Author Topic: 3D Printing Under Attack (Read 37296 times)

Renegade · « **on:** October 12, 2012, 08:00 AM »

Well, you didn't really think that the IP Schutzstaffel would let 3D printing go uncrushed for long? Did you?

http://torrentfreak....oading-a-car-121012/

3D Printer DRM Patent To Stop People Downloading a Car

DRM systems in the digital media world are nothing new and are utilized extensively in the music, movie and video games industries. Now, after applying four years ago, a company has this week obtained a patent for a DRM system that aims to stop future owners of 3D printers from printing whatever they like. The dream of downloading a new pair of sneakers or even a car might already be in jeopardy, before it’s even begun.

Bow to your intellectual property masters... Ideas are owned, and not by you.

A modest word of unsolicited advice that most people here probably don't need... Think before it's illegal.

Ok, reining myself back in... The article is quite good and outlines the issues very well. Or, it at least prompts questions.

Here's an analogous situation -- You have a book that you bought. You like it and enjoy it. You decide that you'd like to frame a quote from it as a poster in your den/workspace/whatever. You take a picture of it. You print it on your printer (because you've got a B3 sized printer). You frame it. Was that a crime? Is it a crime if you give the file to a friend to print to put in his/her office?

I fail to understand how ideas can be owned unless they are secrets.

40hz · « **Reply #1 on:** October 12, 2012, 08:04 AM »

It was inevitable - and the outcome is predictable. $:-\$

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #2 on:** October 12, 2012, 10:16 AM »

It was inevitable - and the outcome is predictable. $:-\$
-40hz (October 12, 2012, 08:04 AM)

The arc might be different than you think. 40hz, you were the one asking if I was a SF buff. Yes, but now with a speciality. I deliberately used "SF" because of the whole meme in the 60's-70's of saying the genre includes "*Speculative* Fiction" without a lot of traditional hard science content. If anything, you could say it's Sociology Science Fiction, but for example all the dystopian stories starting to prove true are the result of politics, not science. The actual tech is the fundamental concept of computing itself, manipulating data etc. But looking back now the amazing thing is how golly gosh darn *almost everybody* of these professional writers are *imagining/predicting/warning the future* ... and most of them missed the current IP craze.

My specialty evolved to studying the few stories that significantly predicted previously "out there" social developments to see how things turned out. In this case, on the 3D printing side, there is a short story somewhere in my library describing how outsourcing basically caught up to us and a flood of Russian black market import machines ignored the IP laws and then pummeled merchandising as we know it. (Darn it, find me on another day about Thomas Anvil's disturbing new relevance, but that story wasn't his.)

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #3 on:** October 12, 2012, 11:38 AM »

Robin Hood was a hero to the masses. - Wrong is wrong. - Hack the Planet.

40hz · « **Reply #4 on:** October 12, 2012, 02:02 PM »

The arc might be different than you think.
-TaoPhoenix (October 12, 2012, 10:16 AM)

We'll see...

Never underestimate the power of corrupt government coupled with a zealous and creative legal system. (You'll find a lot of speculative fiction for that too!)

@Tao - Thx for bringing up that old term. (We must be of similar age.) I haven't said "speculative fiction" in years. But there was a time when I much preferred it over the more restrictive "science" fiction label. Still do now that I think about it. Hmm...gonna start using it again I think.

First time I heard the term was at college during a debate (at a party!) over what you'd classify Kieth Roberts marvelous story Pavane as. (It was fun to smart and in college back then!) Some said sci-fi - others said not sci-fi. Then someone suggested the term "speculative fiction" and everybody agreed and decided that was the missing classification that deserved to be more widely used.

app103 · « **Reply #5 on:** October 13, 2012, 07:41 AM »

... and most of them missed the current IP craze.
-TaoPhoenix (October 12, 2012, 10:16 AM)

K.W. Jeter's Noir

If you don't have a copy of that in your collection yet, you should.

One of the main character's jobs is to hunt down IP infringers and dish out a punishment worse than death...a punishment so horrific, that it completely eliminates copyright infringement. Of course that creates a bit of a catch-22 situation, where there becomes no need for enforcers, but if you fire all the enforcers the problem comes back. You can't just pay them to sit around and do nothing, so you give them a quota...one that is impossible to meet unless innocent people get punished. If they don't meet their quota, they get fired.

