User:Jms6579

From RepRap
Revision as of 14:51, 25 September 2012 by Jms6579 (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Blog 4

Comment on Makerbot’s position (as far as we know), Prusa’s concerns, and ownership of designs. Should we look for a new thingiverse? Makerbot Industries has made a significant move in its decision to make Replicator 2 closed source. It's worth noting that it is only rumored that this is the case, but every day it seems to be more clear that it's the truth. In addition to this, Makerbot now owns everything on Thingiverse, prompting many people to take down everything they've posted. I agree with Prusa that this is a sad day for reprap. Makerbot Industries are essentially taking all of the great things that have come from reprap being open source (printer designs, thingiverse things, etc) and making it closed source. Yet, as sad as all of this is, I can't say I'm surprised. I think it's to be expected that the concept of closed source is too appealing for everyone to abandon. This is what makes it so incredible that reprap is as open sourced as it is. I think that, for the most part, reprap will remain to be open sourced, but there will be people attempting closed source endeavours along the way.

I think an intesting occurence, if true, is what has recently happened to Dave Hinz . He claims on Prusa's Occupy Thingiverse page that Makerbot has given him $100 to commercially produce a thing he designed, despite the fact that he stated, "commercial use is OK with attribution." It seems that even though Makerbot Industries is legally taking what people have posted on thingiverse, they are somewhat sympathetic to the people they are taking it from and perhaps less greedy that a lot of people think. Of course, this is only a case study that may not mean much, but is nonetheless intriguing.

While I respect Prusa's hostility towards Makerbot, Makerbot is not reprap. Additionally, Thingiverse is not the only possible place to share things. At the risk of downplaying the significance of these events, I think these occurences can be minimized into a minor setback in the history of reprap. Prusa's idea of creating an Ocuppy Thingiverse Movement is interesting, but I fear it will be all too similar to the Occupy Wall Street movement in that it may increase awareness but cause no real change.

I think it's time to look for a new Thingiverse. If we do, there is one crucial point to keep in mind: We must have a consensus of what this new Thingiverse will be. Competing new Thingiverses will be counterproductive and ineffective. If we want the new Thingiverse to be as impressive and widespread as the current, there needs to be only one (others may exist, but there needs to be one main site). These are my current opinions, but they are extremely subject to change as the situation continues to develop.

Blog 3

1 If there are ever restrictions placed on the distribution of reprap and the things it creates, it will be short-lived and ineffect. I can't conceive of a single way that there could be an attempt to stop this distribution that would be fruitful. People will always be able to print whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes.

2 There are a great number of things I am passionate about and love to tell people about, but one that stands out is my interest and support of a resource-based economy. It may not be relevant to public discourse for a few hundred or thousands of years, but it is still something that I think is important to know about. This passion is clearly not a good way of making money and I don't think is a good way to attract mates. This is not a good way to attract mates because, as Bowyer states, this is not a flashy show of cleverness like acting and music.

3 I think Bowyer is correct about intellectual property coming to an end. For the most part, this is a good thing. Claiming something as IP drastically decreases the progress of that item. Something that is IP can only be improved by a select group of people with limited direction to take it. If something is open-source rather than claimed by someone, anyone can help in its development. Amelioration of the item with increase exponentially and the benefits can be reaped much earlier. IP decreases progress.

Blog 2

1. I see no reason to think that a self-replicating universal constructor will not be feasible in the future. As of now, 3D printers are unable to print vital parts such as screws, electronics, motors, etc. Despite this, what would stop this from happening in the future? Or rather, what would stop a separate machine to be able to do this particular part of it? And what's stopping these machines from being combined into one? One possible (and perhaps paranoid) situation that would prevent the construction of such a machine is government. This constructor could drastically damage industry when everyone can make almost anything they want for practically free. Government might get involved in an attempt to prevent an economic downturn.

2. To me, "wealth without money" refers to how a self-replicating universal constructor would provide seemingly endless possessions for little to no money. This "wealth" could also be thought of as the affordable value of 3D printing technology towards the progress and evolution of mankind. The former interpretation poses, as stated earlier, economic difficulties. It goes without saying that such a powerful machine would decrease the value of the dollar. Drastic government and banking intervention would be required or, at the risk of sounding utopian, a revolution where people no longer see any value in money and care about technology and progress for its own sake.

3. As long as the REPRAP project remains open source, I think it has a very bright future. Unbelievable progress has been witnessed just in the past few years. As more of them are made, and as more people find out about REPRAP, the faster it will grow. I imagine that at some point, REPRAP will move beyond plastics and other similar materials into various others. Perhaps a massive, metallic REPRAP will be the future of industry. At that point, anyone can have their own industry of anything and give it to others. I imagine something similar to illegal music downloading might happen. People can share what they construct (and a duplicate of the constructor) and give it to others for cheap. This will hurt not just one industry, but all industries that REPRAP gets involved in. This sounds disasterous, but if humanity can find a way to overcome these hardships, it could be a significant step towards ameliorating our situation on earth.

Blog 1

Useful: The High Velocity Beverage Delivery Harness [1] is a triumph of human ingenuity. The design allows for a can to be shot out of a pneumatic cannon toward a thirsty individual, with a parachute attachment for safe landing. The only weakness I can see is having to wait a while after shooting carbonated beverages to avoid fizzy explosions. Maybe there's a way to use some sort of valve to avoid this?


Artistic: Nothing says disco quite like a rhombicuboctahedron with controlled RGB LED's. The LED rhombicuboctahedron disco ball [2] has an elegant geometric design with multicolor LED lights.


Useless: The United States Capitol Building is useless. This model is, too [3]. While impressive, I don't know why anyone would want this.


Funny: Not only does Admiral Ackbar [4] look funny, but this print is a constant reminder that he has one of the most enjoyable lines to quote in cinematic history.


Weird: It should go without saying that this Bart Simpson walking toy[5] is strange. Perhaps a second version can be created that will look a little less inaccurate and unnatural (even by cartoon standards). It's an interesting project, though.