User:Gtk5020
(10/12/12)
1. I think that bio-printing sounds like an incredible concept. The idea of printing an organ for someone who needs it is nothing short of astounding. However, when something sounds too good to be true, it often is. The article says that the bio-printers use a sort of bio-ink to create the cell structures, and I’m not entirely sure what that’s made out of or how much it costs. If it relates at all to stem cell research then there could be some kind of ethical issue down the road, and even if it’s something else there’s still the price to consider. Personally though, I don’t see legal issues being a problem. It would be just like getting an organ transplant except you don’t need a donor. As I said, I think the biggest issue will be a question of ethics. People may say that it’s wrong to manipulate living cells to create something new, especially if the cells are stem cells, that’s always a hotly debated issue. But, I think that this technology offers incredible lifesaving possibilities and I hope that it’s allowed to develop freely without any legal or ethical roadblocks.
2. While I like this technology I don’t see it being used for DIY medical research. It could be useful for med school students practicing dissections or lab technicians doing experiments (like in the article) but I hope it’s left to that. Personally, I’m just a little creeped out by the idea of an average joe American printing hearts in his basement.
(10/5/12)
1. I would say that if I were a member of that group I would do exactly what they're doing now. Find another printer and start over building and testing the gun components (i.e. the barrel without a trigger). I think this plan makes some degree of sense since other people have had success printing gun pieces instead of whole guns. I am referring of course to the plastic machine gun component mentioned in the article. Somehow this method seems to circumvent the law against homemade weaponry, at least in some cases.
2. All things considered I don’t think it would be a bad idea for the government to regulate the 3D printing of weapons. It probably isn’t the best idea to allow people to build private arsenals in their basement. However, if someone is simply doing research into this project and making his work public, like the man in this article, I think it’s less of a problem. The Government could just keep a task force on hand to monitor the downloads of 3D weapon print designs. I’m not saying this is a perfect solution, since people find ways to circumvent Government regulations all the time. However, I think it’s a decent idea for the Government to keep an out and attempt to keep people from building unauthorized weapon stashes in their basements.
3. One thing that I think could face prohibition in future is the printing of any weapon. Say someone decides to print a scythe or sword for a Halloween costume. It may not be overly dangerous since the edges wouldn’t be very sharp or well defined, but that could change as 3D printing technology develops. Another area of development that could face scrutiny is the creation of rep rap medical equipment (scalpels, syringes, etc.). Again, this may be something that’s a few years off but it’s certainly a possibility. Simply put I think the Government would make some attempt to regulate the printing of anything that could cause harm to the general public.
(9/27/12)
I can't honestly say that I have a problem with Makerbot closing off the designs for it's new 3D Printer Design. The article is right, they are a legitimate business and they do have investors to worry about. However, I think that it's a little ridiculous to say that Makerbot now owns everything that people have put on Thingiverse. If Makerbot has any company designs on the website then yes, they should be allowed to keep those because it represents an investment of their time and money. However, some of the Thingiverse designs are simply SolidWorks model's of cartoon or video game characters that people have uploaded for fun. I don't think that Makerbot has the right to take ownership of those designs. Also, I think Prusa has the right idea, if Makerbot really is going to take ownership of everything on Thingiverse it may be time to take our designs and move them to another site. However, before taking this action, I would like to see exactly how big an impact this change has. If Thingiverse is just doing this for legal reasons and simply states that they have ownership, then it's not a big deal; but if they start trying to sell those designs or stop the original creators from using them, then it may be time to move on.
(9/21/12)
1. I think it's possible that in future, as this technology develops, people could place some sort of copyright laws on 3D print designs so as to not miss a money making opportunity; much like people do with music. However, in the long run, I don't think that that method would be necessary or effective. Music is copyrighted because everyone listens to music, but I don't think that 3D printers will ever become a big enough household item for copyright laws to be necessary. Furthermore, if people have found ways to illegally download music, they'll find a way to download 3D printing designs.
2. I don't really have a passion to speak of, but two of my favorite hobbies are cooking and mixology. And I think if I could manage to get really good at one or other it could potentially attract women. While both of those skills are technically based in an understanding of chemistry, they have enough of an artistic component to shift me from the "accountant" side to intelligence, to the "guitarist" side.
3. Personally, I don't think that 3D printers will do any more any more damage to the idea of intellectual property than the concept of pirating music. However, I would say that the loss of intellectual property can be seen as both a good and a bad thing. It's a good thing because it means people can openly share ideas and work together to make products better. From what I understand that's pretty much been the driving force behind their development so far. The bad side to this is that with everyone sharing ideas, no one will be buying or selling them, and thus there is no monetary gain to motivate people; but I don't think this will be a problem. As Previously stated, I don't think 3D printing will ever get to the point where people will be printing out household appliances or anything else that major companies will want to attach copyright claims to. I think that until these machines can be made with an attractive design that people can use with minimal effort, it will remain kind of a "hobby project". And with that in mind I would say the good outweighs the bad when it comes to the loss of intellectual property, the easier it to share knowledge the faster we can develop.
(9/13/12)
1. I think that the idea of a completely self replicating constructor is a little far fetched since that would mean all the components would have to be made from the same extruded plastic material. That material is strong enough to support the structure of the machine, but I don't think I would trust it as the main component holding the entire machine together. Also, whatever material is used to make this machine must be extruded by it. I feel like an extruder nozzle made from the stuff being extruded is a bad idea.
2. To me, "wealth without money" means that you can get anything you need without purchasing it. Wealth can be represented by having money or having objects. Wealth without money simple means you can get a lot of objects without money.
3. Realistically, I think that in the future, RepRap machines will find a comfortable niche as hobby machines as well as small part producers. Some people will simply use them like the do now: something to build and basically play with, but I also think they could be useful as a standard home or office product, like the ink and paper printer is now. I believe that people in homes and offices will use them to create small parts that have broken off machines or appliances so that they can avoid replacing the entire product. However, I do not think that we will ever reach a point where at home 3D printers will create full size cameras and vacuum cleaners for commercial use; products like that are simply too complicated.
(9/4/12)
1. Useful
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:27249
This component, or at least the idea behind it is incredibly useful. The ability to create pipe connectors saves people the trouble of having to drive to the hardware store and search for the components they need. It certainly seems like it would make a lot of "do it yourself projects" easier.
2. Artistic
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:26843
This is a very simple design, but I think it's also very artistic. Like the name suggests it does look like it could be some "force of nature". Personally, I think it looks like a white cap on the ocean, and if you had a room in your home that was ocean or sailor themed, it would really make a nice addition.
3. Pointless
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:23538
This idea seems relatively useless to me since most shoe inserts are made out of softer materials. I feel like this would be kind of uncomfortable.
4. Funny
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:29518
I consider this design funny/awesome mainly just because I love Minecraft. At some point in this class, if I have my choice of object to make for an assignment I'm making one of these.
5. Weird
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:15750
This is an interesting design, but it definitely falls under the category of wierd, mainly because it reminds me of that babydoll-head robot thing from Toy Story.
