Your point is that cars are fast and we need to be better drivers so we don't hurt people; thus we should act as if everyone is an excellent driver.
My point is you cross the street without looking because the light is red and you have a Walk sign. You die because some drunk fucker plows through the red light at 88mph and turns you into vivid red road paint.
You think I'm missing the point insisting on looking both ways before crossing? I think evolution would have selected you out by now if the world wasn't so vast. Honestly the statistics of violent crime versus population are staggeringly low: whenever they get too high, people begin to demand more from the police stations, who respond by hiring more porkers to trudge around with beating sticks waving deadly weapons in the faces of violent criminals until the raping and beating and murdering stops. If you weren't so protected by the threat of fatal death against criminals that come to your community seeking to harm you, you'd be dead by now.
In the days of print, the way things worked without copyright was that money was made by publishers selling manuscripts, and publishers would print a ton of books before competition could bring copies to the market. Authors in areas without copyright like Germany where that happened made more money, wrote more books, and the public read more books because they were widely available. Everybody was clearly better off except for the publishers. Now, the strategies for the digital world are likely different
Different and how! The digital world allows us to, in less than one day, snatch up a paper print book and scan-and-OCR it. Crowd sourced manipulation would quickly bring in fixes for erroneous OCR, and maybe even typesetting. In a day or two we could have a complete e-book out there, on a Web site open to all, or maybe a Napster-alike that hadn't got shot down (did you see how friggin' popular Napster got? It nearly replaced purchased music!).
You have precisely six hours to capitalize on your work, Mr. Anderson. In that six hours, you have to convince as much of your market as possible that they simply cannot wait the six hours for a nearly-correct online release. You must convince them that they must have your book now. Your book must be in stores, on store shelves. Also, it must not have been leaked--if you get it out to stores over the night before release, it has to not fall into the nefarious hands of an Open Books enthusiast who will have the first several chapters online before the book is even for sale, and the rest up before anyone could possibly read them... else the competition of "free" will beat you to your own release.
Maybe you should leave this business, Mr. Anderson. It seems it's too shrewd for you. You don't seem to be able to take the competition... they're stripping the flesh from your bones, Mr. Anderson.
The safety to be murdered by the state? The society was kept inline to avoid conflict entirely. It was kept in such a way that nobody's abilities differed; this only eliminates fear by eliminating the repercussions of having something somebody else wants: nobody tries to take it from you by main force. Seriously, if you tried to take away my shit without threatening me, I'd just laugh at you.
Well, you can enjoy your wit and reason about the drunken madman waving a knife around and screaming about how you looked at his girlfriend wrong. I'll be busy putting my fist in his ribs and taking his knife away. Knives are tools of aggression and only barbarians bring them to the table; steak should be pre-cut into slices before being brought out to serve.
The Giver describes a completely utopian society in the future. There is no violence and no hunger. It is a terrible society and the entire plot of the book is its intentional destruction by the two people who are trusted to keep society pure.
Third book in the Mageborn series. Mort gets into a short debate with someone over the nature of power. She tells him quite plainly there's no such thing as the power to protect someone.
I think this whole effort is incredibly misguided. Video games used to be peaceful, like Custard's Last Stand or T.E. or that Super Favio Brothers thing where you stomped the shit out of some turtles and walking mushrooms, or alternately set fire to them.
Violence is a fact of life. There is no power to protect; this is a thing I discovered long ago but have been agonizing over to the point of crying trying to understand... somebody spelled it out for me (it was in a book), I finally swallowed it but it was a big pill to swallow. Part of enlightenment is sitting around holding onto truths you've discovered years ago and trying to find the flaw in them, I guess. Unfortunately there is no flaw: there is no power to protect.
Power allows you to destroy, in its simplest and easiest form; more subtle, difficult applications of power allow you to create, and creation is just the careful application of destruction and preservation. People will seek to protect their own interests by force, by taking things that don't belong to them; they will seek to maintain dominance and strength by force of will--by instilling fear, with destruction. The only thing that protects you is the power to destroy: your entire police force functions on the principle that would-be criminals understand they will find you and they will beat and kill you if you resist.
