However, how does this help us except that we know a little bit more? How can we use this to our advantage to improve our lives, etc?
Right now, it doesn't help except we hopefully know a bit more. That's the thing with basic science, generally any one discovery doesn't in itself help anything or anyone. But such things come together with other basic and 'useless' things and produce something useful. And until then, nobody knows which bits are the important ones.
The incredible state of almost is where this comes from. I suppose some compromise will have to happen, but in an ideal world, to me, things would opt-in, and any change would be required to be very explicit and specific. That is, if one opts into Company A for XYZ, even Company A can't bug one about JKL as that was not opted into.
I'm not entirely sure I want law for privacy, as omissions in it might be seen as an invitation to do questionable things. But then having no law seems to be doing the same.
Perhaps a law of reciprocity? If someone want information about me, first they must supply me with the equivalent about them. For any limit they want on what I do with that, I get to put a limit on what they do with my information - and it need not be the same limit (since I'm not doing what they are, most likely). Dream world? Yep, alas.
Note that at no point did I say they were right. Perhaps I should have phrased it as "They should have said..." rather than "What was probably meant.."
I do rather like another poster's idea of setting up a page with such questions and going into better detail about how things really work and supply correct answers.
I suspect what is meant is that the OS supplied with the machine is not meant to go anywhere but on that machine. As for force of law, that seems dubious. Why shouldn't anyone be able to move it to another machine, provided they remove it from the first?
What should be said, rather than what is said, "If you are going to put a commercially licensed OS on a computer, or are given a computer with a commercial OS, you must have a valid license for that instance of that OS." Of course, they didn't say that. They said something far sillier instead.
While it is opt out rather than the Right Way to do it, you can stop junk (snail) mail in the U.S.
Some places can be dealt with by a simple phone call. Why send a catalog or such to someone who asks not to get it? It's just wasteful. Other places aren't as clueful, but if they are trying to sell soemthing, you can use USPS Form 1500 on them.
Form 1500 needs to be filled out, the offending mailed item opened (so that USPS personel don't break the 'never open anything' rule. Yes, they do take it seriously) and given to a clerk, though there it may help to see the postmaster, since s/he might be a bit more clueful. The form says it's about 'offensive' or 'adult' material, but it has been ruled (Supreme court case, late 1960s) that the recipient has "sole discretion" in deciding what is considered offensive. Don't like ads for socks? Fine, fill in the form. Once submitted, that party should no longer send any mail to you. If they do, they can explain why they broke the law... to someone who will be very interested, and unimpressed.
Ok, self-followup isn't good form, but self-correction is.
A bit of web searching find that the fellow was rather secretive about the process and was looking to sell the idea. So it's not too surprising no records of the process have been found. He did, however, team up with Daguerre for a bit later, so perhaps there was some degree of not caring about one process too much when searching for a better one.
Considering the age of the work, it is quite possible that the photographer did keep good notes but some else lost them later, or that they were destroyed, perhaps by accident. Of course it's also possible that he didn't consider the chemistry to be important later. How long was it until another process was in use? And did this person do more after this first image, or was it a one shot trick for him? Simply, how important did the photographer (heliographer) consider photography to be?
Also consider toys. The lack of curiousity may come earlier.
I recall my parents making sure at least some of the toys around for my sister and myself were of the constructive (gotta put together) variety. Thus there were Tinker Toys and Lincoln Logs, and later Erector Sets, (oddly though, not LEGO) as well as some kits. There were regular toys as well, but if something was of a destructive nature (smash this, etc) it simply wasn't around.
I doubt I'm the only one brought up like that. This requires/stimulates some interest in building, and in the building some understanding. Even a failed attempt is learning. Probably more learning than the successes.
Much is now now sheilded from the user, and to a degree that's fine. Granny should not have to care how the typewriter replacement works so long as it does the job -- unless she want to, of course, then she should be able to explore and find out.
As for manuals lacking, that one can be credited to some lawyers (and some sleazy clients of theirs). Nowadays a manual starts with warnings ("DO NOT USE [AC-powered-device]UNDERWATER") rather than the overdone congratulations ("Congratulations on your purchase of a [make] radio which with minimal care and maintenance will provide you with many years of listening pleasure.") One thing no longer seen in manuals is schematics - and not simply because of Public Ignorance, nor complexity (or simplicity with few chips), but that it's harder if not impossible to get that UL seal with them around. What, encourage some.. some mere _consumer_ to risk Doing Something? Oh no, we can't risk that. Better they just buy a new one, after all, it is a _consumer_.
Note also that his own site ( http://www.toad.com/gnu/verio-censorship.html ) suggests who to contact at Verio. Maybe Verio could use a few supportive emails about this matter to encourage them to whiten their hat.
I don't see Lomberg as saying we are having no effect at all and therefore have no need to anything ever. What I see is someone questioning commonly said, if not understood, things.
The questions I have would be:
Is human activity having a measurable effect on [X]?
If so, is this effect possibly harmful?
If so, what actions can be taken about it?
Can the actions be done in a scaled way?
Such as, what are the easy things that can be done right now, what are the not so easy things that might have to be done next, and what are the hard things that might be needed?
Can these actions be verified as actually doing what is claimed for them?
Not that these are all the right questions, but I keep seeing and hearing the conclusions saying we must do [whatever] and fast without much evidence supporting them. Anyone asking people to change their behavoir or way of life should be able to explain, with supporting and verifiable evidence, why the change is needed.
Not this guy isn't a kook, but this argument has a problem. People tend to be 'sensitive' to ionizing radiation in that it affects them (radiation poisoning for nontrivial exposures) but they can't tell that they're being exposed until well past the danger point.. So people in places where there might possibly be accidental exposure get to carry some kind of radiation sensor around with them.
"PC" was actaully a term coined by IBM with the introduction of its microcomputer...
The abbreviation 'PC' maybe, but the term 'Personal Computer' from which it came was not an IBM thing. I have a poster which proclaims the Apple ][ (yes, the plain Apple ][, not a + or e or c or gs) to be the 'Personal Computer.' This poster was given to me by a person who got it when the Apple ][ was still a new thing - years before IBM successfully entered the home computer market.
It bugs me that the term 'personal computer' and 'PC' (and DOS as well for a while) was hijacked by IBM when they came in late. And I don't even own a Mac.
Further down than the first parapgraph, the article states Universal's plane to have 'copy protection' (rights elimination) on all new CDs in a couple years.
Not quite, but I have found most reputable places will be reasonable about marking your entry in their database as a 'do not send' if called and asked politely. This also has worked for the free flyer 'newspapers' I used to find on the porch.
There is a national opt-out (bah, thanks DMA, it shouldn't need to be opt-out...) list that you can get yourself on. I think junkbusters.org has information on it.
For the disreputable mailers (the ones that won't stop with a simple request) there is form 1500. This is a prohibitory order that tells an adverstising mailer that you are not to be mailed to again. Or else. Ask for form 1500 at the post office or get the pdf listed at http://www.junkbusters.org/dmlaws.html#form .
Ignore that the wording is about arousing or sexual materials. You get to decide what offends you and what shouldn't be allowed in your mailbox, and you have _sole_ discretion about it. (It'd be nice if any spam legislation took that approach.)
While I never much cared for webrings (there always seems to be a site or two in the ring chain that is missing/broken/or annoyingly has a page in the ring that doesn't belong and wants folks to dredge the site to find the page they came looking for) they did do one good thing. With the web ring's index page, you could see all the similar pages, even if a search engine hadn't found them yet.
I don't know about Z-80 stuff in satellites, though it would not be a big surprise - Z80 seemed to be everywhere, once upon a time.
It seemed odd that Zilog appeared to have much of the 8-bit world.. and made the 16 bit Z8000.. and that seemed to just disappear. I found out later that the Z8000 design was rather odd and, worse, not at all compatible with the Z80. Screwy as the 8086 & 8088 were, they had some compatibly advantages.
There are, or at least were, I'm not up to date on it, satellites (OSCAR) that used the 1802 (OT yes, not a Zilog chip). If you've never mety at 1802.. it's probably just as well. Not outright evil, but limited in what how and what it could do. Why'd they use it then? It had a space rated version, that was "rad-hard."
Yes, the desktop is currently largely Windows as it is what is shipped with the box or what the software a company uses runs on. Linux does have an ease of use issue, or rather a non-ease of use image, to contend with.
The idea of Lindows is appealing, if it works, not from a current Linux user's point of view but from that of a person or company who needs to run Windows software. If a company can get by with cheap site license for Lindows and still run the Windows applications, there is a cost incentive. The OS would actually become irrelevent. The side benefit is that Linux program can also be run, and more easily substituted for Windows versions, when possible. I don't know how well this will turn out, but I do wish the Lindows folks well.
The licensing issues with Microsoft products have made even the Microsoft fans at work start looking around for alternatives, if not the OS, then the applications. The problem is one of being locked in to Microsoft's feature sets and protocols. Too many Word documents with tables, too many people sending.doc files, too many people dependent upon a 'mail client' that has a calendar function (and an unfortunate propensity for candy-coloring with non-plain text...).
Another example, this one actually in use (though not where I work, as far as I know), would be the smoothwall firewall. Love it or hate it, it *is* simple enough to allow a person who is a Windows (only, well almost) user to maintain a Linux based firewall. Set it up, or have someone set it up, and then you can do everything from a web browser, including patches and rebooting if need be.
On the server side, things are different of course. Not "everyone in the company" has to know how it works. Just a few folks. And I've been amused that where I work the Windows-based proxy/firewall has a Linux based backup.. or did they just start keeping with the more reliable backup?
Ok, both do exist and the idea of the breathing of 'methyl oxide' isn't out of line - for an alien life form.
The nitrogen sulfide (aka sulfur nitride) is still a bit of a problem. The stuff is solid and touchily explosive - not exactly the thing for an atmosphere. A nitrogen and somethingelse-sulfide (like hydrogen sulfide?) atmosphere is more believable.
I do a few things to thwart web ads, like disabling javascript (byebye pop-ups, pop-unders, and scrolling in the URL area) and disabling animation. I can turn these back on for the (very rare) occasions I need them.
But do I really dislike the ads themselves, or that they are intrusive and distracting? I think that they try too hard to be eye-catching rather than genuinely interesting. I don't want to be bothered. But a really entertaining ad isn't bad.
The web is not TV. That's been said and is true, but from the ads I have seen the advertisers miss the one lesson from TV they should apply to the web: Annoying ads may get noticed, but amusing ads get watched.
Do you hit the mute button when an especially loud and obnoxious commercial is on TV? Of course. It's annoying and gets Dealt With. But some commercials get watched.. one of the recent examples are those for a 'hard' lemonade. Why? It doesn't annoy the viewer and has some entertainment value. It FITS in what TV does. Web ads need to FIT into what people want or expect of the web.
If not, and these gotta-go-through-the-ad-to-see-anything ads become common, then I suspect the next generation of browsers will have a feature (perhaps a right-click menu choice?) that allows the user to take a link and the new page will have images, javascript, etc. disabled - but after taking the link to the content all that is changed back. Still an extra click or two, but the ad might be made less annoying.
A few months ago I heard a very interesting radio program where the widow of a composer or musician had been upset with real music counterfeiting. That is, the unlicensed physical counterfeits made it to store shelves. At first she went to each store and dealt with things. Then she realized that wasn't dealing with the problem effectively.
So instead of hassling every store, she started her own recording company. Then she issued licensed versions of the music she was concerned about, and made a point of selling below the price of the counterfeiters. End of problem. Yes, the place is named Revenge Records.
Granted you can't beat 'free' on price, but you _can_ offer a quality product at a reasonable price. CDs have the advantage of being better than many mp3 files for quality, they can be played in standard players, and they are a physical backup (as well as a convenient proof of ownership, perhaps). All of this has value. The question becomes, what does one consider a reasonable price for that value?
Yes, probably a temporary replacement, but don't count out what polymers can do.
Some years ago I was told of a project to make a plastic clip for an overhead window (sunroof for houses). The window manufacturer was quite concerned about the strength and had the perception that any and all plastics were not likely to be good enough. Eventually the material used was a tougher nylon, with something like 30% glass fiber reinforcement.
When the first pieces were tried there was an attempt to break them, to show that "mere plastic" just would not do. Sure enough the piece disassembled and a chunk went flying across the room. As comments were being made about inferior product someone retrieved the broken part. The nylon had held, but a steel pin had not. There were no more arguments about 'cheap plastic' from then on.
While glass fiber reinforcement is probably out for this 3-D printing, polycarbonate is some pretty tough stuff (but subject to chemical attack by a few common things..) and plastics can be recycled. This may make much sense in space applications. If a part is needed, make it, and put the old part back into the source mix and use the molecules over again.
Slashdot Mirror
Monopoly like in the exclusive deal NPR has with Sirius, such that NPR is only on Siruis and not on XM? That kind of monopoly?
However, how does this help us except that we know a little bit more? How can we use this to our advantage to improve our lives, etc?
Right now, it doesn't help except we hopefully know a bit more. That's the thing with basic science, generally any one discovery doesn't in itself help anything or anyone. But such things come together with other basic and 'useless' things and produce something useful. And until then, nobody knows which bits are the important ones.
The incredible state of almost is where this comes from. I suppose some compromise will have to happen, but in an ideal world, to me, things would opt-in, and any change would be required to be very explicit and specific. That is, if one opts into Company A for XYZ, even Company A can't bug one about JKL as that was not opted into.
I'm not entirely sure I want law for privacy, as omissions in it might be seen as an invitation to do questionable things. But then having no law seems to be doing the same.
Perhaps a law of reciprocity? If someone want information about me, first they must supply me with the equivalent about them. For any limit they want on what I do with that, I get to put a limit on what they do with my information - and it need not be the same limit (since I'm not doing what they are, most likely). Dream world? Yep, alas.
Note that at no point did I say they were right. Perhaps I should have phrased it as "They should have said..." rather than "What was probably meant.."
I do rather like another poster's idea of setting up a page with such questions and going into better detail about how things really work and supply correct answers.
I suspect what is meant is that the OS supplied with the machine is not meant to go anywhere but on that machine. As for force of law, that seems dubious. Why shouldn't anyone be able to move it to another machine, provided they remove it from the first?
What should be said, rather than what is said, "If you are going to put a commercially licensed OS on a computer, or are given a computer with a commercial OS, you must have a valid license for that instance of that OS." Of course, they didn't say that. They said something far sillier instead.
While it is opt out rather than the Right Way to do it, you can stop junk (snail) mail in the U.S.
Some places can be dealt with by a simple phone call. Why send a catalog or such to someone who asks not to get it? It's just wasteful. Other places aren't as clueful, but if they are trying to sell soemthing, you can use USPS Form 1500 on them.
Form 1500 needs to be filled out, the offending mailed item opened (so that USPS personel don't break the 'never open anything' rule. Yes, they do take it seriously) and given to a clerk, though there it may help to see the postmaster, since s/he might be a bit more clueful. The form says it's about 'offensive' or 'adult' material, but it has been ruled (Supreme court case, late 1960s) that the recipient has "sole discretion" in deciding what is considered offensive. Don't like ads for socks? Fine, fill in the form. Once submitted, that party should no longer send any mail to you. If they do, they can explain why they broke the law... to someone who will be very interested, and unimpressed.
Ok, self-followup isn't good form, but self-correction is.
A bit of web searching find that the fellow was rather secretive about the process and was looking to sell the idea. So it's not too surprising no records of the process have been found. He did, however, team up with Daguerre for a bit later, so perhaps there was some degree of not caring about one process too much when searching for a better one.
Considering the age of the work, it is quite possible that the photographer did keep good notes but some else lost them later, or that they were destroyed, perhaps by accident. Of course it's also possible that he didn't consider the chemistry to be important later. How long was it until another process was in use? And did this person do more after this first image, or was it a one shot trick for him? Simply, how important did the photographer (heliographer) consider photography to be?
Also consider toys. The lack of curiousity may come earlier.
I recall my parents making sure at least some of the toys around for my sister and myself were of the constructive (gotta put together) variety. Thus there were Tinker Toys and Lincoln Logs, and later Erector Sets, (oddly though, not LEGO) as well as some kits. There were regular toys as well, but if something was of a destructive nature (smash this, etc) it simply wasn't around.
I doubt I'm the only one brought up like that. This requires/stimulates some interest in building, and in the building some understanding. Even a failed attempt is learning. Probably more learning than the successes.
Much is now now sheilded from the user, and to a degree that's fine. Granny should not have to care how the typewriter replacement works so long as it does the job -- unless she want to, of course, then she should be able to explore and find out.
As for manuals lacking, that one can be credited to some lawyers (and some sleazy clients of theirs). Nowadays a manual starts with warnings ("DO NOT USE [AC-powered-device]UNDERWATER") rather than the overdone congratulations ("Congratulations on your purchase of a [make] radio which with minimal care and maintenance will provide you with many years of listening pleasure.") One thing no longer seen in manuals is schematics - and not simply because of Public Ignorance, nor complexity (or simplicity with few chips), but that it's harder if not impossible to get that UL seal with them around. What, encourage some.. some mere _consumer_ to risk Doing Something? Oh no, we can't risk that. Better they just buy a new one, after all, it is a _consumer_.
Note also that his own site ( http://www.toad.com/gnu/verio-censorship.html ) suggests who to contact at Verio. Maybe Verio could use a few supportive emails about this matter to encourage them to whiten their hat.
I don't see Lomberg as saying we are having no effect at all and therefore have no need to anything ever. What I see is someone questioning commonly said, if not understood, things.
The questions I have would be:
Is human activity having a measurable effect on [X]?
If so, is this effect possibly harmful?
If so, what actions can be taken about it?
Can the actions be done in a scaled way?
Such as, what are the easy things that can be done right now, what are the not so easy things that might have to be done next, and what are the hard things that might be needed?
Can these actions be verified as actually doing what is claimed for them?
Not that these are all the right questions, but I keep seeing and hearing the conclusions saying we must do [whatever] and fast without much evidence supporting them. Anyone asking people to change their behavoir or way of life should be able to explain, with supporting and verifiable evidence, why the change is needed.
Not this guy isn't a kook, but this argument has a problem. People tend to be 'sensitive' to ionizing radiation in that it affects them (radiation poisoning for nontrivial exposures) but they can't tell that they're being exposed until well past the danger point.. So people in places where there might possibly be accidental exposure get to carry some kind of radiation sensor around with them.
"PC" was actaully a term coined by IBM with the introduction of its microcomputer...
The abbreviation 'PC' maybe, but the term 'Personal Computer' from which it came was not an IBM thing. I have a poster which proclaims the Apple ][ (yes, the plain Apple ][, not a + or e or c or gs) to be the 'Personal Computer.' This poster was given to me by a person who got it when the Apple ][ was still a new thing - years before IBM successfully entered the home computer market.
It bugs me that the term 'personal computer' and 'PC' (and DOS as well for a while) was hijacked by IBM when they came in late. And I don't even own a Mac.
Heck, just having the stack and _a_ client program of some sort would be something I'd be interested in.
Microsoft here has a case.
In your example of "Minux" there are two possible confusion names: Linux and Minix.
The real question is...
...what will be Lindows new name?
Further down than the first parapgraph, the article states Universal's plane to have 'copy protection' (rights elimination) on all new CDs in a couple years.
Not quite, but I have found most reputable places will be reasonable about marking your entry in their database as a 'do not send' if called and asked politely. This also has worked for the free flyer 'newspapers' I used to find on the porch.
There is a national opt-out (bah, thanks DMA, it shouldn't need to be opt-out...) list that you can get yourself on. I think junkbusters.org has information on it.
For the disreputable mailers (the ones that won't stop with a simple request) there is form 1500. This is a prohibitory order that tells an adverstising mailer that you are not to be mailed to again. Or else. Ask for form 1500 at the post office or get the pdf listed at http://www.junkbusters.org/dmlaws.html#form .
Ignore that the wording is about arousing or sexual materials. You get to decide what offends you and what shouldn't be allowed in your mailbox, and you have _sole_ discretion about it. (It'd be nice if any spam legislation took that approach.)
While I never much cared for webrings (there always seems to be a site or two in the ring chain that is missing/broken/or annoyingly has a page in the ring that doesn't belong and wants folks to dredge the site to find the page they came looking for) they did do one good thing. With the web ring's index page, you could see all the similar pages, even if a search engine hadn't found them yet.
I don't know about Z-80 stuff in satellites, though it would not be a big surprise - Z80 seemed to be everywhere, once upon a time.
It seemed odd that Zilog appeared to have much of the 8-bit world.. and made the 16 bit Z8000.. and that seemed to just disappear. I found out later that the Z8000 design was rather odd and, worse, not at all compatible with the Z80. Screwy as the 8086 & 8088 were, they had some compatibly advantages.
There are, or at least were, I'm not up to date on it, satellites (OSCAR) that used the 1802 (OT yes, not a Zilog chip). If you've never mety at 1802.. it's probably just as well. Not outright evil, but limited in what how and what it could do. Why'd they use it then? It had a space rated version, that was "rad-hard."
Yes, the desktop is currently largely Windows as it is what is shipped with the box or what the software a company uses runs on. Linux does have an ease of use issue, or rather a non-ease of use image, to contend with.
.doc files, too many people dependent upon a 'mail client' that has a calendar function (and an unfortunate propensity for candy-coloring with non-plain text...).
The idea of Lindows is appealing, if it works, not from a current Linux user's point of view but from that of a person or company who needs to run Windows software. If a company can get by with cheap site license for Lindows and still run the Windows applications, there is a cost incentive. The OS would actually become irrelevent. The side benefit is that Linux program can also be run, and more easily substituted for Windows versions, when possible. I don't know how well this will turn out, but I do wish the Lindows folks well.
The licensing issues with Microsoft products have made even the Microsoft fans at work start looking around for alternatives, if not the OS, then the applications. The problem is one of being locked in to Microsoft's feature sets and protocols. Too many Word documents with tables, too many people sending
Another example, this one actually in use (though not where I work, as far as I know), would be the smoothwall firewall. Love it or hate it, it *is* simple enough to allow a person who is a Windows (only, well almost) user to maintain a Linux based firewall. Set it up, or have someone set it up, and then you can do everything from a web browser, including patches and rebooting if need be.
On the server side, things are different of course. Not "everyone in the company" has to know how it works. Just a few folks. And I've been amused that where I work the Windows-based proxy/firewall has a Linux based backup.. or did they just start keeping with the more reliable backup?
Ok, both do exist and the idea of the breathing of 'methyl oxide' isn't out of line - for an alien life form.
The nitrogen sulfide (aka sulfur nitride) is still a bit of a problem. The stuff is solid and touchily explosive - not exactly the thing for an atmosphere. A nitrogen and somethingelse-sulfide (like hydrogen sulfide?) atmosphere is more believable.
I do a few things to thwart web ads, like disabling javascript (byebye pop-ups, pop-unders, and scrolling in the URL area) and disabling animation. I can turn these back on for the (very rare) occasions I need them.
But do I really dislike the ads themselves, or that they are intrusive and distracting? I think that they try too hard to be eye-catching rather than genuinely interesting. I don't want to be bothered. But a really entertaining ad isn't bad.
The web is not TV. That's been said and is true, but from the ads I have seen the advertisers miss the one lesson from TV they should apply to the web: Annoying ads may get noticed, but amusing ads get watched.
Do you hit the mute button when an especially loud and obnoxious commercial is on TV? Of course. It's annoying and gets Dealt With. But some commercials get watched.. one of the recent examples are those for a 'hard' lemonade. Why? It doesn't annoy the viewer and has some entertainment value. It FITS in what TV does. Web ads need to FIT into what people want or expect of the web.
If not, and these gotta-go-through-the-ad-to-see-anything ads become common, then I suspect the next generation of browsers will have a feature (perhaps a right-click menu choice?) that allows the user to take a link and the new page will have images, javascript, etc. disabled - but after taking the link to the content all that is changed back. Still an extra click or two, but the ad might be made less annoying.
Ok, the music needs an overhaul, and someone (at best) is mistaking sheilds for plating but...
Methyl oxide?
Nitrogen sulphide?
Is Enterprise's chemisrty trying to out-bad the other Trek's particle du jour physics??
A few months ago I heard a very interesting radio program where the widow of a composer or musician had been upset with real music counterfeiting. That is, the unlicensed physical counterfeits made it to store shelves. At first she went to each store and dealt with things. Then she realized that wasn't dealing with the problem effectively.
So instead of hassling every store, she started her own recording company. Then she issued licensed versions of the music she was concerned about, and made a point of selling below the price of the counterfeiters. End of problem. Yes, the place is named Revenge Records.
Granted you can't beat 'free' on price, but you _can_ offer a quality product at a reasonable price. CDs have the advantage of being better than many mp3 files for quality, they can be played in standard players, and they are a physical backup (as well as a convenient proof of ownership, perhaps). All of this has value. The question becomes, what does one consider a reasonable price for that value?
Yes, probably a temporary replacement, but don't count out what polymers can do.
Some years ago I was told of a project to make a plastic clip for an overhead window (sunroof for houses). The window manufacturer was quite concerned about the strength and had the perception that any and all plastics were not likely to be good enough. Eventually the material used was a tougher nylon, with something like 30% glass fiber reinforcement.
When the first pieces were tried there was an attempt to break them, to show that "mere plastic" just would not do. Sure enough the piece disassembled and a chunk went flying across the room. As comments were being made about inferior product someone retrieved the broken part. The nylon had held, but a steel pin had not. There were no more arguments about 'cheap plastic' from then on.
While glass fiber reinforcement is probably out for this 3-D printing, polycarbonate is some pretty tough stuff (but subject to chemical attack by a few common things..) and plastics can be recycled. This may make much sense in space applications. If a part is needed, make it, and put the old part back into the source mix and use the molecules over again.