17 ms·

A lot of people forget that the word "press" in the phrase "freedom of the press" refers to an actual printing press, not the modern term that people confuse fo

A lot of people forget that the word "press" in the phrase "freedom of the press" refers to an actual printing press, not the modern term that people confuse for corporate journalism. The 3D printing presses should remain equally free. If and when someone commits a crime with a piece of technology, that is when to charge them. We should not normalize the presumption of criminal intent, nor restrict even those that have been convicted in the past from utilizing technology just because it could be used for evil.

gustavus 3y ago
> A lot of people forget that the word "press" in the phrase "freedom of the press" refers to an actual printing press, not the modern term that people confuse for corporate journalism. That's an ancient document written by people who couldn't even concieve of modern day "assualt" style printers. We need common sense 3D printer control. There is no reason any person would ever need more than 4kg of filament, these high capacity fast manufacturing printers pose a threat to our society. Should we just let anyone who wants to buy a 3D printer? What if they do bad things with it? What if they print weapons? I don't think we should allow just any person out there to be able to purchase a 3D printer and start printing guns. We need mandatory waiting periods before allowing people to purchase 3D printers. Should criminal's be able to have 3D printers? What if they print them to make guns? Not only should we have strict requirements on who can own a 3D printer we should also require 3D printer manufacturers install technology that allows the government to ensure it isn't used to print dangerous things. I honestly am glad at this brave and stunning move by New York to set an example for the rest of the nation that will prevent dangerous weapons from getting into the hands of criminals. It is only this kind of thinking that will allow us to eventually be able to be as safe as places like the UK. And let's be clear here anyone that disagrees with me or downvotes me you are only doing it because you hate children and want them to be massacred, how many kids have to die due to 3D printing before the government will step in?
- Justsignedup 3y ago
  I suppose to start. How many have? This seems to be a fairly low effectiveness effort with lots of collateral damage to address a real issue of people getting guns and taking a trip to a school. Which doesn't require 3d printers.
- gaudat 3y ago
  I hope you dropped your /s somewhere.
- NikolaNovak 3y ago
  Let us be clear here I'm down voting because that much of dripping sarcasm just gets people emotional and doesn't help anything. Feel free to make a cohesive argument one way or another:). Long sarcasm tirades assume other side is wrong and stupid and aren't helpful. (I'm on your side, btw fwiw! But I still don't like dripping sarcasm insinuating other perspectives are clearly stupid!:)
  - lrvick 3y ago
    No possible defense of 3D printer restrictions could be made, except by an idiot or someone trolling. There are no smart people against 3D printing we will be offending with sarcasm.
    - rickydroll 3y ago
      but what if we took an originalist perspective and allow people to have an unlimited number of 3D printed muzzle loaders as that was the weapon available at the time.
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    Search & replace isn't dripping sarcasm, it's the Colbert Report and The Onion, which have rather proven the validity of the practice. If the result sounds in any way remarkable, then that only illustrates that the original is remarkable in exactly the same way, which is of course the point of the exercise. Maybe you aren't a fan, but they are certainly in non-trivially good company.
- jiggawatts 3y ago
  The Onion breaking news: Criminals use "wood" to construct rifle stocks in their basement weapons labs, government to announce new legislation to require permits to own trees or purchase lumber.
williamcotton 3y ago
