But what is this more effective thing that can be done but isn't being done?
There are many things that could be done. One of the first things that should be done is to overhaul what "consent" means. Right now, it's a randomly varying line in the sand consisting of an arbitrarily assigned age. What it should be is a license held by a person that shows they have shown themselves capable of reasoning, knowledgeable about the risks and potential consequences, and so on. The age line in the sand thing errs both ways, and consistently so: people who should be able to engage in sexual activity without threat of government coercion cannot, and people who really shouldn't ever be allowed near anyone else sexually are cleared to do just about whatever they want.
Another would be to break the social stupidity that equates a sexually active, aware and interested teen out from the category of "children" (technically, this is already done, as the actual definition of pedophilia is quite limited, it's just that the average citizen isn't very well informed, nor do they care to replace random pitchfork-and-torch thinking with reason, it's just not nearly as entertaining.)
We here in the USA live in a society of poorly informed people, being driven before vapid, largely invalid pap pushed by irresponsible media and superstitious idiocy. It's no wonder we can't get this right.
The bottom line is, just because something could be done, doesn't mean that we have the capability as a society to get it done.
But I am not sure how useful that is, since no current AI would come close to passing it
There are no "current AIs", as that would require them to be intelligent, which in turn requires them to be conscious. And they aren't. Not even close.
If we really want to water the term "intelligence" down so that is applies to any clever algorithm, then perhaps we should spend a few minutes contemplating what it is we plan to call an actual intelligence, once we get that far.
"AI" has reasonable meaning in the context of research towards that goal, or as a bright line in the sand that we have yet to reach, much less cross.
Nope. email is not similar to a postcard. email is considerably more similar to mail in an envelope. You have to take some very specific, targeted actions to read my email. In transit, you have to access, copy or intercept, and reassemble the packets. Once on the server, you need to look in an area reserved for my effects for information that was not directed to you, you must open the file, and then read it. It's definitely in an envelope. Just as your banking information is in an envelope, a ladies panties (or lack thereof) remain hidden under her skirt, and so on. It's not about how difficult it is to get at our private information. It's about the boundaries on behavior that we expect as part of the social compact. In the case of government action, the 3rd and 4th amendments both express our expectations of privacy and create concrete limits on legitimate government action. The intent is 100% clear: Stay the fuck out of our shit.
The only reason we currently need "clarification" is because the government is running a scam on us of the form "it's not about what you expect, it's about what we can do." But that's not right, and it has never been right.
It's about the behaviors we expect -- and that's all it's about. The very last thing we should ever wish for is a society where it's ok to do something simply because you can. That way lies anarchy.
"You have no expectation of privacy for unencrypted email. Any unencrypted email is free for anyone - law enforcements, ad-agencies, spammers - to read. If you want it private, encrypt it.".
You know what follows this line of reasoning?
a) "He looked into my home with FLIR!" b) Well, you should have insulated your walls with IR-opaque materials. No expectation of privacy, brah.
a) He charged stuff to my credit card! b) Well, he read the numbers they require right off the card. No expectation of privacy, brah.
a) He looked up my dress! b) Well, you should have worn pants. No expectation of privacy, babe.
a) They stole my identity! b) Was right there in your wallet and online. No expectation of privacy, brah.
See, what the problem is, is that you are confusing hardening a behavioral boundary that expresses a social expectation of privacy, with the boundary itself.
The flaw is twofold: First, it is essentially an expression of anarchy, of the form "if you can do it, go ahead and do it", or conversely, "if they can't stop you from doing it, go ahead and do it."
Secondly, as the ability to sunder a hardened boundary arises, the privacy evaporates as if it never was. For instance, putting a letter in an envelope has the most minimal hardened boundary one could imagine short of none at all. Sundering it requires the lifting of a finger, quite literally. It's nothing. This is extremely similar to email. I send it out along the network as packets, but people (not the recipient) have to make a specific effort -- more than lifting a fingernail -- to access and open and reassemble those packets. I expect them not to, just as I expect them not to open that physical envelope. It's a behavioral boundary. Not a technical one. And that's what it should be.
Privacy is a set of behavioral boundaries that we agree to expect not just as individuals, but also as a society, and we expect that agreement to extend all the way through the government (the 4th amendment is a classic expression of such an expectation being codified into a restriction on legitimate government action, as is the 3rd amendment.) In other words, it's our expectations made concrete in the very document that authorizes our form of government.
