Depending on the use case you pick, there are processes which are inherently faster and higher quality, even for raised lettering, that already exist - just like for PCBs and books.
Additive manufacturing is generally only efficient at producing shapes on a one-off basis if they vary along more than two axes, on a bulk basis if they are impossible to manufacture by other means, or in the narrow margin in between where the batch is too small to take advantage of other scalable processes. It turns out that in real life there are very few things we use that match those criteria, and not many things that do that we would use if only it were easier to make them.
So now we're using 3D printers to make things that are already printed in real life?
Next week, a 3D-printed book. No ink, kids! Just delicious ABS plastic pages with the letters raised from the surface.
All told, this works quite well as a parable for why the benefits of 3D printing will not lead to everyone manufacturing all their own consumer products at home, nor will manufacturers be replacing any substantial volume of their processes with 3D printing.
...because nothing would be better for privacy than giving anyone with a computer a robust means to connect a stranger to any identity they posted publicly online with a photo ever.
Would you mind expanding on what humans use for face recognition that isn't yet present in software algorithms? I'm sure you know what you're talking about but it seems counterintuitive to me when I perceive most painted portraits to reproduce faces just as faithfully as a candid, poorly-lit Facebook photo, the latter of which is easily recognised by software.
There are plenty of airlines still around who happily charge you more and are suitably more comfortable to fly with. I suspect the truth is that faced with the cheaper airlines on offer, even you are prepared to put up with the sound of your own voice complaining about it than pay what it actually costs for good service. Also, what airline has ever turned away babies?
No employees truly offended? What planet is this man on?
Maybe one with employees of asset management firms who expect writing to be consistent with context, and would realise from this that something was wrong with the email? Or at least ones who would spot the subject line of the next email in their inbox which I presume went along the line of "OOPSIES!"
Slow down there, champ. Despite TFA being headlined "[FULL TEXT]", the full contents of the email doesn't appear in the article.
The link to Reuters in the article doesn't either, but contains the following statement from Aviva's spokesman: "An email which was intended for a member of staff who was leaving today was accidentally sent to all Aviva Investors staff worldwide."
In other words, the intended recipient was well aware he/she was leaving, not even necessarily fired, and a form letter is used to lay out information outgoing staff need to be aware of. Worth a giggle at how for a moment it might have looked like all the staff had received a surprise sacking, but not really an excuse to get out your pet grievance about large organisational structures.
When are nerds going to accept that "hacking" has a perfectly legitimate second meaning? It is really really simple. If the object of the hacking is a technology, you can carry on using the maker-hobbyist-anorak definition. But when the object is an individual or a group using some sort of electronic security, hacking means compromising that security in whatever way you want. If the hacking is being done "into" something, there is no ambiguity at all. This has been the understood meaning ever since people who don't know how to hack in any form have had cause to talk about hacking.
I'm not a physicist, but your argument doesn't sound like any excuse to call RF "ionizing radiation". If you can only throw a ball halfway out of a well, and you throw a ball to someone reaching halfway into it from the top, you don't call that "throwing a ball out of a well".
Were "well-established physical laws" broken the first time man escaped Earth's gravitational field?
Our understanding of science is still largely limited to conditions that we can reproduce, and this continues to put very few absolute bounds on what physical processes absolutely cannot occur, even without some completely immeasurable "magic" force existing.
This doesn't make a whole lot of difference to the best arguments for either theism or atheism, but we can do without the tired "breaking the laws of physics" trope.
I've stood right under a turbine. They don't make any noise apart from the wind blowing across the blades. Anything makes a noise when wind blows past it, even the ground.
Neither the ground, nor many other natural obstacles to the wind, are hollow, stiff, slender structures with an apparent wind speed enhanced by its own rotation. Aeroacoustic noise in wind turbines is improving, and outside the regulated exclusion zone maybe it should not be a big deal to residents, but it's not as simple as apparently you think it is.
Turbines turn with the wind. To make low frequency throbbing noises like the NIMBYs claim they'd have to have a motor inside them and actively push the air around.
