Take a look at the patents. And take a look at the stuff around you. How much of the stuff around you is patented and amenable to being 3d printed? And what fraction do you believe you could put together cheaper and more conveniently?
Let's take a look at a stapler. $5 from Amazon. I'm sure it was patented at one time. Let's pretend it still is. Even with the best 3-d printing today, using million dollar machines, you're not going to be able to make a good one. So let's assume the machines get good enough and cheap enough you could make a stapler at home. How about the staples? Ok fine, let's assume you can make those too.
You want to go through the trouble of making the parts and assembling? Oh, you've got a cheap machine that can make it from multiple materials and even does some of the post processing?
Congratulations. It's 2050 and you've made a stapler that could be bought for $5 in 2013 from Amazon. And now Amazon has it for $1 because they own a better machine that runs 24/7 and buys more varieties of materials at lower cost. And the patent ran out decades ago.
Next up, a microwave oven. Or car tire. Or tv remote.
3D printing is going to be a problem for only a very few items. Not the vast majority of stuff you use or is patented. Economies of scale will make even those items impractical to knock off. It'll be decades before it becomes even a miniscule problem. Why are we getting in a tizzy now worrying about it?
I work with a lot of startup companies. We have a saying that might apply. Lots of people think that the idea is the key. We say that say ideas are cheap, execution is key. And sometimes a bad idea done well can beat a good idea done poorly.
I know that doesn't give any real help. But it does help explain why some things take off when better ideas don't.
This is plain vanilla sort of spying. Most of it has nothing to do with criminal activity. But it does have to do with the US government not being surprised. Sometimes it can be used for advantage, but more often not to get caught zigging when we should be zagging.
For instance, being able to listen to the head of state of another government, say Brazil, would give us perspective on decisions. Are Petrobras contracts being influenced by internal politics or as part of a deal with another country? Probably not. But if Petrobras is being forced to do something because of some economic glitch or political back room dealing that is not public, that's useful information.
It's something that Brazil would be upset to learn we are doing, and rightfully so. But that's weighed against the risk of blindly accepting the public statements of Brazil.
A good CEO can make a difference in a company. Getting a board of directors, shareholders, executives and employees all on the same productive page is not as easy as it looks. It's cat herding. And you can't just hire any dude with an MBA to do it. Demand outstrips supply. So they can get more money than the average person.
Then there are great CEO's. The stars or their profession. These guys are the super-athletes of their profession. Super rare. One way to look at it is they are pivotal. They might not do much themselves, but a shitload of work gets done because of them. They can mean an incremental millions or billions of dollars to a company.
And like super athletes, they know it and and get the big bucks. These guys are worth the money. Like movie stars and athletes, they might not deserve it, but they are worth it to some companies.
Unfortunately, good CEO's benchmark their salary against great CEO's and feel they deserve the big bucks too. And companies pay it assuming they are getting a great CEO because they are paying big bucks.
Worse than that, bad CEO's think they are great too. And demand great pay.
And why don't the brilliant engineers or foremen make that kind of money? They are perceived as easier to replace.
The alternatives to all of this is some sort of wage controls. Which has it's own set of perversions. Or give boards of directors the ability to act rationally. Or for people not to be jerks. Or some combination of these or something else.
No, I'm not advocating anything here. Maybe just understanding the mechanics of a problem. Makes it easier to tinker without unintended consequences.
Tyson is the REAL reason why serious private space flight will never happen, even if he didn't realize it:
FTFY
By insisting it's too risky and too expensive and can't be quantified, he's just perpetuating false reasons not to go into space... by anyone.
The alternative is to assume that they are not true under some conditions, learn those conditions, create those conditions, then make money.
If getting government contracts (existing demand) is a step along the way to create those conditions, so be it. If creating demand is a step, so be it. But making an a priori assumption that "it's impossible" is poor science and poor business.