It's not about the hardness, or lack thereof, of the boundaries. It is about our behavior: What is ok, and what isn't. And we know damned well that it's not ok for the government to be reading our emails, our texts, our papers, our bank accounts, our browser histories, and so on. How difficult the task is should be completely irrelevant. The fact that it isn't only points out gross failure in understanding WTF is going on.
Expectation of privacy has nothing to do with encryption. Encryption is simply hardening a boundary.
If I put a letter in an envelope, you getting to it is utterly trivial -- the use of one fingernail. But that doesn't in any way erode my expectation of privacy. If, on the other hand, I encrypt the letter, all I've done is harden the boundary -- my expectation is still the same: I don't think you have a right to access that letter.
If I close the front door to my house, but I don't lock it, I'm NOT inviting you in. I expect you to knock, and to wait. If I lock the door, I have hardened the boundary, but I have not in any way changed the why of my expectations. If I then add a bar and hooks, I have further hardened the boundary, but the basic point remains exactly the same: My expectation is that you will knock and wait. As long as you meet my expectation, none of that hardening would have any effect upon you. The only ones who are affected by hardened boundaries are those who sunder our expectations.
If a woman wears a dress, is she giving us permission to look up it? Obviously not.
Clearly, "because you can", is insufficient justification to "just do it."
It's not about the envelope. It's not about the lock. It's not about encryption. It's not about the dress.
It's about mutually understood social boundaries. The scam the government is constantly trying to pull is pretending that hardening is the issue, rather than social boundaries. They are doing what governments do, which is constantly strain to accrue more power. If they are not restrained in this process, they will do so -- regardless of the expense to our rights, liberties, and social expectations.
o Who benefits when unions are taken down? Corporations.
o NAFTA -- free trade -- brings access to tons of cheap foreign labor. Who benefits? Corporations.
And so on. At this point in time, if it is anything but a relatively pure social issue, you can almost always look into it, follow the money, and end up with a "this benefits the corporations" understanding of the outcome or the push for almost anything you look at within the boundaries of Washington or any state capital. You can do this with both houses of congress, with SCOTUS, with a good bit of the entrenched bureaucracy, and of course the entire lobbyist / party structure exists for no other purpose at all.
Corporations are people. Specifically, psychopaths.
It is very rare where I'm feeling like the equipment is the limiting factor to the point where I want to invest the money to replace it.
I'll tell you when I feel it. When I see something I want to shoot and I don't have my 6D with me, and all I can bring to bear is my Galaxy Note 3. Which has a decent camera for a smartphone, but it won't get me shots like my EOS 6D does.
But yeah, you're quite right. I've been watching Canon carefully through the 40D, 50D and 6D lifespans, and I'm interested in more dynamic range and better low light performance (not that some conveniences like easier wifi, cordless charging, on-board timer wouldn't be welcome.) More megapixels... 20 seems fine to me. It already exceeds the ability of most of Canon's L glass to resolve a point, particularly at the edges of the sensor. Might be years yet before they really top the 6D from my POV. But when they do, I'll be there, wallet in hand.
He has no idea what he's talking about anyway. Starting from the sensor out, a good DSLR exceeds every technical and visual mark a camera phone can hit. Camera phones have exactly one primo advantage: ease of use. That ease is itself a combination of three things -- first, you almost always have the thing, and second, they have to make the camera systems so automatic and generic that anyone can use them by tapping a finger, and third, the means of getting that photo to other people -- sharing -- has been streamlined until a 4YO can do it.
But if you want to take beautiful images, you are way, way ahead if you start with a DSLR in your hands and good lenses right to hand.
* * If it's not 6809 ASM, it isn't ASM at all * And octal is only for people who are missing two fingers. * Hexadecimal uses ALL your fingers and 60% of your toes! * STRING FCC "PDP 11s are for wankers",4 LDX #STRING JSR >$CD1E JMP >$CD03
.here we go, lowering standards ever MORE in our universities
LOok here feller, evver buddy are a speshul bunkerfly, and desserts there diplomer just as mutch as u do. Kwit beeing an eleetist, u eelitist, u. Kwit triing to put roodblocks in there way, will u? Sumbunny shud call helth n humun servaces on yur ass.
You really think that government approved curriculum thought[sic] by teachers that cannot be fired
...and...
than a carefully selected set of things thought[sic] by people that really care about you
...and...
