats: Why is it relevent to the issue? How is it measureable or documented?
About the number of security holes: No one can know about security holes that 'no one' knows about. This is true of all OS/webserver combos. I guess it's relevent that M$ isn't disclosing it's source-but that only means that we cannot fix holes we find.
As fer incentive: Apache provides no incentive to investigate the holes. It is only the case that hackers, white or black, tend to investigate holes for their own reasons, independent of the vendor. NASDAQ is a big enough site that people will try to hack it even if it's running an Open Source package.
Open Source projects doesn't inhibit people from *fixing* security holes. Finding the hole is as easy as exploiting it, and people are always trying to find holes to exploit.
The nick is a joke! Really!
I hope this is early enough to beat all the M$ bashers et al...
The hacker denies using a known security hole. It's still M$'s bad for not *fixing* said hole, but unless the hacker is lying, that problem is not the issue.
Nor is the fact that M$ has a vulnerability-any software of sufficient complexity will have issues, bugs, and vulnerabilities.
It doesn't truly matter that M$ was involved, nor that IIS was in use. In this case, NASDAQ has someone they can talk to, debug, and fix, ultimately, and it was M$. It could have been Sun, IBM, VALinux, whatever. It isn't a bash against M$ that their server had this problem.
The nick is a joke! Really!
?
Doesn't Lucas own, uh, LucasFilm? Or is that incorrect?
So if Lucas owns LucasFilm, and LF owns the storyboards...
I don't know about the Songs. I was under the impression that the works were copyrighted to the distributor/producer, and not the singer.
The nick is a joke! Really!
A trade secret cannot be protected once it's no longer secret.
But something copyrighted is always copyrighted (unless the owner fails to protect it), so Lucas, regardless of source, can go after *his* property, if someone else uses it or publishes it.
It's still an IP thing, but for now the law is on his side.
If you use your argument, that once the information is out, that free speech takes over...
All music, movies, books, etc, become 'public' property the minute they are released, because they have been 'leaked'. How is a storyboard being posted technologically different than an mp3 or a mpeg of Episode 1? IP rights mean all three are illegal.
The nick is a joke! Really!
If it has the Star Wars logos, any Star Wars characters, props, emblems, images, or animals...
It's copyrighted to George Lucas. Period. Rancors, light sabers, Jedi Knights, Mandalorian armor, Force tricks, battle droids, etc.
If there is any mention of anything Star Wars, he can prolly get it yanked. Without verification that it is or is not a real storyboard.
The nick is a joke! Really!
You aren't disagreeing with me, right? You do say
"the people who were paying $2k five years ago are now spending $3k now - on computers + good stuff."
So that means there is still a market for people who would buy a 'cheap' rapid prototyper, wide format printers, digicams, camcorders, etc.
That's all I ever said, I think.
The nick is a joke! Really!
I wouldn't know, actually.
I haven't seen the storyboards.
I've only seen the letters, and they only talk about stuff like infringing on Lucas's copyrights.:
Dear Sirs:
Lucasfilm Ltd. and its affiliated and related entities (collectively "Lucasfilm")
are the sole and exclusive owners of all rights in the major motion pictures
Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Star Wars: Episode
I--The Phantom Menace, and the forthcoming feature film Star Wars: Episode
II (collectively the "Star Wars Films"). Those motion pictures and the
characters which appear therein are protected by the copyright and
trademark laws of the United States and other nations. It has come to our
attention that you have posted images, story lines, descriptions, and other
material relating to story boards from the production of Star Wars: Episode II
on your World Wide Web site at www.aldera.net and related pages. Pursuant
to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), other federal and state
copyright laws, trademark law, and other statutes, you are hereby notified
that your actions constitute infringement of Lucasfilm's rights. You may also
be in possession of stolen property of Lucasfilm.
We demand that you remove all of the items described above that are
accessible on or through your system or network, accessed by users through
your system or network, or located using your information location tools; and
disable access to any sites fulfilling these criteria. We further demand that
you immediately turn over any Lucasfilm property in your possession to us
and provide us with information regarding the source of the materials. You
must provide written assurance that you will comply with this demand
immediately.
Lucasfilm is the exclusive owner of all relevant rights in and to the Star Wars
Films. Pursuant to the DMCA, we have a good faith belief that any items
falling into the categories identified above infringe Lucasfilm's copyrights and
other intellectual property rights, and are not authorized by Lucasfilm or its
agents. I am authorized to act on Lucasfilm's behalf regarding these matters.
The information provided in this communication is accurate to the best of my
knowledge and is provided under penalty of perjury.