There is a reason for technically adept people to use Google as well: vetting addresses. Ok, it's not perfect. But it can help avoid whitehouse.gov vs whitehouse.com type mistakes.
Don't borrow money from dolphins. They will never let you forget it. Don't ask bed bugs to help you move. They end up crashing at your place. Don't hold hands with the armadillo. He's got leprosy.
Non-toxic heroin? Guess you've never heard of someone ODing.
Actually, one of the problems with synthetic opioids is that they are incredibly cheap to manufacture. The ratio was 1/4000 in 1985 even when manufactured by amateurs in small quantities. Effects are indistinguishable from natural opioids. So maybe we should just ban synthetic opiods because of the chance they could be contaminated? Or only if they are not made by certified facilities?
I don't blame it's legality. I just give it an example of a formerly legal substance that maybe shouldn't be. If your only goal is government non-interference, then legalizing is a natural solution. Discussing any other alternative with you would be futile.
Sorry, I just tried to look up China White to see if what I was referring to was easy to find. Seems there is a new drug type also called China White. The type I meant was a synthetic heroin (fentenyl). Some variants were known to destroy dopamine receptors, leading to patients with Parkinson and other conditions.
At the time, China White was legal due to the phrasing of the law. There were hundreds of variants. A mini experiment in drug legalization that had disastrous results.
Slashdot Mirror
The first patent wasn't an object that could be copied. It was a technology. A process that could have been kept secret.
http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2001/01-33.jsp
Bzzzt! Not true
http://www.bpmlegal.com/patqa.html#1
Take a look at the patents. And take a look at the stuff around you. How much of the stuff around you is patented and amenable to being 3d printed? And what fraction do you believe you could put together cheaper and more conveniently?
Let's take a look at a stapler. $5 from Amazon. I'm sure it was patented at one time. Let's pretend it still is. Even with the best 3-d printing today, using million dollar machines, you're not going to be able to make a good one. So let's assume the machines get good enough and cheap enough you could make a stapler at home. How about the staples? Ok fine, let's assume you can make those too.
You want to go through the trouble of making the parts and assembling? Oh, you've got a cheap machine that can make it from multiple materials and even does some of the post processing?
Congratulations. It's 2050 and you've made a stapler that could be bought for $5 in 2013 from Amazon. And now Amazon has it for $1 because they own a better machine that runs 24/7 and buys more varieties of materials at lower cost. And the patent ran out decades ago.
Next up, a microwave oven. Or car tire. Or tv remote.
3D printing is going to be a problem for only a very few items. Not the vast majority of stuff you use or is patented. Economies of scale will make even those items impractical to knock off. It'll be decades before it becomes even a miniscule problem. Why are we getting in a tizzy now worrying about it?
Except what happens with sequestration in the proper bedrock is the CO2 reacts and forms carbonate and bicarbonate. Solids. And stable.
I work with a lot of startup companies. We have a saying that might apply. Lots of people think that the idea is the key. We say that say ideas are cheap, execution is key. And sometimes a bad idea done well can beat a good idea done poorly.
I know that doesn't give any real help. But it does help explain why some things take off when better ideas don't.
This is plain vanilla sort of spying. Most of it has nothing to do with criminal activity. But it does have to do with the US government not being surprised. Sometimes it can be used for advantage, but more often not to get caught zigging when we should be zagging.
For instance, being able to listen to the head of state of another government, say Brazil, would give us perspective on decisions. Are Petrobras contracts being influenced by internal politics or as part of a deal with another country? Probably not. But if Petrobras is being forced to do something because of some economic glitch or political back room dealing that is not public, that's useful information.
It's something that Brazil would be upset to learn we are doing, and rightfully so. But that's weighed against the risk of blindly accepting the public statements of Brazil.
It is a role playing game at this point. Tabletop exploration of Europa.
To put it in perspective, if the fatalities are spread over a year, 1-2% is about double the normal rate.
I think the idea is that if you give people first world problems, they won't have third world ones.
