User:Alexequals

From RepRap
Revision as of 23:52, 20 November 2012 by Alexequals (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Blog #5 - 2012/10/05 (posted on 2012/11/20):

1) Honestly, the first thing I'd be doing is looking for an alternate 3D printer that I can own, instead of just rent. The Replicator, Ultimaker & Form Labs' Form One printers seem like good options for cheap printers that can meet the tolerances they'll need. I think that the group has already done enough to take advantage of the "no such thing as bad press" principle, now they need to show that they aren't simply a flash in the pan. They need to get their website up and running and begin making rapid updates (even if they're small) to show that they are devoted and determined to make this project a reality.

2) 3D printers are just like any other kind of manufacturing device - you can make things just as dangerous on a lathe, a drill press, or mill. And almost anything you could make with a 3D printer you could make using a destructible mold (even many of the "impossible to manufacture" bits). If you're trying to regulate the sale of guns, regulating the machines used to manufacture them is a problematic solution - if you limit the use of the manufacturing equipment, you limit the creation of everything those machines could make. Imagine what would happen to manufacturing in the United States of drill presses were limited to those who could afford an expensive license - manufacturing in the United States would begin deteriorating at an even faster rate. What is being done currently with gun control clearly needs revision, but focusing on the end of the pipeline, as opposed to the beginning, may be the best option here.

3) I imagine anything that either offends, endangers, or breaks a law could be subject to some kind of "prohibition." This would include things like:

  • Offends
    • Defamation or "libel/slander"
    • Sex/pornographic objects
    • Religious symbols
  • Endangers
    • Components of weapons
    • Tools for the manufacture of weapons/dangerous chemicals
    • Devices for sabotage/malicious hacking
  • Illegal
    • Tools for the manufacture of illegal drugs
    • Lock-picking equipment
    • Intellectual property under copyright/patent




Blog #4 - 2012/09/28 (posted on 2012/10/01):

Being an open-sourced company of any sort is incredibly difficult. Open-source & capitalism can be powerful allies, but in a completely rational world, open-source & capitalism are fundamentally opposed. Capitalism works by preventing people form getting access to something unless they give you something in return. Sometimes, that thing that people need is knowledge or information - the very thing open-source was created to give away. To believe that Makerbot could continue growing the way it has without becoming closed-source is, in retrospect, a bit naive - but that doesn't take the sting out of the company backing away from the implicit promise and the people who believed in it.

With that in mind, I can also understand that anger from the community. There are many who cited Makerbot as a flagship company of open hardware, and the community respected Makerbot because of this image. This transition brings to light the harsh reality of the ideal, and calls into question the efficacy of everything that they've been contributing towards. That, and there are a number of chief contributors who feel cheated by what they interpret as a company stealing the ideas they intended for the open community at large. The question of "who owns design?" is one that I'm still grappling with, especially in the context of open-source - where ideas are explicitly open for anyone to use.

What I'm frustrated by is cloudiness of the issue caused by rumors, hastiness to judge, and lack of research. In a community based values on openness and self-reliance, I find it frustrating that the perspective of so many are shaped by the views of a few key individuals - on both sides of the camp. From the immature name-calling from Prusa, to the opaque corporate bull-shit from Makerbot (until recently) - finding the facts in all of this is more difficult than I ever would have imagined for this kind of community. The numerous sobering moments caused by this situation are starting to wear on me.


Blog #3 - 2012/09/21 (posted 2012/09/26):

1, 3) My personal take on this is that it already has, to some degree. It might not be called DRM, but there are legal measures in place to protect designs from being copied. The huge trial between Apple & Samsung recently was all about this very issue. Patent, copyright, and trademark protection can all be applied to physical objects. The only reason we haven't seen it being enforced on individual infringers is because the means for copying a physical object have been limited for the average consumer, until recently. As Boyer mentions in his post, once the barrier to redistributing something valuable has been lowered enough, there's nothing to prevent people from sharing/copying those things with other people.

With something like music, the invention of the CD player/burner was what began the music sharing revolution that has continued to this day. The internet has only accelerated this process, and is one the main reasons a similar revolution for physical objects is just around the corner. We have the ability to "rip" and "burn" products (rip = 3D scan, burn = 3D printer), the challenge is getting them good enough and inexpensive enough to attract a wider audience. Once that happens, I expect to see a similar war between IP holders and consumers with similar consequences. It's already happening to some degree: the recent take-down of a Warhammer model of a fan's own creation echoes the DMCA takedowns of YouTube videos which feature people covering poplar songs. The question is whether this new battle will reach a similar stalemate, or finally end the way IP works once and for all. While I think the IP landscape will definitely change, I doubt that intellectual property will go away as long as there's a way for one group to prevent another group from executing on an idea (this goes back to what I was saying about the essential mechanic of capitalism).

