Anyone who can afford a 3D printer can easily buy a gun.
But can they buy a dozen guns? Or a hundred? You are conflating the tool that makes the gun with the gun itself.
3D Printers are under 1000, and http://store.makerbot.com/replicator2.html>decent ones are approaching $2000. Mark my words, Soon the media will require licenses to buy, tagging, and federal monitoring of sales. And not just because of guns.
Why did we not hear this fear mongering about home CNC machines,
Because they require skill to operate.
With more and more parts of the gun (and just about anything else) being available to download over the net, and less and less need for metal portions at all, anyone with the price of a printer and off the shelf software will be able to print and fit together just about anything. The price of 3D printers is slipping under the $1000 dollar mark, $2000 for a good enough quality one for the task at hand.
CNC machines aren't getting dramatically cheaper, or less complicated to run. 3D printers are.
Don't get me wrong, I think this is a good idea. Even for guns. The idea that gun tracking is going to cut down on murders is folly.
Where ATF is missing the mark is that these printed guns are already good enough for the planned murder or bank hold up, hijacking, etc, where getting off one or two rounds is all the perp is interested in. In other words, one could make the argument that untraceable guns are more likely to be used in a crime than a traceable one.
Or one could make the argument that I watch too much TV.
Here's a wild thought guys: maybe the reason everyone was using google reader was because it did one thing and did it well, and didn't bug us about "LOGIN NOW with your Facebook, Tumblr, Hacker News, Reddit, LinkedIn, twitter, G+, Digg, stumbleupon, orkut, myspace, grindr, flickr, picassa, slashdot, memebase, youtube, fox news, and social security number to proceed."
Exactly!
I detest social media inclusion in my reading list, (or anything else for that matter). I'm an adult, and don't need my friends approval or recommendations on what to read.
The problem is that Google hasn't found a way to monetize Reader, and they want to replace it with features in Google Plus, where they can package you and sell you to advertisers.
To date there is no good replacement for Google reader. They all want to foist image laden feeds to your reading list, because they believe you are illiterate and can't follow any story that doesn't start with pictures. That is not what RSS is about.
As long as you read on only one device and don't need cross-device syncing, there are some passable rss reader apps out there, but none that come close to the simplicity and purity of Google Reader.
Normally no consumer system should have any effect on aviation electronics. I always thought even the FAA understood this, and the worry is over electronics that may not be functioning correctly.
The only reason for banning cell phones on airplanes are regulations by the FCC, not the FAA. Cell phones a mile up can light up to many towers simultaneously, and the cell transfer protocols were never designed to handle hand-off over hundreds of towers when all of them have equal signal strength. Earlier cell tower systems could not handle this.
As for the regulations on other electronics, these were always FAA regulations based on two different sections of the existing regulations (FAR).
The first objection dealt with objects flying around the cabin in turbulence or a hard landing, the second had to do with interference fears, largely unfounded, but in a couple in instances where pilots were able to trace a small navigation disturbance to an electronic game of a kid sitting in first class. Boeing bought the device off of the kid, tried to replicate the problem and never could. Still they left these regulations in place rather than opening Pandora's box to every possible device.
They weakened their own case when the let computers be used in flight (although still not in takeoff and landing, in deference to the flying object concerns). Laptops are RF nightmares, yet they allow them in flight. They have 30 years of data (or the lack thereof) showing no interference from digital devices.
Google doesn't provide resource management capabilities of Landsat spectral images. Read the second link in the story, scrolling down to the second image where they start explaining all the different capabilities.
Google deliberately gets rid of those layers as they optimize only on human vision imagery.
Also, don't discount the probability that the images shown on NASAs sight are not at the maximum resolution possible.
I really don't see much difference between these photos and what is available on Google Earth. How much did NASA pay for this?
If you don't see the difference, you aren't trying very hard. Google earth pictures are much more detailed, but eliminate the spectral information that Landsat concentrates on.
The ones on google earth not only show the same horseshoe reservoir, but also allow you to zoom in to see a power boat pulling a water skier.
this bank could conceivably leak banking data out to that Chinese ISP!
This seems unlikely because their own router would prevent that, because it thinks those addresses are internal. However, something arriving from the outside from the REAL owner of that range would appear as a martian source, and not all routers handle this properly. Some log it and let it thru, others reject it. Its a mess.