In fact that's the whole point of the public school system, is prepared regurgitation when the bell is rung.
...fairly obvious grammatical fail.
Now, before you think I did that just to be mean, I am an autodidact. My situation lands even further outside the norm than those who have been home schooled, such as yourself. I'm not trying to indicate that home schooling is a fail, per se; only that it is much more difficult to do well than even its most vocal proponents generally admit to. My own writing is more of an attempt to ape patterns of speech I consider optimum than it is a coherent application of the rules of English. That is a direct result of teaching it to myself according to my own standards. I don't recommend the process, frankly.
There is a very strong tendency for home schooling to pass along failings of the teacher, generally the parents. For instance, if the parents are poor at English, or math, or history, it is that much more difficult for them to catch failures in those areas, and to remediate them when they occur. Then there is the issue of superstition and how it affects scientific understanding, moral and ethical conditioning. Then what to do about the ritualized tribal behaviors inculcated by immersion and overemphasis of team sports rears its massively ugly head. It goes on and on.
Certain subjects are so difficult to teach that the worm turns and you may have a better chance to teach them well than a public school does. For instance, I would liken mathematics to a balanced, inverted pyramid. You teach it from the bottom up, laying each brick upon those that went before it, keeping the structure balanced at all times so that the whole process doesn't result in a flawed, imbalanced outcome. Fail to import a proper understanding of algebra, and the much of the rest of the process is in trouble, the balance is lost and with it, hope of unimpeded progress. So it goes.
Home schooling is a path that will have an immense impact upon the person whom the child will eventually turn out to be. I would find it very difficult to recommend to anyone without knowing so much about the situation, and the parents, that it would be considered invasive.
In addition to very high complexity, fixed topology (meaning, using primarily electrical, chemical and timing means as opposed to topological modification to operate), general problem solving networks, I am fairly confident that we develop plenty of what can accurately be described as single-skill networks, topologically tuned to individual problems by continuous cut-and-fit until the errors drop. I lay out why right here.
They're basically a really simple linear discriminant.
Actually, most of them are nonlinear. Sigmoid function is common, and there are much more exotic things going on too, such as fuzzy logic-based discriminants. Bottom line is that any discriminatory function is of interest.
There's also some fascinating stuff going on with time discriminants where they're having very encouraging results.
Odds are excellent that both (time and transfer function) are part of a solution that is most human-neuron-like. But it isn't by any means a given that we have to go there to make actual AI work. That's just how we work. Also, I am fairly confident, like this.
Sharx cameras, as far as I know, use custom software. They are not web-based. This limits the machines and applications they can talk to (pretty severely, in fact.)
I've been in the market for an outdoor 1080p camera that would go to the web (or start there) basically since the tech hinted it was possible; so far, it's all proprietary stuff. I've got an NTSC one that does it, and it's awesome, except, as I said, it's NTSC so basically it's blur city.
Hopefully someone, someday, will realize there are a bunch of us out here who would buy weatherproof hires IP cameras with built-in web servers in a heartbeat. For less than thousands of dollars. It's hard to swallow that kind of price when you know you're looking at under $100 worth of hardware. That's if it's a pretty nice one.
Heck, I can buy a dedicated DVR with *multiple* 1080p cameras, cables, and power supplies for less than a some of the "good" ones being discussed here. With a WEB interface. From a store that is known for overpricing everything is sight!
All I want is one bloody outdoor camera to watch the neighborhood cats in our cat house.:)
It's almost impossible to think of anything that will create a $140 billion business out of nothing."
Lol. Just waiting on the tech. These will all be many-billion dollar businesses: fully immersive 3D entertainment; electric cars; household robots; sex robots; space habitats; real 3D printers (by which I mean they'll be able to print electronics, mechanicals, hydraulics and so on -- able to print any item you can provide the raw materials for. The "3D printers" we have today aren't good for much yet.)
As to what you could do today and have a chance to meet that metric... all I know is it isn't going to be an iWatch class device.
Of course if we were collectively smart we would have "Manhattan project-ed" solar, solar storage, and the means to pass massive amounts of energy around long before now at a similar level, and we'd already be off the middle eastern tit.... but of course that means the big oil cronyism in congress would have to be reined in, and that isn't happening.
