4 ms·

3D printing. We gotta win the DRM/RightToRepair fight. It's the anti "dangerous objects" people who are the biggest obstacle, until it's pointed out, they don't

3D printing. We gotta win the DRM/RightToRepair fight. It's the anti "dangerous objects" people who are the biggest obstacle, until it's pointed out, they don't realize they are on the wrong side of the GPC/CRYPTO/Copyright fight.

ianai 9y ago
Being against violence isn’t being on the wrong side of anything. If you want to head resistance for 3D printing off from anti dangerous object people, as you call them, work toward eliminating the factors that make people print dangerous objects.
- jakeogh 9y ago
  So only the criminals get the open source printers. How do you propose to do that? Statistically, you should be all for banning feet and knives.
  - ianai 9y ago
    Togetherness. You said that I’m statistically against feet and knives. You’re suggesting I can only be for or against 3D printing. There’s no room for actually dealing with a violence issue through an alternate means in your dichotomy. If society wants to decrease its incidence of violence then it needs to learn to both let people “be” and reinforce positive social situations. Violence begets violence. Victims of verbal attacks may get overcome with the attacks and strike out against them physically. Violence can escalate to the point of, literally, the annihilation of all life on earth. Or, people can try and find ways to let each other be and work together. Provide all people with a basic human respect and dignity. Not everyone deserves a mansion, but they all should be able to seek “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” For the record, I’m all for 3D printing. I want everyone to be able to print a gun but not feel the need to ever use it to kill another. We can do that if we move past the divisive, bipolar rhetoric and address our actual problems.
    - jakeogh 9y ago
      "Victims of verbal attacks may get overcome with the attacks and strike out against them physically." So restrict free speech? With what? Violence? It's OK to offend people. That's life. If someone wants to get violent because of words, they are the real problem. I value the speech that I disagree with the most. Sure, there are limits, you cant threaten someone because you don't like what they said, but that's about it. Even the standard "fire in a theater" example is BS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM On the technical point, either you decide what can be printed with DRM or you don't. It's as binary as it gets. It's the war on general purpose computing distilled. Either way, the "hackers" (now criminals if DRM wins) will still be able to print whatever they want.

ianai 9y ago

Being against violence isn’t being on the wrong side of anything. If you want to head resistance for 3D printing off from anti dangerous object people, as you call them, work toward eliminating the factors that make people print dangerous objects.

jakeogh 9y ago
So only the criminals get the open source printers. How do you propose to do that? Statistically, you should be all for banning feet and knives.
- ianai 9y ago
  Togetherness. You said that I’m statistically against feet and knives. You’re suggesting I can only be for or against 3D printing. There’s no room for actually dealing with a violence issue through an alternate means in your dichotomy. If society wants to decrease its incidence of violence then it needs to learn to both let people “be” and reinforce positive social situations. Violence begets violence. Victims of verbal attacks may get overcome with the attacks and strike out against them physically. Violence can escalate to the point of, literally, the annihilation of all life on earth. Or, people can try and find ways to let each other be and work together. Provide all people with a basic human respect and dignity. Not everyone deserves a mansion, but they all should be able to seek “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” For the record, I’m all for 3D printing. I want everyone to be able to print a gun but not feel the need to ever use it to kill another. We can do that if we move past the divisive, bipolar rhetoric and address our actual problems.
  - jakeogh 9y ago
    "Victims of verbal attacks may get overcome with the attacks and strike out against them physically." So restrict free speech? With what? Violence? It's OK to offend people. That's life. If someone wants to get violent because of words, they are the real problem. I value the speech that I disagree with the most. Sure, there are limits, you cant threaten someone because you don't like what they said, but that's about it. Even the standard "fire in a theater" example is BS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM On the technical point, either you decide what can be printed with DRM or you don't. It's as binary as it gets. It's the war on general purpose computing distilled. Either way, the "hackers" (now criminals if DRM wins) will still be able to print whatever they want.