They are supposed to be. But read what gmusiera said in his first sentence.
For your internal address (inside your router, you typically use a Private Network Address from one of the common ranges specifically set aside for this per RFC 1819.
This bank instead chose a public address range that was not theirs and used that as their private range. You can get away with this in a NAT situation, because only YOUR OWN ROUTER knows about this.
But it is monumentally dumb to do this. I've seen noob admins do this in the past just to avoid an RFC1819 address space internally, usually as a means to avoid a routing error that they didn't understand. Its never justified. And there are security implications and mind bogglingly hard to figure out routing errors if you have to actually deal with the real owner of the address space.
Old people aren't getting into anything that small unless it has 6 carrying handles. If you need a helmet to drive it, you are already on the wrong track.
You phrase it as "duplication", when it was in fact a fully licensed publication printed in a foreign country at a much cheaper price.
This was never really a copyright issue perse, the rights owners had already licensed the right to copy (print) the works abroad. At issue was the rights holders claim to the right to control subsequent resale of the books. A pure first sale doctrine issue.
They wanted to divide the market to set prices differently in different markets, sort of like the movie industry. (Those guys must be worried about now).
You break in, steal half a million account credentials, and turn around and sell the list on the Internet to as many people as you can as quickly as you can. You don't want to put any more traffic on the site yourself once you score the account logins. Its easy to search for these lists for sale if you know where.
But breaking in, and stealing several hundred thousand account credentials counts as hacking by just about anyone's definition. Or don't you read the press?
A lot of Chinese companies are real s**ts, and a lot of Chinese companies make their own Android handsets.
IMHO, follow the money. It will be paid for troll turf from one of the China handset makers.
Also why do you think the Chinese government is some sort of magic all seeing, all acting entity? Realistically they want to project that image, but part of the reason China is such a wild west is because the Chinese government is so corrupt and no-seeing.
That's why companies like this don't fear smear tactics. Because they can always pay a bribe and walk away.
If you ask me its it's no different than the fawning western press suddenly showing up with Apple articles when any other phone manufacturers release new phones. With nothing new on the table or in the product pipeline, you can count on at least a half dozen stories showing up in newspapers, websites, and blogs when ever Apple feels a little bit left out or needs some good news to counter some new product push from some random Android manufacturer.
Convince me these don't start with a phonecall from apple headquarters, or an email marked confidential, listing story "ideas" and a "must be published by" date.
If anything this is probably the Chinese government or some manufacturer taking a card out of Apple's playbook and doing it poorly.
Unfortunately here on Slashdot, moderation is simply a way of stamping DISAGREE ona view point without having to do any intellectual lifting.
People refuse to even consider an opposing view point over the Internet with anonymous posters even when they would never take such an intrenched stance with that same person in a face to face conversation.
And the Internet is a big enough place that even real names would make no difference, especially to an opponent in another state, country, or continent.
I don't think anonymity is the problem.
The problem is the ability to post your view Complete with insults and vitriol, the close the browser an walk away with the smug feeling that you Won the Internet.
While I don't disagree with your assertion regarding gullibility, I want to point out that gullibility is largely social phenomenon, having little to do with intelligence.
Given a population of uniform intelligence, some portion of the population will spend a great deal of effort attempting to hoodwink the rest of the population.
Society progresses by allowing subsequent generations to rely on the learning of prior generations, so that each person does not have to invent fire or the wheel all over again.
There is a built in bias toward relying on so called common knowledge. This makes it easy for some to manipulate millions into believing something by merely wrapping something in more or less reasonable approximations of plausibility.
Even with universally identical intelligence, the hoodwinkers have equal weaponry.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who can afford a 3D printer can easily buy a gun.
But can they buy a dozen guns? Or a hundred?
You are conflating the tool that makes the gun with the gun itself.
3D Printers are under 1000, and http://store.makerbot.com/replicator2.html>decent ones are approaching $2000.
Mark my words, Soon the media will require licenses to buy, tagging, and federal monitoring of sales. And not just because of guns.
Why did we not hear this fear mongering about home CNC machines,
Because they require skill to operate.