Slashdot Mirror
There are many things that could be done. One of the first things that should be done is to overhaul what "consent" means. Right now, it's a randomly varying line in the sand consisting of an arbitrarily assigned age. What it should be is a license held by a person that shows they have shown themselves capable of reasoning, knowledgeable about the risks and potential consequences, and so on. The age line in the sand thing errs both ways, and consistently so: people who should be able to engage in sexual activity without threat of government coercion cannot, and people who really shouldn't ever be allowed near anyone else sexually are cleared to do just about whatever they want.
Another would be to break the social stupidity that equates a sexually active, aware and interested teen out from the category of "children" (technically, this is already done, as the actual definition of pedophilia is quite limited, it's just that the average citizen isn't very well informed, nor do they care to replace random pitchfork-and-torch thinking with reason, it's just not nearly as entertaining.)
We here in the USA live in a society of poorly informed people, being driven before vapid, largely invalid pap pushed by irresponsible media and superstitious idiocy. It's no wonder we can't get this right.
The bottom line is, just because something could be done, doesn't mean that we have the capability as a society to get it done.
You stay the heck away from my wontons. There's plenty of chicken wings left, go over there before I break your chopsticks for you.
There are no "current AIs", as that would require them to be intelligent, which in turn requires them to be conscious. And they aren't. Not even close.
If we really want to water the term "intelligence" down so that is applies to any clever algorithm, then perhaps we should spend a few minutes contemplating what it is we plan to call an actual intelligence, once we get that far.
"AI" has reasonable meaning in the context of research towards that goal, or as a bright line in the sand that we have yet to reach, much less cross.
Nope. email is not similar to a postcard. email is considerably more similar to mail in an envelope. You have to take some very specific, targeted actions to read my email. In transit, you have to access, copy or intercept, and reassemble the packets. Once on the server, you need to look in an area reserved for my effects for information that was not directed to you, you must open the file, and then read it. It's definitely in an envelope. Just as your banking information is in an envelope, a ladies panties (or lack thereof) remain hidden under her skirt, and so on. It's not about how difficult it is to get at our private information. It's about the boundaries on behavior that we expect as part of the social compact. In the case of government action, the 3rd and 4th amendments both express our expectations of privacy and create concrete limits on legitimate government action. The intent is 100% clear: Stay the fuck out of our shit.
The only reason we currently need "clarification" is because the government is running a scam on us of the form "it's not about what you expect, it's about what we can do." But that's not right, and it has never been right.
It's about the behaviors we expect -- and that's all it's about. The very last thing we should ever wish for is a society where it's ok to do something simply because you can. That way lies anarchy.
You know what follows this line of reasoning?
a) "He looked into my home with FLIR!"
b) Well, you should have insulated your walls with IR-opaque materials. No expectation of privacy, brah.
a) He charged stuff to my credit card!
b) Well, he read the numbers they require right off the card. No expectation of privacy, brah.
a) He looked up my dress!
b) Well, you should have worn pants. No expectation of privacy, babe.
a) They stole my identity!
b) Was right there in your wallet and online. No expectation of privacy, brah.
See, what the problem is, is that you are confusing hardening a behavioral boundary that expresses a social expectation of privacy, with the boundary itself.
The flaw is twofold: First, it is essentially an expression of anarchy, of the form "if you can do it, go ahead and do it", or conversely, "if they can't stop you from doing it, go ahead and do it."
Secondly, as the ability to sunder a hardened boundary arises, the privacy evaporates as if it never was. For instance, putting a letter in an envelope has the most minimal hardened boundary one could imagine short of none at all. Sundering it requires the lifting of a finger, quite literally. It's nothing. This is extremely similar to email. I send it out along the network as packets, but people (not the recipient) have to make a specific effort -- more than lifting a fingernail -- to access and open and reassemble those packets. I expect them not to, just as I expect them not to open that physical envelope. It's a behavioral boundary. Not a technical one. And that's what it should be.
Privacy is a set of behavioral boundaries that we agree to expect not just as individuals, but also as a society, and we expect that agreement to extend all the way through the government (the 4th amendment is a classic expression of such an expectation being codified into a restriction on legitimate government action, as is the 3rd amendment.) In other words, it's our expectations made concrete in the very document that authorizes our form of government.
It's not about the hardness, or lack thereof, of the boundaries. It is about our behavior: What is ok, and what isn't. And we know damned well that it's not ok for the government to be reading our emails, our texts, our papers, our bank accounts, our browser histories, and so on. How difficult the task is should be completely irrelevant. The fact that it isn't only points out gross failure in understanding WTF is going on.