It think there is a step about underpants and profit in there too, but I could be mistaken.
You planning on winning the big race and shaking the presidents hand?
Avoiding blindness goes a long ways towards relieving poverty. Not having to support a blind family member goes a long ways towards relieving poverty.
And good news: golden rice isn't expensive because it can be propagated for free.
Wait. What? There was prostitution involved?
Has her sucking improved?
(sorry, couldn't resist)
A good CEO can make a difference in a company. Getting a board of directors, shareholders, executives and employees all on the same productive page is not as easy as it looks. It's cat herding. And you can't just hire any dude with an MBA to do it. Demand outstrips supply. So they can get more money than the average person.
Then there are great CEO's. The stars or their profession. These guys are the super-athletes of their profession. Super rare. One way to look at it is they are pivotal. They might not do much themselves, but a shitload of work gets done because of them. They can mean an incremental millions or billions of dollars to a company.
And like super athletes, they know it and and get the big bucks. These guys are worth the money. Like movie stars and athletes, they might not deserve it, but they are worth it to some companies.
Unfortunately, good CEO's benchmark their salary against great CEO's and feel they deserve the big bucks too. And companies pay it assuming they are getting a great CEO because they are paying big bucks.
Worse than that, bad CEO's think they are great too. And demand great pay.
And why don't the brilliant engineers or foremen make that kind of money? They are perceived as easier to replace.
The alternatives to all of this is some sort of wage controls. Which has it's own set of perversions. Or give boards of directors the ability to act rationally. Or for people not to be jerks. Or some combination of these or something else.
No, I'm not advocating anything here. Maybe just understanding the mechanics of a problem. Makes it easier to tinker without unintended consequences.
FTFY
By insisting it's too risky and too expensive and can't be quantified, he's just perpetuating false reasons not to go into space ... by anyone.
The alternative is to assume that they are not true under some conditions, learn those conditions, create those conditions, then make money.
If getting government contracts (existing demand) is a step along the way to create those conditions, so be it. If creating demand is a step, so be it. But making an a priori assumption that "it's impossible" is poor science and poor business.
Don't forget Greenpeace. France totally kicked Greenpeace's ass.
Obsession with Scotty Dogs: Terrierism
You're right. No way this robot has the right qualifications to attend a university. At least until they add a beer drinking function.
There is a reason for technically adept people to use Google as well: vetting addresses. Ok, it's not perfect. But it can help avoid whitehouse.gov vs whitehouse.com type mistakes.
Then they can go buy it on Ebay for $80 just like everyone else.
One of the reasons providers offer a discount of families is that it makes it harder to switch away from them.
Don't borrow money from dolphins. They will never let you forget it.
Don't ask bed bugs to help you move. They end up crashing at your place.
Don't hold hands with the armadillo. He's got leprosy.
When first graders can print the ammo too, then we'll have a problem.
Non-toxic heroin? Guess you've never heard of someone ODing.
Actually, one of the problems with synthetic opioids is that they are incredibly cheap to manufacture. The ratio was 1/4000 in 1985 even when manufactured by amateurs in small quantities. Effects are indistinguishable from natural opioids. So maybe we should just ban synthetic opiods because of the chance they could be contaminated? Or only if they are not made by certified facilities?
I don't blame it's legality. I just give it an example of a formerly legal substance that maybe shouldn't be. If your only goal is government non-interference, then legalizing is a natural solution. Discussing any other alternative with you would be futile.
Sorry, I just tried to look up China White to see if what I was referring to was easy to find. Seems there is a new drug type also called China White. The type I meant was a synthetic heroin (fentenyl). Some variants were known to destroy dopamine receptors, leading to patients with Parkinson and other conditions.
At the time, China White was legal due to the phrasing of the law. There were hundreds of variants. A mini experiment in drug legalization that had disastrous results.
http://www.jackshafer.com/magazine_work/20091128_designer_drugs.php