Sincerely,
David J. Anderman
Associate Director of Business Affairs
DJA/lm
The nick is a joke! Really!
No, they have his storyboards.
/. complain bitterly when NVIDIA included Open Source material in some of their driver software? What's the difference between someone misusing Lucas's storyboards, and NVIDIA misusing someone else's source?
It's the *sourcecode*, as it were. It's what makes his movie possible.
Didn't
The nick is a joke! Really!
These storyboards *belong* to Lucas. It is his right and will to publish or not publish them, especially as he owns the copyright and distribution.
It's different than the Lars/MP3/Metallica thing, because he really does own the rights, and not some corporation or distributor.
No one has the right to take his work and use it in ways he does not allow. In an analogous way to say, the GPL. If we allow *anyone* to infringe on Lucas's rights to his works, why would not anyone infringe on the Open Source's rights to their software/source? Why shouldn't NVIDIA include Open Source stuff in their drivers?
It's his. He owns it. He writes it. He makes it. He sells it. He produces it. He makes the special effects for it.
About the only thing worth complaining about is the quality of the movies!
The nick is a joke! Really!
Link to a post commenting on printable circuit boards"
Beyond it's *current* capabilities, certainly. Beyond it's projected capabilities? I dunno. I hope not. It'd be neat to be able to craft together your own MP3 player!
The nick is a joke! Really!
What can we build with no moving parts?
Hmmm.
How about a 128mb flash card?
How about a mp3 player?
How about a NIC?
How about a disposable digital camera?
How about a portable radio?
How about an mp3 player with ethernet port, a wireless headphone interface, with 128mb memory?
Think creatively. You don't need moving parts to be cool
The nick is a joke! Really!
Like PCs, pagers, cell phones, etc, are useless for the common Joe.
Isn't it up to the market, and the common Joe to decide what is useful and not useful?
Just because *you* can't imagine how this can be used into your life, doesn't mean it's useless.
Say that the process is refined to the point that you can make your own circuit boards(!). That's just... aluminum tracings, plastic boards, copper contacts, etc. Perhaps you can also print onto this your own LEDs, which is more plastic and some silicon substrates... and then print your own resistors, which are just carbon particles... inductors, capacitors, hey, maybe even some simple transistors and microprocessors!
Want an MP3 player? Download the description file from Rio3k.com, print it out, pop in some batteries, print out a 128mb flashdisk, and play!
Or what if you wanted to modify the design? Or had the software to tie the MP3 player to a wireless transmitter? Why not roll out your own? Download the open source MP3 player and hack away!
There are things that can be done with this technology...
The nick is a joke! Really!
The polymer goop stuff is available; the article talks about systems where multiple types of goops and mixes and stuff is put together. This is news, because there isn't anything that does this right now.
It's the difference between... a black and white inkjet, and a 4 color inkjet. While technically the same process, a new procedure and setup is needed to deal with the additional colors and overhead.
In this case, instead of colors, you get metals, cermaics, different types of plastics, and colors
The nick is a joke! Really!
I certainly don't think this comment is redundant, but perhaps overrated?
It should be fairly evident that things can get mixed up. Say, two people look over the list of stories, comment about that PSX2 delay being relevant, and come out of the conversation thinking that they are the ones to approve and post the story...
So what happens is that both get stories into the queue, and don't realize that the other has already submitted/authorized it.
It's not like there's a synchronized list of events anywhere, right?
The nick is a joke! Really!
This setup is slightly different than the standard 3d pringing setup.
While basically the same, it adds the ability to color your print. The developers, if you read the article, had an epiphany-changing colors is not technologically different than changing materials, say soft plastics, hard plastics, ceramics, etc.
It's just a function of chemistry, reactions, computation, storage, etc.
And if, 5 years ago, people were paying 2k+ for computers, it stands to reason, due to inflation and all, that people would be willing to pay 3k+ or so for their PCs today. However, since PCs are actually cheaper, that leaves room for nifty Digicams, wide format color inkjet printers, etc.
The nick is a joke! Really!
The article talks about devices that are closer to a laser printer or inkjet printer, in technology, than the MDX15, which just happens to be a very nice, very advanced milling machine.
It's still about $10k for something that can 'print' 3d objects.
The nick is a joke! Really!
It really depends on how you define a Luddite. If a Luddite is a person who values his life, his culture, his identity over that of pop-mash-culture, over technology and gadgets and constraints, over someone else's fairy tales, then a cyber-column on the internet in a public forum is one of the better places to do this sort of discussion.
If you define a Luddite as a technology fearing/hating/avoiding individual, against change, against growth, against 'progress', then yes, you're quite funny.
The nick is a joke! Really!