Expectation of privacy has nothing to do with encryption. Encryption is simply hardening a boundary.
If I put a letter in an envelope, you getting to it is utterly trivial -- the use of one fingernail. But that doesn't in any way erode my expectation of privacy. If, on the other hand, I encrypt the letter, all I've done is harden the boundary -- my expectation is still the same: I don't think you have a right to access that letter.
If I close the front door to my house, but I don't lock it, I'm NOT inviting you in. I expect you to knock, and to wait. If I lock the door, I have hardened the boundary, but I have not in any way changed the why of my expectations. If I then add a bar and hooks, I have further hardened the boundary, but the basic point remains exactly the same: My expectation is that you will knock and wait. As long as you meet my expectation, none of that hardening would have any effect upon you. The only ones who are affected by hardened boundaries are those who sunder our expectations.
If a woman wears a dress, is she giving us permission to look up it? Obviously not.
Clearly, "because you can", is insufficient justification to "just do it."
It's not about the envelope. It's not about the lock. It's not about encryption. It's not about the dress.
It's about mutually understood social boundaries. The scam the government is constantly trying to pull is pretending that hardening is the issue, rather than social boundaries. They are doing what governments do, which is constantly strain to accrue more power. If they are not restrained in this process, they will do so -- regardless of the expense to our rights, liberties, and social expectations.
I cordially invite everyone to read this. Carefully.
The Democrats shifted corporate.
To your points:
o Who benefits when unions are taken down? Corporations.
o NAFTA -- free trade -- brings access to tons of cheap foreign labor. Who benefits? Corporations.
And so on. At this point in time, if it is anything but a relatively pure social issue, you can almost always look into it, follow the money, and end up with a "this benefits the corporations" understanding of the outcome or the push for almost anything you look at within the boundaries of Washington or any state capital. You can do this with both houses of congress, with SCOTUS, with a good bit of the entrenched bureaucracy, and of course the entire lobbyist / party structure exists for no other purpose at all.
Corporations are people. Specifically, psychopaths.
Underrated. The word is "Oligarchy."
I'll tell you when I feel it. When I see something I want to shoot and I don't have my 6D with me, and all I can bring to bear is my Galaxy Note 3. Which has a decent camera for a smartphone, but it won't get me shots like my EOS 6D does.
But yeah, you're quite right. I've been watching Canon carefully through the 40D, 50D and 6D lifespans, and I'm interested in more dynamic range and better low light performance (not that some conveniences like easier wifi, cordless charging, on-board timer wouldn't be welcome.) More megapixels... 20 seems fine to me. It already exceeds the ability of most of Canon's L glass to resolve a point, particularly at the edges of the sensor. Might be years yet before they really top the 6D from my POV. But when they do, I'll be there, wallet in hand.
He has no idea what he's talking about anyway. Starting from the sensor out, a good DSLR exceeds every technical and visual mark a camera phone can hit. Camera phones have exactly one primo advantage: ease of use. That ease is itself a combination of three things -- first, you almost always have the thing, and second, they have to make the camera systems so automatic and generic that anyone can use them by tapping a finger, and third, the means of getting that photo to other people -- sharing -- has been streamlined until a 4YO can do it.
But if you want to take beautiful images, you are way, way ahead if you start with a DSLR in your hands and good lenses right to hand.
Yes, this. No smartphone on earth could wean me away from my Canon 6D.
Because I can do things like this with it.
*
* If it's not 6809 ASM, it isn't ASM at all
* And octal is only for people who are missing two fingers.
* Hexadecimal uses ALL your fingers and 60% of your toes!
*
STRING FCC "PDP 11s are for wankers",4
LDX #STRING
JSR >$CD1E
JMP >$CD03
And yet, if you hit them both on the head with a frying pan, they both fall down. So there is some order in this world.
I shall Sally Forth, to wit:
: huh ."WTF";
BEGIN huh 0 UNTIL
Yet, who indeed is this Sally, and why is she so far behind? The questions stack up, and in reverse, I note. Perhaps she is Polish.
I guess I'm ok then, as I read and speak English, Korean, Chinese (poorly), French and Spanish.
I was feeling bad about it, because as near as I can make out, the three languages most often spoken locally are Yokel, Ebonics, and Res-dog.
I'll raise you call to a JPEG or PNG library, sucker. Not a printf to be seen.