What about a future machine that has the possibility of 3D printing 20 MT nuclear weapons?
- nwiswell 3y ago
  If it requires enriched uranium ink then that's fine.
- gustavus 3y ago
  If we get to the point where we are able to 3D print 20 MT nuclear weapons we've probably got replicators from star trek at that point living in a post scarcity society and then I will be 3D printing me a space ship to "Boldly go where no man has gone before."
  - user_7832 3y ago
    I'm not sure what the HN guidelines are for commenting about other comments but if your earlier comment was in jest/sarcasm, it might help to add an /s
    - vasco 3y ago
      Or you could use your interpreting skills to detect it yourself.
      - user_7832 3y ago
        I unfortunately am not the best at detecting sarcasm in real life, and infinitely worse online. Anyway, it appears his comment is no longer flagged/dead.
      - Brian_K_White 3y ago
        Wait, was THAT sarcasm? Because if you ask me saying that someone should be able to detect the true intent of the original comment MUST be sarcasm. But then I'm not so much detecting as deducing.
  - 3y ago
akerl_ 3y ago
> A lot of people forget that the word "press" in the phrase "freedom of the press" refers to an actual printing press, not the modern term that people confuse for corporate journalism. Can you cite that? It's pretty clear that freedom of "speech" isn't limited to literal verbal speech. I'm not sure I've ever seen the suggestion that the authors of the constitution were overly concerned with the literal mechanism of printing, so much as the ability of the citizens to publish information.
- gruez 3y ago
  It's a reference to how a common talking point against gun rights is "there's no way the founding fathers would have imagined modern day assault rifles, therefore the 2nd amendment shouldn't apply to them"
  - Spivak 3y ago
    This reasoning is a good live-demo of how politics has wormed its way into the current crop of judges due to the fact that this is a more than valid textualist argument that has been applied in other cases but you'll never see it actually argued by one for 2A. It really ought to be the progressive judges who make the case for 2A being expanded wider than the founder's could reasonably intend but they also won't argue it. So we end up in this weird land because originalism and conservatism usually agree and so too progressivism and liberalism to the point where the lines of thought shape how more than the courts think of issues. But both sides end up having to do tricky mental gymnastics on this particular issue to resolve the two. But this is, of course, silly. It appeals only to the lizard brain who when faced with decisions far beyond the ability for humans to understand or are effectively arbitrary need a made up framework on which to post-hoc justify what are really just gut feelings. When the answer to what path better is more obvious like "should people be allowed to buy a bazooka at Walmart" nobody is out here asking if the founders would have intended it, everyone just goes, "oh fuck no" and we move on.
    - madengr 3y ago
      [dead]
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Printers and scanners are already regulated to not print very authentic copies of dollars. Maybe we could do the same with 3D printers?
- mutex_man 3y ago
  The hardware and software for 3d printers is actually much simpler than that of regular printers. The only specific requirements for a 3D printer is basically just an Arduino and some stepper motors with drivers. Everything else can be (and was back when it started) made from off the shelf parts. Even the filament can be made at home from soda bottles. It's relatively easy to detect modern US currency, it doesn't vary by much, and if you were to vary it a lot, it'd be an obvious counterfeit. Firearms don't operate like that. They are all wildly different designs with different complex parts. Even if you wrote something to detect the current models that are out there, they could be easily changed to be identically functional but unrecognizable.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

