3 ms·
Many of you have down voted, but here is what came to my mind: This technology, like it or not, will end up being regulated easily. Which also means that the g
by monsterix 14y ago
Many of you have down voted, but here is what came to my mind: This technology, like it or not, will end up being regulated easily. Which also means that the goal to get manufacturing in household garages or backyards in a very short time will take a hit.
Isn't it unwarranted to push this call into something as negative as flame-bait?
What this technology can achieve is one thing, but will it be able achieve that as freely as it could is a question that I sought to ask. IMHO, it is not easy for technology people to convince and help other people (read decision makers) overcome their fear of misuse/abuse of any new technology. These people dislike the word "disruption".
Lathe machines, paper, Internet, mobile networks have all gone through this vetting at their time, and I believe that same barrier-to-explain will apply on 3D printing too. Only thing is, that it is going to be really tough to convince the authorities and allow "free usage in the backyards" as claimed in the article.
- aw3c2 14y agoBut it is completely irrelevant how things are manufactured. The end product is what needs regulation/laws. For example if you build a gun at home, then you own a gun and are bound to whatever laws exist for that in your jurisdiction. The means of creation are irrevelant.
- monsterix 14y ago"End product is what needs regulation/laws" is, I am afraid, a very narrow view. The degree of difficulty in manufacturing or obtaining (along with operational training) has a significant impact on use (or misuse) of weapons. Printing such objects in your household backyard, for example guns, will surely be a matter of "concern" for authorities who not only have to make laws and design regulation, but also enforce it.