Or, you know, an electric generator that needs to spin dozens of times faster than the blades, and a gearbox to connect the two. As far as I'm aware, gearbox noise is still as significant an issue as aeroacoustic noise. That is to say, no big deal at all if you keep residents at an appropriate distance and NIMBYs at an even greater distance. But did I mention it's not as simple as apparently you think it is?
The only downside is a constant slightly-condescending tone. You could probably end each report on the US elections with "Silly Americans, thinking they know how to form a system of government." and it would fit perfectly.
Well, we have to use something to cheer ourselves up about the state of our government, and the state of yours is just the ticket!
The BBC's approach to neutrality is generally to take the status quo, incumbent position or majority view, whichever exists in this order, and to present it with counterpoints. This inevitably gives a perception of bias in whichever areas you're most opposed to the prevailing position, but you try coming up with a fairer way than that to discuss things. Of course they don't do a perfect job but it's hard to think of any of their peers that even comes close.
If I didn't know better I'd say this is a deliberate caricature of the misappropriated hype around 3D printers.
3D printers are good for making unique parts. As soon as the worldwide demand for a part exceeds more than about 100, the time and energy cost of manufacture per part will exceed the cost of tooling up one of the many mass manufacture processes available to make the part in bulk. That is highly unlikely to change - not least because the better 3D printing gets, the quicker and cheaper it gets to make the unique tools for a bulk operation.
If it wasn't for the total unsuitability of 3D printing for press fit interfaces, this might have had a niche application for circumventing the IP restrictions on establishing a mass manufacture operation. As it is, it's just another chapter in the myth that one day we will download and manufacture most of our own hardware at home. The world is a big place with a lot of people in it, and against the odds we are actually relatively efficient at cooperating with each other when it comes to products that lots of us want.
The prices offered for iPhones on the linked AT&T page may "vary by a factor of 376" but that's because some of the phone's value is embedded in the contractual commitments that come with it when offered at lower prices. You have two choices: use the "no commitment" price, or take the total value of the two-year contract and try to subtract the value of an equivalent plan with no handset. I doubt there is much difference at all.
Those attacks have already succeeded by the time you notice the symptom, so in large part you are right, but it really doesnt matter.
It matters whether I'm still feeding my credentials to a keylogger or not. It's just progressively less likely that I am the longer it goes without any holes appearing in my bank balance.
Uninstalling an antivirus package when some unknown problem is causing it to shut itself off seems like a Bad Idea if you can avoid it. It's been long enough to reassure me that it was a software malfunction as opposed to some aggressive self-defence strategy by some malware, but I'm sure there are attacks out there which would have left me locked out if I responded in the same way.
Ultimately, the only practical advice I got was the most generic possible, which also happens to require the least effort from the guy in the callcentre. Everything else that was said, including about getting serviced, was part of a sales pitch for something I didn't need.
Where exactly do I insinuate that Apple Records has anything to do with Apple Computer? The only facts I see that need straightening is your use of the term "Apple Records (previously Apple Corps)". This is like playing Chinese Whispers except apparently it only takes one person to completely turn my words on their head.
I thought it was great when I was having problems with Avast a few months ago and found that there was 24/7 free telephone support for a product that I hadn't paid for. Guess the alarm bells should have been ringing sooner than they had.
For reasons unknown to this day the background protection process reported itself to be disabled and refused to turn on. I thought there might be some advanced diagnostics that would explain why it was behaving like that without any UI feedback. Instead, I was asked when I had "last had my machine serviced" and how long my computer takes to boot. Then we ran a piece of remote desktop software and he sifted through my task manager, raising flags with every bloaty, but otherwise innocuous, process like "iTunes Helper" and then poring over registry entries from uninstalled software that had been bundled with the machine.
It took about half an hour to confirm that the best advice I was going to get was to reinstall the software, and about five seconds after that to hang up as he started listing price plans for the various service contracts that he seemed to think were what I really called to ask about.
Slashdot Mirror
Depending on the use case you pick, there are processes which are inherently faster and higher quality, even for raised lettering, that already exist - just like for PCBs and books.