Folks think it's so god damn 'virtuous' to refuse violence. It's insane. You want virtue? Stop being a coward. When you see someone being dragged off to be raped or murdered, go over there and stop their attacker--whether it comes to threats or beating someone's head in with a steel pipe. If you knew the whole damn world would suddenly come to kill you if you rape a bitch, you're probably not going to do it unless you're suicidal; yet sane, rational people will complain about all the violence in the world and then willfully strip themselves of their defenses, and espouse the virtue of having everyone who could possibly stand in to protect them do the same. Lunacy. A lot of good people are gonna get hurt. This is a side-effect of that: violence bad, we should hide it, pull it out of entertainment, teach people to all play nice.
Alright. Brandon Sanderson is going to have to devote his whole life to writing his novels if he's ever going to finish what he started. I don't mean the decology that's going to be The Way of Kings or the 9, now 12-13, and I suspect exactly 16 books that will fill out Mistborn. He has something going on that most people don't see. It's going to take probably 200 books.
How do we compensate this man so he can finish? A man's gotta eat, and he's gotta pay rent.
The creators of works license the rights to their works to those corporations, as is their discretion. The issue is solely with the term and scope of the law. Were I to write books, I'd use Amazon's KDP and POD infrastructures; if I made enough money, I'd hire a CPA to do my accounting. I can do all this stuff myself, although I'd hire an editor because obviously I'm blind to my own inadequate writing. I can even do all my own editing, but I'd rather contract an editor--without the obligation to follow his plot suggestions (publishers will dictate changes that editors suggest; self-published writers take them into consideration).
I could, instead, just write, pitch to a publishing house, and let them hand me back the editor's suggestions and copy, let them work out the printing, the marketing (which is beyond what I could do on my own reasonably), etc. It would be easier--I could write instead of worrying about running a business, typesetting, and finding start-up funds to pay the editor. My book would get on store shelves. As much would be printed as needed for physical distribution, on top of ebooks and POD. As part of that, I'd likely have to hand over limited rights to the text--perhaps for publishing in book, e-book, audiobook, or several of the above, and perhaps for a limited period, but some would have to be handed over. No publisher wants to compete with another publisher, and it doesn't help anyway; if I have a publisher looking to sell my ebook to B&N and Amazon, it's reasonable for him to demand that for the next 10 years only his firm can legally authorize ebook copies of my book.
Scope and corporate behavior are the issue. The actual fact of copyright, its uses, and corporations that specialize in providing services are all good things. The system is neither closed nor designed immune to abuse, and it will be abused in terrible ways; however it exists because its absence is equally bad or worse.
Well, slaves are alive. MP3 files are not alive. Therefor your argument is a bad analogy and invalid.
Copyright should be short-term; however the argument made implied that copyright is entirely silly. Many people claim that copying anything they can get their hands on without the direct inconvenience of another is their "right" and anything that impedes that is "imposing on their rights." These people make me think of Zynga: they see someone else do X, they think it's well and good for them to quickly do X as well but be louder about it, such that first person who had the brilliant idea to do X can't gain a commercial foothold and thus makes no return on all the investment they put in. The difference is these people aren't making a profit on somebody else's R&D (as Zynga does), but rather are arguing that the entire market motivation to trade for the results of that R&D should be nullified for their convenience. In other words: they advocate that anything that can be physically obtained without cost to an end party shouldn't require payment to that end party, even if its existence is a result of a lot of work by that end party.
In that case, why would Brandon Sanderson write? His whole career is writing. That's what he does with his life. These people advocate that because someone could scan and OCR (or just crack copy protection on ebooks) and then send the file around without Sanderson paying extra, thus it should be legal for them to do so: Sanderson has no right to payment for his efforts, we have every right to take all the benefit of said effort if we can get them without paying.
Copyright really and truly does encourage the furthering of the useful arts. To excess it stifles it, but some folks want copyright gone entirely.
They can, however, get together and pool their money to hire a lobbyist. We should make up a name for such a unified group of people.
Phirana.
Leeches.
Lazy sheep lead by a greedy corporation that attempts to posture itself as being 'for the worker'.
I guess I should add "niggers" just to deny the anonymous coward thinking he's witty adding it in response. Can't mention lazy people without an anonymous coward amending "niggers" to your thread. I'm one step ahead of you, dickbag.
Of course a nuclear radiation leak is significant and obvious, and also obviously important to stop. Given likelihood coupled with at the very least a lack of other obvious actions and the determined need to compensate for these mutations, it's more prudent to use this as a starting point and treat these as likely radiation poisoning--that means check and treat these people for further radiation damage. It's also notable that we should clean up or dilute the radiation sources presumed to be the cause.