Producers of IP earn their living by selling their mind. Infringers are essentially, stealing pieces of their mind. The appropriate punishment, therefore, is that the IP owner should get to have the infringer's mind. Enforcers are sent out to remove the infringer's brain and central nervous system, carefully preserved, for the purpose of it being inserted into some sort of electronic gift, which is then given to the IP owner that was violated. The infringer's consciousness trapped in something like a toaster, forever.

This makes up only about 25% of the story, at most. There is a lot of other good scary stuff in it, bound to make you fear the future, especially as you see the world slowly inching towards making it a reality.

Renegade · « **Reply #6 on:** October 13, 2012, 08:27 AM »

^^ Sounds like a very prejudicial book...

...The appropriate punishment, therefore, is that the IP owner should get to have the infringer's mind. Enforcers are sent out to remove the infringer's brain and central nervous system, carefully preserved...
-app103 (October 13, 2012, 07:41 AM)

See! There you go! Politicians making laws that they are immune to!

app103 · « **Reply #7 on:** October 13, 2012, 08:58 AM »

The idea of patents and copyrights is to allow the holders of those rights the exclusive ability to profit from their work. It is supposed to delay competition, allowing the holder time to regain their investments and make a profit, without anyone hindering their ability to do so.

The idea of DRM in 3D printing, while it is thought to serve the same purpose, actually can lead to stopping people with novel ideas from entering their product into the market.

A couple of examples:

GM has the 3D rights restricted for printing one of their car designs to stop people from printing their own cars, forcing them to buy the cars from them...or paying high fees for the right to print their own.

Someone wants to print one of their cars...but not full size...much smaller. The tiny car will in no way interfere with GM's ability to make money from their full sized cars (GM is not in the toy business)...but the DRM doesn't allow this miniature to be made.

Someone else decides not only does he want to print one much smaller, he doesn't even want to print it out of metal and plastic...he wants to print it out of chocolate. Imagine a chocolate car, about the size of a birthday cake, being blocked by GM's DRM, even though a small chocolate car would in no way compete with their actual cars.

Nike has DRM on their shoe designs, preventing people from printing their own shoes to wear.

But again, what if someone wanted to print giant ones, made of chocolate...like say the size of a car?

Or what if someone wanted to combine designs and print a real car...a convertible...that looks like a giant shoe? This would in no way compete with the original shoe manufacturer or the original car maker. There really wouldn't be much of a market for that type of car, but the DRM on both would likely prevent even one from ever being made, even for the 3D printer owner's own use.

app103 · « **Reply #8 on:** October 13, 2012, 09:08 AM »

^^ Sounds like a very prejudicial book...
-Renegade (October 13, 2012, 08:27 AM)

It's pretty much a dystopian sci-fi novel about capitalism run amuck.

40hz · « **Reply #9 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:51 AM »

^^ Sounds like a very prejudicial book...
-Renegade (October 13, 2012, 08:27 AM)

It's pretty much a dystopian sci-fi novel about capitalism run amuck.
-app103 (October 13, 2012, 09:08 AM)

I'd hardly consider that theme as being fiction any more.

Besides, isn't dystopian pretty much becoming a near synonym for political science too? $:-\$

app103 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:58 AM »

I'd hardly consider that theme as being fiction any more. :tellme
-40hz (October 13, 2012, 10:51 AM)

Well, when you die in debt and your creditors bring you back from the dead to work as a slave till your debt is paid off, then it won't be fiction any more.

Renegade · « **Reply #11 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:59 AM »

^^ Sounds like a very prejudicial book...
-Renegade (October 13, 2012, 08:27 AM)

It's pretty much a dystopian sci-fi novel about capitalism run amuck.
-app103 (October 13, 2012, 09:08 AM)

I'd hardly consider that theme as being fiction any more.

Besides, isn't dystopian pretty much becoming a near synonym for political science too? $:-\$
-40hz (October 13, 2012, 10:51 AM)

+1

Though, if you ever travel by air, you have to wonder if dystopian is also a synonym for "today".

Did I mention that it is legal for the Australian government to deploy chemical weapons against the Australian people for absolutely no other reason than "they can"? And that it's illegal to prosecute anyone for that?

app103 · « **Reply #12 on:** October 13, 2012, 11:08 AM »

Did I mention that it is legal for the Australian government to deploy chemical weapons against the Australian people for absolutely no other reason than "they can"? And that it's illegal to prosecute anyone for that?
-Renegade (October 13, 2012, 10:59 AM)

In the US, too. (and more) And if you want to read her complete dissertation about the whole thing, it's available for free, right here.