gustavus 3y ago

> A lot of people forget that the word "press" in the phrase "freedom of the press" refers to an actual printing press, not the modern term that people confuse for corporate journalism. That's an ancient document written by people who couldn't even concieve of modern day "assualt" style printers. We need common sense 3D printer control. There is no reason any person would ever need more than 4kg of filament, these high capacity fast manufacturing printers pose a threat to our society. Should we just let anyone who wants to buy a 3D printer? What if they do bad things with it? What if they print weapons? I don't think we should allow just any person out there to be able to purchase a 3D printer and start printing guns. We need mandatory waiting periods before allowing people to purchase 3D printers. Should criminal's be able to have 3D printers? What if they print them to make guns? Not only should we have strict requirements on who can own a 3D printer we should also require 3D printer manufacturers install technology that allows the government to ensure it isn't used to print dangerous things. I honestly am glad at this brave and stunning move by New York to set an example for the rest of the nation that will prevent dangerous weapons from getting into the hands of criminals. It is only this kind of thinking that will allow us to eventually be able to be as safe as places like the UK. And let's be clear here anyone that disagrees with me or downvotes me you are only doing it because you hate children and want them to be massacred, how many kids have to die due to 3D printing before the government will step in?

Justsignedup 3y ago
I suppose to start. How many have? This seems to be a fairly low effectiveness effort with lots of collateral damage to address a real issue of people getting guns and taking a trip to a school. Which doesn't require 3d printers.
gaudat 3y ago
I hope you dropped your /s somewhere.
NikolaNovak 3y ago
Let us be clear here I'm down voting because that much of dripping sarcasm just gets people emotional and doesn't help anything. Feel free to make a cohesive argument one way or another:). Long sarcasm tirades assume other side is wrong and stupid and aren't helpful. (I'm on your side, btw fwiw! But I still don't like dripping sarcasm insinuating other perspectives are clearly stupid!:)
- lrvick 3y ago
  No possible defense of 3D printer restrictions could be made, except by an idiot or someone trolling. There are no smart people against 3D printing we will be offending with sarcasm.
  - rickydroll 3y ago
    but what if we took an originalist perspective and allow people to have an unlimited number of 3D printed muzzle loaders as that was the weapon available at the time.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  Search & replace isn't dripping sarcasm, it's the Colbert Report and The Onion, which have rather proven the validity of the practice. If the result sounds in any way remarkable, then that only illustrates that the original is remarkable in exactly the same way, which is of course the point of the exercise. Maybe you aren't a fan, but they are certainly in non-trivially good company.
jiggawatts 3y ago
The Onion breaking news: Criminals use "wood" to construct rifle stocks in their basement weapons labs, government to announce new legislation to require permits to own trees or purchase lumber.

williamcotton 3y ago

What about a future machine that has the possibility of 3D printing 20 MT nuclear weapons?

nwiswell 3y ago
If it requires enriched uranium ink then that's fine.
gustavus 3y ago
If we get to the point where we are able to 3D print 20 MT nuclear weapons we've probably got replicators from star trek at that point living in a post scarcity society and then I will be 3D printing me a space ship to "Boldly go where no man has gone before."
- user_7832 3y ago
  I'm not sure what the HN guidelines are for commenting about other comments but if your earlier comment was in jest/sarcasm, it might help to add an /s
  - vasco 3y ago
    Or you could use your interpreting skills to detect it yourself.
    - user_7832 3y ago
      I unfortunately am not the best at detecting sarcasm in real life, and infinitely worse online. Anyway, it appears his comment is no longer flagged/dead.
    - Brian_K_White 3y ago
      Wait, was THAT sarcasm? Because if you ask me saying that someone should be able to detect the true intent of the original comment MUST be sarcasm. But then I'm not so much detecting as deducing.
- 3y ago

akerl_ 3y ago

> A lot of people forget that the word "press" in the phrase "freedom of the press" refers to an actual printing press, not the modern term that people confuse for corporate journalism. Can you cite that? It's pretty clear that freedom of "speech" isn't limited to literal verbal speech. I'm not sure I've ever seen the suggestion that the authors of the constitution were overly concerned with the literal mechanism of printing, so much as the ability of the citizens to publish information.

gruez 3y ago
It's a reference to how a common talking point against gun rights is "there's no way the founding fathers would have imagined modern day assault rifles, therefore the 2nd amendment shouldn't apply to them"
- Spivak 3y ago
  This reasoning is a good live-demo of how politics has wormed its way into the current crop of judges due to the fact that this is a more than valid textualist argument that has been applied in other cases but you'll never see it actually argued by one for 2A. It really ought to be the progressive judges who make the case for 2A being expanded wider than the founder's could reasonably intend but they also won't argue it. So we end up in this weird land because originalism and conservatism usually agree and so too progressivism and liberalism to the point where the lines of thought shape how more than the courts think of issues. But both sides end up having to do tricky mental gymnastics on this particular issue to resolve the two. But this is, of course, silly. It appeals only to the lizard brain who when faced with decisions far beyond the ability for humans to understand or are effectively arbitrary need a made up framework on which to post-hoc justify what are really just gut feelings. When the answer to what path better is more obvious like "should people be allowed to buy a bazooka at Walmart" nobody is out here asking if the founders would have intended it, everyone just goes, "oh fuck no" and we move on.
  - madengr 3y ago
    [dead]

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

Printers and scanners are already regulated to not print very authentic copies of dollars. Maybe we could do the same with 3D printers?

mutex_man 3y ago
The hardware and software for 3d printers is actually much simpler than that of regular printers. The only specific requirements for a 3D printer is basically just an Arduino and some stepper motors with drivers. Everything else can be (and was back when it started) made from off the shelf parts. Even the filament can be made at home from soda bottles. It's relatively easy to detect modern US currency, it doesn't vary by much, and if you were to vary it a lot, it'd be an obvious counterfeit. Firearms don't operate like that. They are all wildly different designs with different complex parts. Even if you wrote something to detect the current models that are out there, they could be easily changed to be identically functional but unrecognizable.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]