Your basic argument is a deceptive one: it suggests that we should never do anything because we're never 100% certain if it's the best course. In some cases, a slow reaction is as bad or worse than an incorrect reaction; and in others, gathering knowledge and even conjecture from observations serves a great purpose when a problem is later tackled, as you can examine the various reasonings and make a better decision (even if said reasonings conflict--or if they change and refine over time).
I find it sad that people in this argument are demonizing the copyright holders for wanting to protect their rightful discretion over who is allowed copies of their works (or works delegated to their stewardship). We should be angry about how they're going about protecting their rights, or angry about how stewards are constantly conning content creators ("artists" or whatnot); but instead people rather take the mentality to be angry at rich people for not giving them money. They have things you want, they have an abundance of said things, and you think you should take those things because it purportedly won't inconvenience anyone? Aside from destroying their ability to reap any sort of profit from their efforts anymore, of course, whence everyone starts taking it all without paying.
I suppose next you'll stop complaining about murderers and instead start complaining about guns, knives, rope, bare hands, and basic human emotions like anger that we need to collect up and chemically suppress by tainting the water supply.
PLA is plant-derived, I don't know if it's biodegradable. It's also a bad idea to mix PLA into recyclable plastics, so PLA becomes non-recyclable and can taint recyclable petrol plastic stock. Mind you a mass shift to PLA would be ideal, but we'd need a PLA compatible alternative to ABS; ABS has much better physical properties than PLA. Plastic parts aren't all inferior to the task--ABS can hold up to significant heat and force, which makes it an attractive replacement to metal in some situations. Obviously no piston heads or crank shafts for V8 big blocks, but hinges and fasteners and gears of ABS in many applications can hold up far better than is needed for a long life--similar to how exotic steel superalloys are used in turbochargers, but not necessary for bicycle frames.
Acetone can melt PLA and ABS, but so can heat. What we need is a heat-driven source pot and extruder. Ideally you would want a funnel pot attached to a valve going directly into the cooled extrusion head (no tubing run). The valve is heated, it goes into a short (1cm or less) steel tube (also heated) that serves simply to junction it to the extruder, which is itself cooled. After being filled with material, the pot is sealed and heated. Air is pumped into the pot to pressurize it when extrusion is to begin. Before the pot empties, it can be depressurized and additional material introduced.
Such a process has the problem that extruded plastic must flow at a continuous rate or weaknesses can occur in the produced filament. A two-pot process may suffice, by which the first pot is connected to a second pot. The second pot, the tubing run from it, and the valve controlling it are all heated. Additional feed stock is melted in the second pot; once melted, the pressure in the first pot is maintained by pushing melted feed stock into it from the second pot (by pressurizing it and releasing air pressure from the first pot, of course). Volume of pressurized air is decreased in the first pot more rapidly than volume of molten feed stock, replaced with more molten feed stock to maintain the pressure. Desired pressure is strictly maintained in the second pot, such that depressurizing the first pot draws in more molten feed stock rapidly to equalize the pressure. When the second pot is low, the valve closes and pressure is maintained in the first pot. This adds feed stock to be extruded without interrupting the constant flow rate; and with the second pot now decoupled, we can release pressure and add a measure of fresh solid feed stock from a hopper, melting it down to replenish the molten stock for extrusion.
It's a complex machine. You can't just melt stuff and expect the extruder to work. The extruder on a reprap supplies pressure by mechanically feeding a filament through a hot extruder. We're supplying molten liquid and trying to get a controlled, flexible filament out, so constant feed pressure has to be maintained and the filament has to follow a constant cooling gradient (it has to shift from hot to cool along its mass such that the area that's solidified flows gently into the area that's hot, facilitating smooth welding--a homogenous polymer filament, rather than a heterogenious mess of either weak or hardened fusion joints). It can't be allowed to drip or spread. It's tough to do all this; the best way is to take a bag of hot material and start squeezing it through a cone with a hole at the end to cool it. That's ridiculous and won't work.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it doesn't work that way.
Your point is that cars are fast and we need to be better drivers so we don't hurt people; thus we should act as if everyone is an excellent driver.
My point is you cross the street without looking because the light is red and you have a Walk sign. You die because some drunk fucker plows through the red light at 88mph and turns you into vivid red road paint.
