User:Tms54

Blog Post 5

1. Imagine that you were a dedicated member of the DIY gun project: What might you do now?

I would go though the steps to make sure that this (printing guns) is protected by the ATF like Wilson. Just stopping would make a descent amount of people mad and they might just try to make it just to go against the "haters". We would have also invested so much time that I would not want to give up as long as it was not an illegal procedure.

2. Another article asks ”Should 3D printing, especially when it’s being used to create items like guns, be regulated? Can you regulate it?” Check your Blog #3 Questions 1 & 3 (and my comments to them) if you haven’t already. Do you have any more to say about this issue of 3D printer regulation (gov’t or corporate)?

Even if there were regulations they would not work (look at piracy). I think it's also just an issue like hacking or lock picking where there are some people that will use/do it for fun but some will be malicious. The gov will I bet at some point try because they don't understand technology to a high degree and as for corporate holding copyrights on a part there would problems. Lost profits would send the corporation lobbying until the gov stepped in and the regulation may work for a little but it would not be effective.

3. Guns (and other weapons) seem to be prone to prohibitions. What other 3D printable constructs might attract similar attention/derision/prohibition?

Drug paraphernalia? Though most or all of drug related items are available to buy in stores. I could see keys or lock picking tools being an issue but again those are available online. Speciality keys like those for handcuffs I could see being printed and those would (i think) definitely cause controversy.

Blog Post 4

Blog Post 3

1. It seems that 3D printing isn’t going to disappear, but the exact nature in which it will develop is not well defined. On that note, we currently place restrictions (DRM) onto our media to control distribution, with limited ‘success’. Do you think this might be applied to 3D printing? How or why not?

I do think that when/if 3D printing get's popular with money making intentioned someone will try to use DRM software to limit deployment. Using a firmware that is not open source with decryption methods for encrypted files could be a plausible method to do this but like all other DRM methods it would eventually be broken or the unpopularity of it would make the product not cost effective.

2. According to Bowyer, many people have a great idea (or perhaps a passion) that they love to tell people about. What is yours? Do you see this as a way to attract future mates? (or to get money?) Why/why not?

Idea wise I don't have anything great. I really like shoes though. I also enjoy painting shoes that are worn down to give them new life to them. Running is also a passion of mine. I love it and not getting to run for a couple of days makes me grouchy and upset. I can see the running as a way because I have met so many awesome people though running. Seeing other people with awesome shoes definitely brings them up my scale so yeah that would be a attraction/attractor factor too.

3. Professor Bowyer seems to think that 3D printing will finally kill intellectual property, and he sounds pleased about it. Do you think he’s right about ending IP? Is this a good thing, a bad thing, or somewhere in-between?

With ideal 3D printers that can print with any material most devices could be created and that put a good dent in IP. Like software and plans for objects like say desks computers and the internet let things that at one point had controlled distribution something that most anyone can get easily without struggling. I would say that it's somewhere in between because if there is not monetary motivation an individual may not spend countless hours designing the best. There would still be good at least but everyone needs some money.

Blog Post 2

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?

A “self-replicating universal constructor’ in its complete sense is not feasible in my opinion. Printing circuit boards or growing substrate layers is a process that needs a very controlled environment and a home is not a place to create ICs. Printing metal although it would be very hard would I think be doable. The idea of having a pick a place machine is doable but the amount of equipment need and maintenance could be a large concern for the average user.

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.

It means that you can have what you want without needing tons of money because you can just print it. It’s like fine artwork: the original might be hundreds of thousands of dollars but you can just print a replica on large paper for under a hundred. One problem the author discussed is that people will just print everything ever and that creates a lot of waste. The leads to the issues too that if something breaks you would just print a new one instead of trying to fix it.

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. Due Sept. 13

There is the possibility of the project failing. I do not think this will happen because of the community following. It could also keep evolving at the rate it currently is and grow huge were in maybe 10 to 20 years people will have 3D printers like they have paper printing printers. It could also just stay as a scene project and grow only slightly. In last two I think there will definitely be improvement but the rate depends on demand.

Blog Post 1

1. useful: Toothpaste extractor (http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:29335) Who doesn't want one of these? Just think about how much time humans have spent sliding mostly empty toothpaste containers against the edge of the counter.

2. artistic/beautiful: Julia Vase #004 - Bloom (http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:28050) If you saw this in a store I would cost many dollars. It shows all those traditional vases what's up with it's awesome curves.

3. pointless/useless: Steak - (http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:28675) It's a steak you can't eat... It also seems to me that there are better uses of plastic but maybe it's a good paperweight or ornamental dinner setting.

4. funny: Spine Candle Holder - (http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:27560) SPINE CANDLE HOLDER! What kind of reaction do you think it would get? I personally laughed when I saw it.

5. weird: Chinese Throwing Spork - (hire-shuriken) (http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:28638) I like the idea but no doubt it is weird. Throwing spork? Throwing stars are sharp and all but could a throwing spork really do that much damage? You would have to sharpen the prongs a lot.