Renegade · « **Reply #13 on:** October 13, 2012, 11:21 AM »

Did I mention that it is legal for the Australian government to deploy chemical weapons against the Australian people for absolutely no other reason than "they can"? And that it's illegal to prosecute anyone for that?
-Renegade (October 13, 2012, 10:59 AM)

In the US, too.
-app103 (October 13, 2012, 11:08 AM)

There's 1 difference -- in the US, illegal is a specialty of the govt. They just do whatever they want without any respect for the law. The current president is a good example. (I'm sure the next one will be a better example.

) The law is completely irrelevant to the govt.

The law I'm referring to above is an actual law that permits the use of chemical weapons against people. i.e. The Australian govt seems to like to cross its t's and dot its i's before they murder people. A degree of ceremony entirely lacking in the US.

app103 · « **Reply #14 on:** October 13, 2012, 11:45 AM »

Did I mention that it is legal for the Australian government to deploy chemical weapons against the Australian people for absolutely no other reason than "they can"? And that it's illegal to prosecute anyone for that?
-Renegade (October 13, 2012, 10:59 AM)

In the US, too.
-app103 (October 13, 2012, 11:08 AM)

There's 1 difference -- in the US, illegal is a specialty of the govt. They just do whatever they want without any respect for the law. The current president is a good example. (I'm sure the next one will be a better example. ) The law is completely irrelevant to the govt.

The law I'm referring to above is an actual law that permits the use of chemical weapons against people. i.e. The Australian govt seems to like to cross its t's and dot its i's before they murder people. A degree of ceremony entirely lacking in the US.
-Renegade (October 13, 2012, 11:21 AM)

While the experimenting itself may have been illegal, there were no laws that forced them to inform the public of what they were really doing. There were no "right to know" laws that covered secret government sponsored military testing of radioactive chemicals on large groups of private citizens, when they couldn't find any volunteers.

I never really seriously considered my mother's claims of secret govt. experiments involving spraying chemicals on low income urban areas in 1965, leading to the increase in the Newark, NJ area of certain birth defects around that time (especially ones involving the presence of extra or double organs), to be valid...till now. She claims that my being born with 3 kidneys may have been the result of these experiments. She told this story often, when I was growing up. I always thought her tin foil hat was highly polished with a mirror finish.

Maybe there is some truth to her claims. Of course that also leaves me wondering how she knew about it. Where did she get her info, if this was such a big secret that it didn't come to light till now?

40hz · « **Reply #15 on:** October 13, 2012, 12:29 PM »

I'd hardly consider that theme as being fiction any more. :tellme
-40hz (October 13, 2012, 10:51 AM)

Well, when you die in debt and your creditors bring you back from the dead to work as a slave till your debt is paid off, then it won't be fiction any more.
-app103 (October 13, 2012, 10:58 AM)

Got something close to that though. Ever cosign anything and have the primary default?

Then there's hospital admissions...

Bring a sick elderly parent or other family member into one hospital around here and it's interesting to see all the paperwork they try to get various family members (as many as possible) to sign. Supposedly so they have "permission" to provide treatment.

Sandwiched in the stack are forms that will make you personally liable for the full hospital bill, along with paragraphs you are asked to initial on regular (they tell you they're "routine") medical admission forms that obligate you to do the same. And they hit the family members right between the eyes with this as soon as they come in behind the ambulance - counting on them to be too upset and anxious to really look very closely at what they're signing.

And this is a hospital that "prides itself" (according to their ad copy) on both "respecting the patient's dignity" and "providing the best in care." They even have a "church" sounding name - and try to create the impression that they are owned and operated by a major religious diocese despite the fact they're actually fully owned by an HMO two states away.

I saw one poor family recently arrive at the ER with what looked like a 200 year old grandmother. A good dozen additional relatives showed up within the hour. As I sat there waiting to find out what was up with my own mother (who took a bad fall earlier) I watched as various "business office" and "hospital social worker" types zeroed in on adult family members whenever they noticed one standing alone and asked them to sign a paper "so they could treat" the old lady.

I saw them get about four different people to sign before I couldn't stand it any more. I went over and explained to them what the hospital was up to -and how nobody there needed to sign anything since their grandmother came in by ambulance and the EMTs had already signed her in. And furthermore, the hospital (by law) had to render emergency treatment regardless of their signatures, or lack thereof.