Additive manufacturing is generally only efficient at producing shapes on a one-off basis if they vary along more than two axes, on a bulk basis if they are impossible to manufacture by other means, or in the narrow margin in between where the batch is too small to take advantage of other scalable processes. It turns out that in real life there are very few things we use that match those criteria, and not many things that do that we would use if only it were easier to make them.
Or indeed a Refreshable Braille display which lets you read "eBooks", among other things, without printing them out at all.
So now we're using 3D printers to make things that are already printed in real life?
Next week, a 3D-printed book. No ink, kids! Just delicious ABS plastic pages with the letters raised from the surface.
All told, this works quite well as a parable for why the benefits of 3D printing will not lead to everyone manufacturing all their own consumer products at home, nor will manufacturers be replacing any substantial volume of their processes with 3D printing.
Sorry, but where, exactly? Sounds like you just made that up.
...because nothing would be better for privacy than giving anyone with a computer a robust means to connect a stranger to any identity they posted publicly online with a photo ever.
Would you mind expanding on what humans use for face recognition that isn't yet present in software algorithms? I'm sure you know what you're talking about but it seems counterintuitive to me when I perceive most painted portraits to reproduce faces just as faithfully as a candid, poorly-lit Facebook photo, the latter of which is easily recognised by software.
There are plenty of airlines still around who happily charge you more and are suitably more comfortable to fly with. I suspect the truth is that faced with the cheaper airlines on offer, even you are prepared to put up with the sound of your own voice complaining about it than pay what it actually costs for good service. Also, what airline has ever turned away babies?
No employees truly offended? What planet is this man on?
Maybe one with employees of asset management firms who expect writing to be consistent with context, and would realise from this that something was wrong with the email? Or at least ones who would spot the subject line of the next email in their inbox which I presume went along the line of "OOPSIES!"
Slow down there, champ. Despite TFA being headlined "[FULL TEXT]", the full contents of the email doesn't appear in the article.
The link to Reuters in the article doesn't either, but contains the following statement from Aviva's spokesman: "An email which was intended for a member of staff who was leaving today was accidentally sent to all Aviva Investors staff worldwide."
In other words, the intended recipient was well aware he/she was leaving, not even necessarily fired, and a form letter is used to lay out information outgoing staff need to be aware of. Worth a giggle at how for a moment it might have looked like all the staff had received a surprise sacking, but not really an excuse to get out your pet grievance about large organisational structures.
So by "already done before" you mean "not really"?
No, not really.
Maybe not to the President, for all of your elected officials below him it does seem to work.
If your letter is unexceptional, it may be it actually has a marginally higher probability of getting read if it's written to this President.
I didn't think you had to have a solution to object to making things profoundly worse.
When are nerds going to accept that "hacking" has a perfectly legitimate second meaning? It is really really simple. If the object of the hacking is a technology, you can carry on using the maker-hobbyist-anorak definition. But when the object is an individual or a group using some sort of electronic security, hacking means compromising that security in whatever way you want. If the hacking is being done "into" something, there is no ambiguity at all. This has been the understood meaning ever since people who don't know how to hack in any form have had cause to talk about hacking.
I'm not a physicist, but your argument doesn't sound like any excuse to call RF "ionizing radiation". If you can only throw a ball halfway out of a well, and you throw a ball to someone reaching halfway into it from the top, you don't call that "throwing a ball out of a well".
Were "well-established physical laws" broken the first time man escaped Earth's gravitational field?
Our understanding of science is still largely limited to conditions that we can reproduce, and this continues to put very few absolute bounds on what physical processes absolutely cannot occur, even without some completely immeasurable "magic" force existing.
This doesn't make a whole lot of difference to the best arguments for either theism or atheism, but we can do without the tired "breaking the laws of physics" trope.
I've stood right under a turbine. They don't make any noise apart from the wind blowing across the blades. Anything makes a noise when wind blows past it, even the ground.
Neither the ground, nor many other natural obstacles to the wind, are hollow, stiff, slender structures with an apparent wind speed enhanced by its own rotation. Aeroacoustic noise in wind turbines is improving, and outside the regulated exclusion zone maybe it should not be a big deal to residents, but it's not as simple as apparently you think it is.