You think I'm missing the point insisting on looking both ways before crossing? I think evolution would have selected you out by now if the world wasn't so vast. Honestly the statistics of violent crime versus population are staggeringly low: whenever they get too high, people begin to demand more from the police stations, who respond by hiring more porkers to trudge around with beating sticks waving deadly weapons in the faces of violent criminals until the raping and beating and murdering stops. If you weren't so protected by the threat of fatal death against criminals that come to your community seeking to harm you, you'd be dead by now.
In the days of print, the way things worked without copyright was that money was made by publishers selling manuscripts, and publishers would print a ton of books before competition could bring copies to the market. Authors in areas without copyright like Germany where that happened made more money, wrote more books, and the public read more books because they were widely available. Everybody was clearly better off except for the publishers. Now, the strategies for the digital world are likely different
Different and how! The digital world allows us to, in less than one day, snatch up a paper print book and scan-and-OCR it. Crowd sourced manipulation would quickly bring in fixes for erroneous OCR, and maybe even typesetting. In a day or two we could have a complete e-book out there, on a Web site open to all, or maybe a Napster-alike that hadn't got shot down (did you see how friggin' popular Napster got? It nearly replaced purchased music!).
You have precisely six hours to capitalize on your work, Mr. Anderson. In that six hours, you have to convince as much of your market as possible that they simply cannot wait the six hours for a nearly-correct online release. You must convince them that they must have your book now. Your book must be in stores, on store shelves. Also, it must not have been leaked--if you get it out to stores over the night before release, it has to not fall into the nefarious hands of an Open Books enthusiast who will have the first several chapters online before the book is even for sale, and the rest up before anyone could possibly read them ... else the competition of "free" will beat you to your own release.
Maybe you should leave this business, Mr. Anderson. It seems it's too shrewd for you. You don't seem to be able to take the competition ... they're stripping the flesh from your bones, Mr. Anderson.
The most reliable way to feed ourselves will not be apparent until we rid ourselves of farming and distribution infrastructure, too.
The safety to be murdered by the state? The society was kept inline to avoid conflict entirely. It was kept in such a way that nobody's abilities differed; this only eliminates fear by eliminating the repercussions of having something somebody else wants: nobody tries to take it from you by main force. Seriously, if you tried to take away my shit without threatening me, I'd just laugh at you.
Well, you can enjoy your wit and reason about the drunken madman waving a knife around and screaming about how you looked at his girlfriend wrong. I'll be busy putting my fist in his ribs and taking his knife away. Knives are tools of aggression and only barbarians bring them to the table; steak should be pre-cut into slices before being brought out to serve.
The Giver describes a completely utopian society in the future. There is no violence and no hunger. It is a terrible society and the entire plot of the book is its intentional destruction by the two people who are trusted to keep society pure.
Without balance there is only loss. Go will teach you this quite well.
It's silly. WYSIWYG editors are a mess and of very little use; content management systems, however, are an excellent tool.
Have you read The Giver? I believe it is the embodiment of your perfect little world.
You continue to advocate making the weak even more defenseless such that the strong can rule over them by blunt force.
Third book in the Mageborn series. Mort gets into a short debate with someone over the nature of power. She tells him quite plainly there's no such thing as the power to protect someone.
And if I'm wearing plate? Cat can't scratch me, it's not heavy enough to topple me. No power to destroy, thus what can it do to protect?
Tullamore Dew.
I think this whole effort is incredibly misguided. Video games used to be peaceful, like Custard's Last Stand or T.E. or that Super Favio Brothers thing where you stomped the shit out of some turtles and walking mushrooms, or alternately set fire to them.
Violence is a fact of life. There is no power to protect; this is a thing I discovered long ago but have been agonizing over to the point of crying trying to understand... somebody spelled it out for me (it was in a book), I finally swallowed it but it was a big pill to swallow. Part of enlightenment is sitting around holding onto truths you've discovered years ago and trying to find the flaw in them, I guess. Unfortunately there is no flaw: there is no power to protect.
Power allows you to destroy, in its simplest and easiest form; more subtle, difficult applications of power allow you to create, and creation is just the careful application of destruction and preservation. People will seek to protect their own interests by force, by taking things that don't belong to them; they will seek to maintain dominance and strength by force of will--by instilling fear, with destruction. The only thing that protects you is the power to destroy: your entire police force functions on the principle that would-be criminals understand they will find you and they will beat and kill you if you resist.