Maybe they can't make that old lady liable if anything bad happened to her and she didn't make it. Or if she were uninsured as so many people increasingly are. But they certainly can (and will) hound all those people whose signatures they collected for her bill long after she's quit this mortal clay.

Renegade · « **Reply #16 on:** October 13, 2012, 12:36 PM »

While the experimenting itself may have been illegal, there were no laws that forced them to inform the public of what they were really doing. There were no "right to know" laws that covered secret government sponsored military testing of radioactive chemicals on large groups of private citizens, when they couldn't find any volunteers.

I never really seriously considered my mother's claims of secret govt. experiments involving spraying chemicals on low income urban areas in 1965, leading to the increase in the Newark, NJ area of certain birth defects around that time (especially ones involving the presence of extra or double organs), to be valid...till now. She claims that my being born with 3 kidneys may have been the result of these experiments. She told this story often, when I was growing up. I always thought her tin foil hat was highly polished with a mirror finish.

Maybe there is some truth to her claims. Of course that also leaves me wondering how she knew about it. Where did she get her info, if this was such a big secret that it didn't come to light till now?
-app103 (October 13, 2012, 11:45 AM)

With a lot of things, they're well known, but dismissed as "conspiracy theories" - the catch all phrase to shut down discussion on a potentially uncomfortable topic.

The US was dragged into the Vietnam war through a false flag - the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Just a few years ago, that would have been a "tinfoil hat" topic, and now it's accepted fact.

Operation Northwoods. Kennedy didn't go for it. Look what happened to him. But Northwoods puts perspective on a lot of things.

Uncomfortable for a lot of people...

It also helps with perspective on 911. At a very minimum, we KNOW that the US has entertained the idea of attacking its own people.

CNN is losing viewers in record numbers. People don't believe what's in the news anymore because they've been lied to far too many times. Online alternative news is exploding as people are looking to find out what is really going on.

We're seeing lots of stories come to light that were formerly the domain of the "tinfoil hat" crowd. I think we'll see a lot more as well.

e.g. Why the massive resistance to Prop 37 in California?

More uncomfortable stuff...

Could it be that GMOs (that are engineered to produce toxins) aren't actually safe? Could it be that the same companies that manufactured chemical weapons and called them "safe" are lying about their new "products"? Any chance that this is linked to the eugenicists and big pharma?

Sounds like your mom was right.

Renegade · « **Reply #17 on:** October 13, 2012, 12:39 PM »

Then there's hospital admissions...

Bring a sick elderly parent or other family member into one hospital around here and it's interesting to see all the paperwork they try to get various family members (as many as possible) to sign. Supposedly so they have "permission" to provide treatment.

Sandwiched in the stack are forms that will make you personally liable for the full hospital bill, along with paragraphs you are asked to initial on regular (they tell you they're "routine") medical admission forms that obligate you to do the same. And they hit the family members right between the eyes with this as soon as they come in behind the ambulance - counting on them to be too upset and anxious to really look very closely at what they're signing.

And this is a hospital that "prides itself" (according to their ad copy) on both "respecting the patient's dignity" and "providing the best in care." They even have a "church" sounding name - and try to create the impression that they are owned and operated by a major religious diocese despite the fact they're actually fully owned by an HMO two states away.

I saw one poor family recently arrive at the ER with what looked like a 200 year old grandmother. A good dozen additional relatives showed up within the hour. As I sat there waiting to find out what was up with my own mother (who took a bad fall earlier) I watched as various "business office" and "hospital social worker" types zeroed in on adult family members whenever they noticed one standing alone and asked them to sign a paper "so they could treat" the old lady.

I saw them get about four different people to sign before I couldn't stand it any more. I went over and explained to them what the hospital was up to -and how nobody there needed to sign anything since their grandmother came in by ambulance and the EMTs had already signed her in. And furthermore, the hospital (by law) had to render emergency treatment regardless of their signatures, or lack thereof.

Maybe they can't make that old lady liable if anything bad happened to her and she didn't make it. Or if she were uninsured as so many people increasingly are. But they certainly can (and will) hound all those people whose signatures they collected for her bill long after she's quit this mortal clay.

-40hz (October 13, 2012, 12:29 PM)

What incentive does the medical profession have to help keep people healthy?