With more and more parts of the gun (and just about anything else) being available to download over the net, and less and less need for metal portions at all, anyone with the price of a printer and off the shelf software will be able to print and fit together just about anything. The price of 3D printers is slipping under the $1000 dollar mark, $2000 for a good enough quality one for the task at hand.
CNC machines aren't getting dramatically cheaper, or less complicated to run. 3D printers are.
Don't get me wrong, I think this is a good idea. Even for guns. The idea that gun tracking is going to cut down on murders is folly.
because you can't save your brass, and make your own...
But that doesn't matter to the user. Only the final product matters for the users intended purpose.
Nor is that germain to your purpose when using Google Earth. You really don't care. All that counts is resolution on the ground.
Where ATF is missing the mark is that these printed guns are already good enough for the planned murder or bank hold up, hijacking, etc, where getting off one or two rounds is all the perp is interested in. In other words, one could make the argument that untraceable guns are more likely to be used in a crime than a traceable one.
Or one could make the argument that I watch too much TV.
Here's a wild thought guys: maybe the reason everyone was using google reader was because it did one thing and did it well, and didn't bug us about "LOGIN NOW with your Facebook, Tumblr, Hacker News, Reddit, LinkedIn, twitter, G+, Digg, stumbleupon, orkut, myspace, grindr, flickr, picassa, slashdot, memebase, youtube, fox news, and social security number to proceed."
Exactly!
I detest social media inclusion in my reading list, (or anything else for that matter). I'm an adult, and don't need my friends approval or recommendations on what to read.
The problem is that Google hasn't found a way to monetize Reader, and they want to replace it with features in Google Plus, where they can package you and sell you to advertisers.
To date there is no good replacement for Google reader. They all want to foist image laden feeds to your reading list, because they believe you are illiterate and can't follow any story that doesn't start with pictures. That is not what RSS is about.
As long as you read on only one device and don't need cross-device syncing, there are some passable rss reader apps out there, but none that come close to the simplicity and purity of Google Reader.
No, they found just the opposite, and durther they found that the ruling came from the FCC just as I posted.
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/cell-phones-interfere-plane-instruments.htm
Normally no consumer system should have any effect on aviation electronics. I always thought even the FAA understood this, and the worry is over electronics that may not be functioning correctly.
The only reason for banning cell phones on airplanes are regulations by the FCC, not the FAA. Cell phones a mile up can light up to many towers simultaneously, and the cell transfer protocols were never designed to handle hand-off over hundreds of towers when all of them have equal signal strength. Earlier cell tower systems could not handle this.
As for the regulations on other electronics, these were always FAA regulations based on two different sections of the existing regulations (FAR).
The first objection dealt with objects flying around the cabin in turbulence or a hard landing, the second had to do with interference fears, largely unfounded, but in a couple in instances where pilots were able to trace a small navigation disturbance to an electronic game of a kid sitting in first class. Boeing bought the device off of the kid, tried to replicate the problem and never could. Still they left these regulations in place rather than opening Pandora's box to every possible device.
They weakened their own case when the let computers be used in flight (although still not in takeoff and landing, in deference to the flying object concerns). Laptops are RF nightmares, yet they allow them in flight. They have 30 years of data (or the lack thereof) showing no interference from digital devices.
Google doesn't provide resource management capabilities of Landsat spectral images. Read the second link in the story, scrolling down to the second image where they start explaining all the different capabilities.
Google deliberately gets rid of those layers as they optimize only on human vision imagery.
Also, don't discount the probability that the images shown on NASAs sight are not at the maximum resolution possible.
I really don't see much difference between these photos and what is available on Google Earth. How much did NASA pay for this?
If you don't see the difference, you aren't trying very hard. Google earth pictures are much more detailed, but eliminate the spectral information that Landsat concentrates on.
The ones on google earth not only show the same horseshoe reservoir, but also allow you to zoom in to see a power boat pulling a water skier.
DOH! Can I get a pass for being lisdexic?
Define Exhausted all private Address space?
In just the 10 block alone there are 16,777,216. This bank isn't that big.
this bank could conceivably leak banking data out to that Chinese ISP!
This seems unlikely because their own router would prevent that, because it thinks those addresses are internal.