In terms of actual DRM (a way of incorporating something into the item itself to prevent unauthorized usage), that becomes much more difficult - but, there are definitely some examples of that as well. Clothing is an interesting example of this, since IP protection doesn't apply to basic/necessary goods. What you can have IP protection on are logos (via Trademarks), which is why clothing companies so often incorporate their logos into the design of the clothing itself, making it that much more difficult to replicate legally. Here's a link ot a TED talk about this idea: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html

Now, would the fall of intellectual property be a good or a bad thing? On one hand, I strongly believe what Steven Johnson talked about at the end of his book Where Good Ideas Come From - that the most important advances we've made as a society have come from the open collaboration between individuals, as opposed to the singular genius or the domineering corporation. In that sense, I believe that an open world is inherently better to some degree. I'm still debating, though, about whether an entirely open situation is either a) achievable, or b) a good thing. I don't think it's possible for everyone to be completely 100% open, partially because I believe that people need some semblance of a power structure - a structure that can only exist if one person witholds something that someone else needs. Some people will try to accomplish that socially, some will try to accomplish this with property. Again, whether this is positive or negative to uncertain for me at this point.

2) I've had to think a lot about how to present what it is that I'm passionate about recently: grad school applications are really just around the corner, and the range of institutions I want to apply is pretty broad (some engineering, some design). Where I'm at currently in my attempt at describing this passion without getting too technical or too abstract is this:

I am interested in relationships between people, ideas, and the things that we create.

It's not the best, obviously, and will certainly get some quizzical looks, but it encompasses more about me more accurately than any other previous way I've found.

I wouldn't say I use my passion about this to "attract future mates," but I definitely use it to attract other passionate people. I think that it's generally pretty easy for people who are passionate about things to find each other - we give off the same kind of vibe, I guess. This works out well for me, because passionate people are the individuals I find the easiest and most rewarding to talk to.


Blog #2 - 2012/09/13 (posted 2012/09/18):

1. Do you think his goal of a ‘self-replicating universal constructor’ is feasible? What remains to be done to achieve this, or alternatively what would prevent such a goal?


While a personal self-replicating universal constructor is most likely not feasible for a long while, I think that we are actually quite close to a "self-replicating universal constructor" (SRUC). We have all the elements of the puzzle - machines can be built to take care of every step in the process to create a new machine: material extraction, processing, and assembly. And with projects like the Open Village Construction Set, the "DNA" for these machines is available and ready to replicate/mutate. The big question is whether these machines can be designed to automate the process from start to finish, and where you're willing to draw the boundary which defines a "self-replicating universal constructor." For instance, if you could replace humans at every step of the supply chain with a computer, would the entirety of industry qualify as a SRUC? Personally, I would say yes. Just as a colony of ants can seem to act like a single organism, or how a single cell can replicate itself despite being comprised of a series of non-replicating components, I think an ecosystem of machines is just as viable a candidate for this designation as a single machine. Machines which mine, transport, and even design themselves are just around the corner, and so too is the potential of an SRUC.


2. The phrase “wealth without money” is both the title of his article and the motto of the reprap project itself. What does this phrase mean? (To him and to you if they differ). Discuss implications, problems, and possibilities associated with this idea.


The idea behind "wealth without money" comes from Adrian Bowyer's explanation of Marxism,

By proletariat is meant the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live

Wealth isn't simply the sum total of all the monetary value you've created over time - it's also the potential power you have. This is what people mean when they say "social", or "political", or "intellectual capital": it's the value of your ability to influence through whatever means you have available.

Likewise, we know that fabrication itself is an act of influence, on the environment and materials it provides us. In that act we can create something that someone else needs, which gives us power over the person who needs it. This - having something that someone else desires but requiring something in exchange from them to get it - is the essential mechanic of capitalism.