Folks think it's so god damn 'virtuous' to refuse violence. It's insane. You want virtue? Stop being a coward. When you see someone being dragged off to be raped or murdered, go over there and stop their attacker--whether it comes to threats or beating someone's head in with a steel pipe. If you knew the whole damn world would suddenly come to kill you if you rape a bitch, you're probably not going to do it unless you're suicidal; yet sane, rational people will complain about all the violence in the world and then willfully strip themselves of their defenses, and espouse the virtue of having everyone who could possibly stand in to protect them do the same. Lunacy. A lot of good people are gonna get hurt. This is a side-effect of that: violence bad, we should hide it, pull it out of entertainment, teach people to all play nice.
Alright. Brandon Sanderson is going to have to devote his whole life to writing his novels if he's ever going to finish what he started. I don't mean the decology that's going to be The Way of Kings or the 9, now 12-13, and I suspect exactly 16 books that will fill out Mistborn. He has something going on that most people don't see. It's going to take probably 200 books.
How do we compensate this man so he can finish? A man's gotta eat, and he's gotta pay rent.
Read Shibumi.
The creators of works license the rights to their works to those corporations, as is their discretion. The issue is solely with the term and scope of the law. Were I to write books, I'd use Amazon's KDP and POD infrastructures; if I made enough money, I'd hire a CPA to do my accounting. I can do all this stuff myself, although I'd hire an editor because obviously I'm blind to my own inadequate writing. I can even do all my own editing, but I'd rather contract an editor--without the obligation to follow his plot suggestions (publishers will dictate changes that editors suggest; self-published writers take them into consideration).
I could, instead, just write, pitch to a publishing house, and let them hand me back the editor's suggestions and copy, let them work out the printing, the marketing (which is beyond what I could do on my own reasonably), etc. It would be easier--I could write instead of worrying about running a business, typesetting, and finding start-up funds to pay the editor. My book would get on store shelves. As much would be printed as needed for physical distribution, on top of ebooks and POD. As part of that, I'd likely have to hand over limited rights to the text--perhaps for publishing in book, e-book, audiobook, or several of the above, and perhaps for a limited period, but some would have to be handed over. No publisher wants to compete with another publisher, and it doesn't help anyway; if I have a publisher looking to sell my ebook to B&N and Amazon, it's reasonable for him to demand that for the next 10 years only his firm can legally authorize ebook copies of my book.
Scope and corporate behavior are the issue. The actual fact of copyright, its uses, and corporations that specialize in providing services are all good things. The system is neither closed nor designed immune to abuse, and it will be abused in terrible ways; however it exists because its absence is equally bad or worse.
Well, slaves are alive. MP3 files are not alive. Therefor your argument is a bad analogy and invalid.
Copyright should be short-term; however the argument made implied that copyright is entirely silly. Many people claim that copying anything they can get their hands on without the direct inconvenience of another is their "right" and anything that impedes that is "imposing on their rights." These people make me think of Zynga: they see someone else do X, they think it's well and good for them to quickly do X as well but be louder about it, such that first person who had the brilliant idea to do X can't gain a commercial foothold and thus makes no return on all the investment they put in. The difference is these people aren't making a profit on somebody else's R&D (as Zynga does), but rather are arguing that the entire market motivation to trade for the results of that R&D should be nullified for their convenience. In other words: they advocate that anything that can be physically obtained without cost to an end party shouldn't require payment to that end party, even if its existence is a result of a lot of work by that end party.
In that case, why would Brandon Sanderson write? His whole career is writing. That's what he does with his life. These people advocate that because someone could scan and OCR (or just crack copy protection on ebooks) and then send the file around without Sanderson paying extra, thus it should be legal for them to do so: Sanderson has no right to payment for his efforts, we have every right to take all the benefit of said effort if we can get them without paying.
Copyright really and truly does encourage the furthering of the useful arts. To excess it stifles it, but some folks want copyright gone entirely.
They can, however, get together and pool their money to hire a lobbyist. We should make up a name for such a unified group of people.
Phirana.
Leeches.
Lazy sheep lead by a greedy corporation that attempts to posture itself as being 'for the worker'.
I guess I should add "niggers" just to deny the anonymous coward thinking he's witty adding it in response. Can't mention lazy people without an anonymous coward amending "niggers" to your thread. I'm one step ahead of you, dickbag.