*crickets*

40hz · « **Reply #18 on:** October 13, 2012, 02:11 PM »

^Little other than when the cost to fix something seriously broken outweighs he costs of keeping it from breaking to begin with.

My GF's "new" medical plan, from her employer, has a "wellness" clause. She's now required (among other things) to get an annual physical and see a dentist at least every 6 months for "routine" checkups.

If she doesn't, she faces a significantly higher annual medical deductible fee - plus higher co-payments for most covered medical treatments.

There's also a bunch of rules about completing recommended therapies and taking prescribed medications - or else additional $$$ out of your own pocket.

So maybe the medical profession doesn't have a direct incentive - although I do know many dedicated and caring doctors who act in a responsible fashion towards their patients.

But the insurance companies paying the doctor's fees - and the businesses paying for those insurance plans - are certainly beginning to realize they have one.

All the more reason to continue to shift jobs to the "industrial slave" nations as quickly as possible.

Edvard · « **Reply #19 on:** October 14, 2012, 01:02 AM »

Time to start printing handguns.

Oh, wait...

Renegade · « **Reply #20 on:** October 14, 2012, 03:57 AM »

Getting OT, but still interesting!

^Little other than when the cost to fix something seriously broken outweighs he costs of keeping it from breaking to begin with.

My GF's "new" medical plan, from her employer, has a "wellness" clause. She's now required (among other things) to get an annual physical and see a dentist at least every 6 months for "routine" checkups.

If she doesn't, she faces a significantly higher annual medical deductible fee - plus higher co-payments for most covered medical treatments.

There's also a bunch of rules about completing recommended therapies and taking prescribed medications - or else additional $$$ out of your own pocket.

So maybe the medical profession doesn't have a direct incentive - although I do know many dedicated and caring doctors who act in a responsible fashion towards their patients.

But the insurance companies paying the doctor's fees - and the businesses paying for those insurance plans - are certainly beginning to realize they have one.

All the more reason to continue to shift jobs to the "industrial slave" nations as quickly as possible.

-40hz (October 13, 2012, 02:11 PM)

I'm quite certain that individually, there are a lot of medical professionals that are quite sincere about helping people.

I'm not convinced that they are working inside of a system that is compatible with helping people...

e.g. It's illegal to make medical claims about treatments that have been around for hundreds or thousands of years and that have been tested through time and known to work? Illegal to make medical claims about food?

Nah - the system is entirely geared to keep people sick and on drugs. There is zero financial incentive to help keep people healthy.

For the insurance companies, as long as they charge higher premiums and continue to pay out, they have every incentive to keep people sick. After all, you wouldn't want to be sick without insurance, would you?

Perhaps I'm a bit cynical. I just don't see a system that works. When proven therapies are excluded and mocked, there's something very wrong.

And that's before we even get into the billions of dollars in fines that big pharma pays for their criminal behaviour...

Time to start printing handguns.

Oh, wait...
-Edvard (October 14, 2012, 01:02 AM)

The truth is that it is much cheaper and more effective to just buy a real gun. 3D printed guns right now aren't comparable to hundreds of years of gunsmith engineering. So 3D gun plans & printing really have no significant effect on anything. Except for paranoid governments that don't understand tech. Oh, wait. That's all of them~!

But really - I think it's great having that info out there. It gives the govt's 1 more reason to be afraid of the people, which is the way it should be, and not like it is now with people being afraid of their govt's.

40hz · « **Reply #21 on:** October 14, 2012, 05:41 AM »

3D printed guns right now aren't comparable to hundreds of years of gunsmith engineering. So 3D gun plans & printing really have no significant effect on anything.
-Renegade (October 14, 2012, 03:57 AM)

Really? A cheap untraceable gun suitable for use at close range doesn't inspire all sorts of creative thinking?

It doesn't even need to be durable. All it needs to do is be able to fire a single shot (or six) with a fair degree of reliability and voila - Disposable guns! One step better than the so-called 'Saturday Night Special.' Doesn't even need to be that accurate as long as it keeps fairly close to the direction it's pointed in. Look at the flare guns found on boats. Most are now made of plastic. And they perform for their intended use as well as the old-fashioned durable variety.

So much for even having (highly flawed) ballistic or manufacturer's data to fall back on for traceability when a weapon has no pedigree whatsoever. Especially if it's ground up and recycled (or even melted a bit and tossed) shortly after it's been used. It's almost like saying: "Imagine a gun."