But another crucial component to this equation are the tools people use to create. The lever is both an excellent example of a tool and an excellent analogy of the situation: a tool's primary purpose is to enhance a person's ability to accomplish a task. You, by yourself, may be incapable of pulling a nail out of a wooden box, but with a crowbar the task becomes trivial. Tools enhance people's individual agency; the more powerful the tool is, the more value someone can create for themselves and the less power other people have over them. 3D printers, and other increasingly affordable devices of mass creation, will allow people with very little to have much greater power than ever before.

On the positive side, this means that the barrier for someone to have the capacity to make a living for themselves is lowering. Websites like Etsy, and tools like open-source CNC machines are allowing increasingly larger numbers of people to go out on their own and thrive.

But giving everyone a greater amount of power has as many dangers as benefits. For example, Defense Distributed is a group in the process of designing an open-source, 3D printable firearm - with the explicit mission of allowing anyone to fabricate their own personal defense weapon. While the debate for gun control is convoluted and murky, I'm frightened by the idea of putting deadly force in the hands of anyone with a 3D printer.


3. The Darwin design was released in 2007. It is 2012 now. Imagine future scenarios for RepRaps and their ‘cousin’ 3D printing designs (Makerbots, Ultimachine, Makergear, etc.) how do you think the RepRap project (community, designs, website, anything and everything) might evolve in the future? Describe as many scenarios as you can envision.


I can easily see a future where 3D printers take over the role of Big Box stores for mass distribution of products (even if that means community centers instead of a Makerbot in every home). The promise of piping material to these centers instead of assembled products appeals to both the designers of the products (save money on shipping/manufacturing) and the customers (instant gratification, infinite personalization, etc.), so all that needs to happen is for the technology to improve.

I can also envision a future where devices like the Reprap and its cousins lead the way to a future of personal robotics. Many people are familiar with the Jetsons and the idea of a personal "pet" robot, and products like Siri from Apple are making the human-device interaction seem much less intimidating, but when it comes to mechatronic personal objects - there is nothing out there quite like the Reprap.




Blog #1 - 2012/09/04:

1. Useful: Bag Holder

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:26767

When I explain to people what 3D printers are, one of the first questions I get asked is: what's the point? What kinds of stuff can you make out of extruded plastic that would actually be useful? Aside from shower curtain rings or extra knobs for your stovetop, I point them towards this thing. It's simple, but extremely useful - I printed out a modified version once so that I could carry my Makerbot around in its bag. It's an elegant example of what someone with a problem and a 3D printer can do with a little bit of time and effort.

2. Artistic/Beautiful: Ball of Stars

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:20069

I've long been a fan of art with a strong foundation in mathematics. This particular item on Thingaverse plays to that aesthetic: it reminds me a lot of something M. C. Escher would have drawn (and possibly has drawn - it wouldn't surprise me). It's simple enough to understand and visualize, but there's no way I would have been able to construct the model seen on Thingaverse myself, which to me is part of the beauty of it. Plus, I think it's one of those cool models where actually holding it in your hand would be as cool as seeing it. I love the tactility 3D printers bring to what began as conceptual designs; for me, the feel of a design can be just as important as the image of it.

3. Pointless/Useless: Carry Drinks Easily

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:28656

I'm not sure what to say about this one. It's essentially a cup holder with three rings attached to it, so that you can tie string to them and carry them around that way. The idea is to prevent yourself from spilling liquid, but I can easily imagine this making the situation much worse.

4. Funny: Chinese Throwing Spork (hire-shuriken)

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:28638

I love sporks. It's a funny, innovative, whimsical, and cool device - a fond device for any gadget nut who doesn't take themselves too seriously. Now, imagine taking that to the next level:

Bam.

Deadly spork shuriken. What's cooler than that?

5. Weird: Badass Stanford Armadillo

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:29018

This is another one of those, "what were you thinking?" kind of designs. It's an angry, bipedal, armadillo... from Stanford University. A story might help make this less weird, but still.

6. Just Plain Awesome: Screwless Cube Gears

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:10483

This was one of the first things I ever saw on Thingiverse, and it was one of the things that got me really excited about 3D printing. It's a fascinating model: parametric, so that you can adjust the number of gears; reconfigurable, so that you can make whatever kind of object you want into a gear structure; and adaptable, so that you can change pieces of it to make it even better. I've seen Homer Simpson Head versions, motorized versions, heart-shaped versions, etc. It's a hallmark of the 3D maker community, something that would be nearly impossible to make on one's own, but something that has captured the attention of hundreds of makers across the world because of the new level of accessibility of these printers. Iconic.