Turbines turn with the wind. To make low frequency throbbing noises like the NIMBYs claim they'd have to have a motor inside them and actively push the air around.
Or, you know, an electric generator that needs to spin dozens of times faster than the blades, and a gearbox to connect the two. As far as I'm aware, gearbox noise is still as significant an issue as aeroacoustic noise. That is to say, no big deal at all if you keep residents at an appropriate distance and NIMBYs at an even greater distance. But did I mention it's not as simple as apparently you think it is?
The only downside is a constant slightly-condescending tone. You could probably end each report on the US elections with "Silly Americans, thinking they know how to form a system of government." and it would fit perfectly.
Well, we have to use something to cheer ourselves up about the state of our government, and the state of yours is just the ticket!
The BBC's approach to neutrality is generally to take the status quo, incumbent position or majority view, whichever exists in this order, and to present it with counterpoints. This inevitably gives a perception of bias in whichever areas you're most opposed to the prevailing position, but you try coming up with a fairer way than that to discuss things. Of course they don't do a perfect job but it's hard to think of any of their peers that even comes close.
Deem too much effort
If I didn't know better I'd say this is a deliberate caricature of the misappropriated hype around 3D printers.
3D printers are good for making unique parts. As soon as the worldwide demand for a part exceeds more than about 100, the time and energy cost of manufacture per part will exceed the cost of tooling up one of the many mass manufacture processes available to make the part in bulk. That is highly unlikely to change - not least because the better 3D printing gets, the quicker and cheaper it gets to make the unique tools for a bulk operation.
If it wasn't for the total unsuitability of 3D printing for press fit interfaces, this might have had a niche application for circumventing the IP restrictions on establishing a mass manufacture operation. As it is, it's just another chapter in the myth that one day we will download and manufacture most of our own hardware at home. The world is a big place with a lot of people in it, and against the odds we are actually relatively efficient at cooperating with each other when it comes to products that lots of us want.
The prices offered for iPhones on the linked AT&T page may "vary by a factor of 376" but that's because some of the phone's value is embedded in the contractual commitments that come with it when offered at lower prices. You have two choices: use the "no commitment" price, or take the total value of the two-year contract and try to subtract the value of an equivalent plan with no handset. I doubt there is much difference at all.
Those attacks have already succeeded by the time you notice the symptom, so in large part you are right, but it really doesnt matter.
It matters whether I'm still feeding my credentials to a keylogger or not. It's just progressively less likely that I am the longer it goes without any holes appearing in my bank balance.
Uninstalling an antivirus package when some unknown problem is causing it to shut itself off seems like a Bad Idea if you can avoid it. It's been long enough to reassure me that it was a software malfunction as opposed to some aggressive self-defence strategy by some malware, but I'm sure there are attacks out there which would have left me locked out if I responded in the same way.
Ultimately, the only practical advice I got was the most generic possible, which also happens to require the least effort from the guy in the callcentre. Everything else that was said, including about getting serviced, was part of a sales pitch for something I didn't need.
Where exactly do I insinuate that Apple Records has anything to do with Apple Computer? The only facts I see that need straightening is your use of the term "Apple Records (previously Apple Corps)". This is like playing Chinese Whispers except apparently it only takes one person to completely turn my words on their head.
I thought it was great when I was having problems with Avast a few months ago and found that there was 24/7 free telephone support for a product that I hadn't paid for. Guess the alarm bells should have been ringing sooner than they had.
For reasons unknown to this day the background protection process reported itself to be disabled and refused to turn on. I thought there might be some advanced diagnostics that would explain why it was behaving like that without any UI feedback. Instead, I was asked when I had "last had my machine serviced" and how long my computer takes to boot. Then we ran a piece of remote desktop software and he sifted through my task manager, raising flags with every bloaty, but otherwise innocuous, process like "iTunes Helper" and then poring over registry entries from uninstalled software that had been bundled with the machine.
It took about half an hour to confirm that the best advice I was going to get was to reinstall the software, and about five seconds after that to hang up as he started listing price plans for the various service contracts that he seemed to think were what I really called to ask about.
They will not be missed...