Renegade · « **Reply #22 on:** October 14, 2012, 06:17 AM »

3D printed guns right now aren't comparable to hundreds of years of gunsmith engineering. So 3D gun plans & printing really have no significant effect on anything.
-Renegade (October 14, 2012, 03:57 AM)

Really? A cheap untraceable gun suitable for use at close range doesn't inspire all sorts of creative thinking?

It doesn't even need to be durable. All it needs to do is be able to fire a single shot (or six) with a fair degree of reliability and voila - Disposable guns! One step better than the so-called 'Saturday Night Special.' Doesn't even need to be that accurate as long as it keeps fairly close to the direction it's pointed in. Look at the flare guns found on boats. Most are now made of plastic. And they perform for their intended use as well as the old-fashioned durable variety.

So much for even having (highly flawed) ballistic or manufacturer's data to fall back on for traceability when a weapon has no pedigree whatsoever. Especially if it's ground up and recycled (or even melted a bit and tossed) shortly after it's been used. It's almost like saying: "Imagine a gun."

-40hz (October 14, 2012, 05:41 AM)

There is a certain appeal to a single shot firearm, but really... few people have the skills to use a weapon like that effectively.

I'm very capable with firearms -- but I wouldn't want to RELY on a single shot gun.

As for cost, I'm not really sure. I don't know the cost of a gun on the black market, so can't comment there.

But I am very curious. I thought that materials were around $5 per cubic inch, but... dunno.

Is the cost of printing a gun lower than the cost of buying one?

As for creative uses... well, yeah... I can think of a few. They all involve close range though.

The average person never has any need to use one, so I don't think it's really much of a worry. Professional assassins will already know enough to get around evidence problems, so they're not a real concern as far as I can see.

But the *cool* factor is definitely there~!

Like, who wouldn't want a 3D printed gun as an ornament? Well, some people sure, but it's still a cool conversation piece!

40hz · « **Reply #23 on:** October 14, 2012, 06:44 AM »

I'm very capable with firearms -- but I wouldn't want to RELY on a single shot gun.
-Renegade (October 14, 2012, 06:17 AM)

I am too. And me neither. But we're not idiots. Unfortunately, there are plenty of idiots (and desperate people) out there.

As for cost, I'm not really sure. I don't know the cost of a gun on the black market, so can't comment there.

But I am very curious. I thought that materials were around $5 per cubic inch, but... dunno.

Is the cost of printing a gun lower than the cost of buying one?

-Renegade (October 14, 2012, 06:17 AM)

I don't know what the printing cost would be. But shootable (pun intended) blackmarket junker handguns can be had around where I live for between $50-$100 according to most police sources I trust.

As for creative uses... well, yeah... I can think of a few. They all involve close range though.
-Renegade (October 14, 2012, 06:17 AM)

As do most holdups and many criminal firearm incidents. At least until the gangs start replacing their "tools" and "hitmen" with trained long-distance snipers. (Only a matter of time.)

The average person never has any need to use one, so I don't think it's really much of a worry. Professional assassins will already know enough to get around evidence problems, so they're not a real concern as far as I can see.

It does have the potential to create a "need" however. Look how VCRs made porn acceptable to the masses. Privacy and no more sneaking into "art" cinemas to get your dose of body parts? That was what the porn industry said led to the "feminization of porn." For the first time they got significant numbers of female buyers once you could get your own copy by mail with nobody the wiser.

Many people don't want a gun because there's a certain public element (gun store, registration, etc.) to obtaining one. But remove that and I think the average Joe will start buying weapons as a matter of course. Just like in the days of the old West.

But the *cool* factor is definitely there~!

Like, who wouldn't want a 3D printed gun as an ornament? Well, some people sure, but it's still a cool conversation piece!

Especially for kids. And there I think is a real problem waiting to happen.

------------------------

All that aside, I still think 3D printing is an utterly cool bit of tech.

Renegade · « **Reply #24 on:** October 14, 2012, 07:13 AM »

^^ I don't think it really is that much of a problem for kids.

It's pretty much trivial to alter the plans to make the gun unusable, which makes it safe for kids. Heck, you could (with some skill) make the gun unusable without a quick alteration, kind of like a safety switch.

And "cool" doesn't even begin to describe 3D printing~!

I'm soooo looking forward to indulging my tech-lust... Just need a bit over a year... and counting the days (metaphorically).