Canadians. War. *snerk*
Of course a nuclear radiation leak is significant and obvious, and also obviously important to stop. Given likelihood coupled with at the very least a lack of other obvious actions and the determined need to compensate for these mutations, it's more prudent to use this as a starting point and treat these as likely radiation poisoning--that means check and treat these people for further radiation damage. It's also notable that we should clean up or dilute the radiation sources presumed to be the cause.
Your basic argument is a deceptive one: it suggests that we should never do anything because we're never 100% certain if it's the best course. In some cases, a slow reaction is as bad or worse than an incorrect reaction; and in others, gathering knowledge and even conjecture from observations serves a great purpose when a problem is later tackled, as you can examine the various reasonings and make a better decision (even if said reasonings conflict--or if they change and refine over time).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CfUMyf9x4M
You've been to France I see.
I find it sad that people in this argument are demonizing the copyright holders for wanting to protect their rightful discretion over who is allowed copies of their works (or works delegated to their stewardship). We should be angry about how they're going about protecting their rights, or angry about how stewards are constantly conning content creators ("artists" or whatnot); but instead people rather take the mentality to be angry at rich people for not giving them money. They have things you want, they have an abundance of said things, and you think you should take those things because it purportedly won't inconvenience anyone? Aside from destroying their ability to reap any sort of profit from their efforts anymore, of course, whence everyone starts taking it all without paying.
I suppose next you'll stop complaining about murderers and instead start complaining about guns, knives, rope, bare hands, and basic human emotions like anger that we need to collect up and chemically suppress by tainting the water supply.
No no, people are afraid the flu shots will kill them.
PLA is plant-derived, I don't know if it's biodegradable. It's also a bad idea to mix PLA into recyclable plastics, so PLA becomes non-recyclable and can taint recyclable petrol plastic stock. Mind you a mass shift to PLA would be ideal, but we'd need a PLA compatible alternative to ABS; ABS has much better physical properties than PLA. Plastic parts aren't all inferior to the task--ABS can hold up to significant heat and force, which makes it an attractive replacement to metal in some situations. Obviously no piston heads or crank shafts for V8 big blocks, but hinges and fasteners and gears of ABS in many applications can hold up far better than is needed for a long life--similar to how exotic steel superalloys are used in turbochargers, but not necessary for bicycle frames.
Acetone can melt PLA and ABS, but so can heat. What we need is a heat-driven source pot and extruder. Ideally you would want a funnel pot attached to a valve going directly into the cooled extrusion head (no tubing run). The valve is heated, it goes into a short (1cm or less) steel tube (also heated) that serves simply to junction it to the extruder, which is itself cooled. After being filled with material, the pot is sealed and heated. Air is pumped into the pot to pressurize it when extrusion is to begin. Before the pot empties, it can be depressurized and additional material introduced.
Such a process has the problem that extruded plastic must flow at a continuous rate or weaknesses can occur in the produced filament. A two-pot process may suffice, by which the first pot is connected to a second pot. The second pot, the tubing run from it, and the valve controlling it are all heated. Additional feed stock is melted in the second pot; once melted, the pressure in the first pot is maintained by pushing melted feed stock into it from the second pot (by pressurizing it and releasing air pressure from the first pot, of course). Volume of pressurized air is decreased in the first pot more rapidly than volume of molten feed stock, replaced with more molten feed stock to maintain the pressure. Desired pressure is strictly maintained in the second pot, such that depressurizing the first pot draws in more molten feed stock rapidly to equalize the pressure. When the second pot is low, the valve closes and pressure is maintained in the first pot. This adds feed stock to be extruded without interrupting the constant flow rate; and with the second pot now decoupled, we can release pressure and add a measure of fresh solid feed stock from a hopper, melting it down to replenish the molten stock for extrusion.
It's a complex machine. You can't just melt stuff and expect the extruder to work. The extruder on a reprap supplies pressure by mechanically feeding a filament through a hot extruder. We're supplying molten liquid and trying to get a controlled, flexible filament out, so constant feed pressure has to be maintained and the filament has to follow a constant cooling gradient (it has to shift from hot to cool along its mass such that the area that's solidified flows gently into the area that's hot, facilitating smooth welding--a homogenous polymer filament, rather than a heterogenious mess of either weak or hardened fusion joints). It can't be allowed to drip or spread. It's tough to do all this; the best way is to take a bag of hot material and start squeezing it through a cone with a hole at the end to cool it. That's ridiculous and won't work.
Irrelevant at this stage. What we need first is better support for plastic. I want a hopper that re-extrudes spent ABS into fresh filament.