However, something arriving from the outside from the REAL owner of that range would appear as a martian source, and not all routers handle this properly. Some log it and let it thru, others reject it. Its a mess.
They are supposed to be.
But read what gmusiera said in his first sentence.
For your internal address (inside your router, you typically use a Private Network Address from one of the common ranges specifically set aside for this per RFC 1819.
This bank instead chose a public address range that was not theirs and used that as their private range. You can get away with this in a NAT situation, because only YOUR OWN ROUTER knows about this.
But it is monumentally dumb to do this.
I've seen noob admins do this in the past just to avoid an RFC1819 address space internally, usually as a means to avoid a routing error that they didn't understand. Its never justified. And there are security implications and mind bogglingly hard to figure out routing errors if you have to actually deal with the real owner of the address space.
Old people aren't getting into anything that small unless it has 6 carrying handles. If you need a helmet to drive it, you are already on the wrong track.
You phrase it as "duplication", when it was in fact a fully licensed publication printed in a foreign country at a much cheaper price.
This was never really a copyright issue perse, the rights owners had already licensed the right to copy (print) the works abroad.
At issue was the rights holders claim to the right to control subsequent resale of the books. A pure first sale doctrine issue.
They wanted to divide the market to set prices differently in different markets, sort of like the movie industry. (Those guys must be worried about now).
You break in, steal half a million account credentials, and turn around and sell the list on the Internet to as many people as you can as quickly as you can.
You don't want to put any more traffic on the site yourself once you score the account logins. Its easy to search for these lists for sale if you know where.
But breaking in, and stealing several hundred thousand account credentials counts as hacking by just about anyone's definition.
Or don't you read the press?
Except that accounts DO get hacked on a massive scale and passwords are stolen by the millions.
Read the news.
What possible reason is there for stealing twitter accounts or Facebook accounts other than for mischief?
A lot of Chinese companies are real s**ts, and a lot of Chinese companies make their own Android handsets.
IMHO, follow the money. It will be paid for troll turf from one of the China handset makers.
Also why do you think the Chinese government is some sort of magic all seeing, all acting entity? Realistically they want to project that image, but part of the reason China is such a wild west is because the Chinese government is so corrupt and no-seeing.
That's why companies like this don't fear smear tactics. Because they can always pay a bribe and walk away.
If you ask me its it's no different than the fawning western press suddenly showing up with Apple articles when any other phone manufacturers release new phones. With nothing new on the table or in the product pipeline, you can count on at least a half dozen stories showing up in newspapers, websites, and blogs when ever Apple feels a little bit left out or needs some good news to counter some new product push from some random Android manufacturer.
Convince me these don't start with a phonecall from apple headquarters, or an email marked confidential, listing story "ideas" and a "must be published by" date.
If anything this is probably the Chinese government or some manufacturer taking a card out of Apple's playbook and doing it poorly.
What goes around, comes around.
Well said.
Unfortunately here on Slashdot, moderation is simply a way of stamping DISAGREE ona view point without having to do any intellectual lifting.
People refuse to even consider an opposing view point over the Internet with anonymous posters even when they would never take such an intrenched stance with that same person in a face to face conversation.
And the Internet is a big enough place that even real names would make no difference, especially to an opponent in another state, country, or continent.
I don't think anonymity is the problem.
The problem is the ability to post your view Complete with insults and vitriol, the close the browser an walk away with the smug feeling that you Won the Internet.
Kay, bye, gotta run.
While I don't disagree with your assertion regarding gullibility, I want to point out that gullibility is largely social phenomenon, having little to do with intelligence.
Given a population of uniform intelligence, some portion of the population will spend a great deal of effort attempting to hoodwink the rest of the population.
Society progresses by allowing subsequent generations to rely on the learning of prior generations, so that each person does not have to invent fire or the wheel all over again.
There is a built in bias toward relying on so called common knowledge. This makes it easy for some to manipulate millions into believing something by merely wrapping something in more or less reasonable approximations of plausibility.
Even with universally identical intelligence, the hoodwinkers have equal weaponry.
Wait, the very same wiki article you cite suggests there has been measured regression on several more recent studies.
The evidence for continuing improvement that you claim is called into question by your own source.
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario?