User:Ajo5115

From RepRap
Revision as of 00:24, 5 October 2012 by Ajo5115 (talk | contribs) (Blog 5-)
Jump to: navigation, search

Blog 5-

1) Given the circumstances I would be searching for a new 3D printer provider, which Wilson appears to be doing. Be careful not to spend too much on lawyers/legal fees if the cash supply is dwindling. Ideally they wouldn't need to pay $1000s/year to become licensed, but it may be necessary for them to progress with the project.

2) I previously vouched that the government should keep their nose out of this sector- allow people to make things without DRM-esque hassles. Given this new information though, it is concerning that if the technology got into the wrong hands someone may be able to mass-produce weapons like this for a low cost, and be completely untraceable. Perhaps the accessibility I was so excited about has its drawbacks...

3) I can see similar action being taken against the replication of keys. Currently, you need to have a physical key to copy it, or at least know the depth of the pin settings. Making a fake key requires vigorous, precise filing and is very difficult. With a 3D printer, a new copy could be constructed layer-by-layer from a computer model, which could perhaps come from a 3D scan of a key, or traces of a detailed photograph. Additionally, it could be easily distributed to others. Thus, giving someone access to a key for a small period of time would greatly increase chances of unauthorized access.

Blog 4-

If the rumors are correct, Makerbot appears to be ditching the community aspect of development in favor of closing their software. In doing so, they are making their printer strictly a commercial product. This is already causing backlash from the community including the "Occupy Thingiverse" movement started by Josef Prusa. Prusa is outraged that an industry founded on open collaboration of a community is being exploited for the gain of a single company. Furthermore, Makerbot recently updated their Terms on Thingiverse, making all uploaded models the property of Makerbot. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that someone will step forward to create a "new" Thingiverse: One company claiming ownership over the collective work of a community directly conflicts the "open-source" ideals, even if it is hosted on their website. Whoever slaved over hours of SolidWorks modeling should carry at least some "ownership" of the model, and we should be grateful to those who decide to share it without expectations of profit.

Blog 3-

Q1: I don't believe it's unreasonable to think that, if the technology becomes mainstream enough, some more complex models will be sold for profit and protected under some usage restrictions. This is common with software trials: the program can track how many computers its been installed upon, and how many hours its been running. Once certain conditons have been meet (such as 10 hours of use, or by a certain date), the software will refuse to run. Similarly, a model could "track" how many times its been printed and do some sort of self-destruction that prevents a person from redistributing the file or creating multiple prints. Naturally, people would dedicate themselves to cracking these restrictions and sharing them with the world in a torrent-eque style. I imagine this will not occur for quite some time- I haven't seen a 3D model of tweezers worth patenting.


Q2: I've been collecting vinyl records for the past three years. It started as a little thing I did on the side, but has since become a highly-visible part of who I am. It is the highlight/focus of wherever I live, and makes a great conversation piece. I get a sense of satisfaction from sharing my collection with people and explaining the analog technology to someone who has never had experience with a turntable. I've formed a variety of relationships through my setup, and wouldn't be all that surprised if the trend continues.


Q3: An end to intellectual property is long overdue. It serves little purpose in a growing & evolving world beyond turning a profit for large corporations. Think of all the time and money being wasted in the Apple v. Samsung lawsuit, all of which (in an ideal world) could instead be put into purposeful collaboration to make revolutionary products. Unfortunately, I think Bowyer is a little optimistic about an end to IP. As long as large sums of money are involved, parties will attempt to protect their IP from being used for profit by others. Not to say this won't be thwarted by a dedicated community (music DRM, software, etc), but we have a long way to go before our plastic trinket printers revolutionize the manufacturing industry.

Blog 2-

Q1: I would usually be hesitant to say that a a project like a self-replicating universal constructor is possible, but it's getting difficult to call anything "impossible." Currently our printers can replicate all of their own joints and gears, but not the sturdier supports or more intricate electronics. Assembly is done by humans, but this could be done by robot rather simply. Unfortunately, I do believe we will reach limitations in what can be printed. Digital Cameras, for instance, would require such an intricate process with so many materials that it may not be feasible (unless perhaps a machine was dedicated to producing electronics).

Q2: Bowyer presents a scenario in which a person could own a machine capable of producing anything, making money obsolete. Given access to a machine, feed materials, and necessary models one has no need for any sort of money. While a positive for the consumer, it has the potential to eliminate the demand for production jobs or discourage people from working altogether. These may be instead replaced with people who create 3D models (to sell), or maintain the replicating machines. The economy as we know it would have to undergo a massive revamp to accommodate this technology.

Q3: I currently feel the learning curve is the biggest obstacle to becoming "mainstream." To my knowledge the technology is not yet at the point where a fully-assembled, functional machine can be delivered. Even so, the computer interface required to operate the printer is far from layman-friendly. In the future, I picture a large console with a colorful touchscreen where the user can search databases for a model and have it printed before them. Unfortunately I believe this will hurt the RepRap community- currently all RepRap users are working together to develop the technology. When they day comes that a layman can fully operate this machine on his or her own, the community will cease to grow. The 3D printing industry will ultimately become more commercialized and the hobbyists will either disappear or become hired as specialists to develop the technology.

Blog 1-

Useful: Cross Tweezers: [[1]] It looks like we use these quite a bit in printing. Handy that we can print out another set at will.

Artistic: Bioshock Belt Buckle: [[2]] They put loads of detail into this this, fully converting the official logo into a 3D model. While I doubt a plastic version would make a sturdy buckle, it would be a cool decoration.

Useless: USSR Rocket Key: [[3]] A model of the key which could theoretically activate missiles in the USSR. Would make a neat conversation starter, but has little application otherwise.

Funny: Portal Cake [[4]] I thought it was a lie, but someone took the initiate to make this fabled reward a reality.

Weird: Everything on [[5]]. The fact that a website exists solely for this restores my faith in the world's sense of humor.



Look at me still talking while there's Science to do.