LOok here feller, evver buddy are a speshul bunkerfly, and desserts there diplomer just as mutch as u do. Kwit beeing an eleetist, u eelitist, u. Kwit triing to put roodblocks in there way, will u? Sumbunny shud call helth n humun servaces on yur ass.
No, this is great...
Then...
Now, before you think I did that just to be mean, I am an autodidact. My situation lands even further outside the norm than those who have been home schooled, such as yourself. I'm not trying to indicate that home schooling is a fail, per se; only that it is much more difficult to do well than even its most vocal proponents generally admit to. My own writing is more of an attempt to ape patterns of speech I consider optimum than it is a coherent application of the rules of English. That is a direct result of teaching it to myself according to my own standards. I don't recommend the process, frankly.
There is a very strong tendency for home schooling to pass along failings of the teacher, generally the parents. For instance, if the parents are poor at English, or math, or history, it is that much more difficult for them to catch failures in those areas, and to remediate them when they occur. Then there is the issue of superstition and how it affects scientific understanding, moral and ethical conditioning. Then what to do about the ritualized tribal behaviors inculcated by immersion and overemphasis of team sports rears its massively ugly head. It goes on and on.
Certain subjects are so difficult to teach that the worm turns and you may have a better chance to teach them well than a public school does. For instance, I would liken mathematics to a balanced, inverted pyramid. You teach it from the bottom up, laying each brick upon those that went before it, keeping the structure balanced at all times so that the whole process doesn't result in a flawed, imbalanced outcome. Fail to import a proper understanding of algebra, and the much of the rest of the process is in trouble, the balance is lost and with it, hope of unimpeded progress. So it goes.
Home schooling is a path that will have an immense impact upon the person whom the child will eventually turn out to be. I would find it very difficult to recommend to anyone without knowing so much about the situation, and the parents, that it would be considered invasive.
In addition to very high complexity, fixed topology (meaning, using primarily electrical, chemical and timing means as opposed to topological modification to operate), general problem solving networks, I am fairly confident that we develop plenty of what can accurately be described as single-skill networks, topologically tuned to individual problems by continuous cut-and-fit until the errors drop. I lay out why right here.
Actually, most of them are nonlinear. Sigmoid function is common, and there are much more exotic things going on too, such as fuzzy logic-based discriminants. Bottom line is that any discriminatory function is of interest.
There's also some fascinating stuff going on with time discriminants where they're having very encouraging results.
Odds are excellent that both (time and transfer function) are part of a solution that is most human-neuron-like. But it isn't by any means a given that we have to go there to make actual AI work. That's just how we work. Also, I am fairly confident, like this.
Sharx cameras, as far as I know, use custom software. They are not web-based. This limits the machines and applications they can talk to (pretty severely, in fact.)
I've been in the market for an outdoor 1080p camera that would go to the web (or start there) basically since the tech hinted it was possible; so far, it's all proprietary stuff. I've got an NTSC one that does it, and it's awesome, except, as I said, it's NTSC so basically it's blur city.
Hopefully someone, someday, will realize there are a bunch of us out here who would buy weatherproof hires IP cameras with built-in web servers in a heartbeat. For less than thousands of dollars. It's hard to swallow that kind of price when you know you're looking at under $100 worth of hardware. That's if it's a pretty nice one.
Heck, I can buy a dedicated DVR with *multiple* 1080p cameras, cables, and power supplies for less than a some of the "good" ones being discussed here. With a WEB interface. From a store that is known for overpricing everything is sight!
All I want is one bloody outdoor camera to watch the neighborhood cats in our cat house. :)
Or me. Because I have my matches right here.
Even as a sardine is just a bird with an altitude problem.
Lol. Just waiting on the tech. These will all be many-billion dollar businesses: fully immersive 3D entertainment; electric cars; household robots; sex robots; space habitats; real 3D printers (by which I mean they'll be able to print electronics, mechanicals, hydraulics and so on -- able to print any item you can provide the raw materials for. The "3D printers" we have today aren't good for much yet.)
As to what you could do today and have a chance to meet that metric... all I know is it isn't going to be an iWatch class device.
Of course if we were collectively smart we would have "Manhattan project-ed" solar, solar storage, and the means to pass massive amounts of energy around long before now at a similar level, and we'd already be off the middle eastern tit.... but of course that means the big oil cronyism in congress would have to be reined in, and that isn't happening.