5 ms·

What I don't understand from you (and most anti-3D-printed-guns) is why you think it should be controlled in the first place? Even if you somehow found a compe

What I don't understand from you (and most anti-3D-printed-guns) is why you think it should be controlled in the first place? Even if you somehow found a compelling argument, the kind of control you're asking for is impossible. It's like trying to stop piracy with DRM: you're gonna piss off users and someone is just going to break your "controlled environment" in the end.

jaibot 13y ago
But you'll still stop _most instances_ of would-be piracy - the 14-year-old kids hanging out at a park, unable to _easily_ send a movie from one smartphone to another. Not impossible - just hard enough to not bother. You can't absolutely stop 3D printing of dangerous artifacts. But you can lower the appeal by increasing penalties, requiring the party to take more steps to avoid being caught, attaching a strong social stigma to the practice. It's physically impossible to keep someone from barreing their car at 80mph down the wring side of the highway into oncoming traffic, but this is one among countless potential potential disasters we almost never see in practice. It is worth considering why such things happen as rarely as they do.
- ta25252 13y ago
  It's physically impossible to keep someone from barreing their car at 80mph down the wring side of the highway Not really. Government mandated speed governor in every car, limited to 55 mph.
  - jaibot 13y ago
    You're right, of course. s/physically/practically
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - ta25252 13y ago
      Did you mean "practically" or "politically"? Because, while it does not cover the "wrong way down a highway" part of your scenario, such a law would certainly save lives. High speed is a significant contributor to fatal car accidents. The EU already has such a law for large trucks.
      - hga 13y ago
        I'm not at all sure about this. Very possibly for cargo carrying trucks, they have different design tradeoffs. But as I understand it, "high speed" WRT to accidents starts at about 35 mph, which is a speed at which, if you come to an immediate stop, wearing the normal shoulder and waist belts, your head will hit the steering wheel with enough force to cause serious injury, unless an airbag prevents it. Any reasonable governor is going to be way above that. According to a [citation needed] Wikipedia item (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_(device)#Trucks_.28HGVs.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_(device)#Trucks_.28HGV...), the EU governor speed is 90 or 100 kph, 56 or 62 mph, which sounds plausable. This http://www.usroads.com/journals/aruj/9803/ru980302.htm http://www.usroads.com/journals/aruj/9803/ru980302.htm indicates those speeds are quite lethal. Keeping people driving for longer periods of time is also going to cost lives....
        ta25252 13y ago
        Yes, I meant commercial cargo trucks.
- smsm42 13y ago
  >>>> But you'll still stop _most instances_ of would-be piracy Really? Is it how it is working out? Last time I looked all those DRM-ed things were still available easily - together with cracks. >>> But you can lower the appeal by increasing penalties Really? Is it how it is working out? I remember we have increased penalties for drug offenses, which completely eradicated drugs from the market. Oh wait, it didn't, it is actually worse than ever and increased penalties mostly hurt innocent people with no criminal intent or criminal past, routing them into the vast prison industry. >>> but this is one among countless potential potential disasters we almost never see in practice. As opposed to mass shootings with a 3d-printed plastic guns, which we see in practice every day, right? It is fascinating how common sense can be compartmentalized so neatly - here you can distinguish imaginary threat from real one, and here you completely can't. >>> It is worth considering why such things happen as rarely as they do. But it's much more worth considering why some things that never happen is OK but some things that never happen require immediate government action and give exception from all the Constitution.
  - jaibot 13y ago
    It is difficult to measure counterfactuals, but I strongly suspect that the rate of piracy is much lower than it otherwise would be. Everything you say regarding availability is accurate - but consider, for example, the difference in piracy rates between console and PC games. There _are_ cracked versions of console games, but they are much less widespread because using them is much, much more difficult. I am not happy that DRM appears to be effective - I would much rather that not be the case - but it does appear to significantly reduce the level of piracy from what it would otherwise be. You are correct to note the absence of printed-gun crimes. The technology is young, the printers are not widespread, and the initial designs are likely far short of what is possible. As accessibility, knowledge, and affordability increase, I expect those crimes to start occurring. I further expect that the rate of those crimes will be lower with federal intervention than without. I really hope I'm wrong about that, too.
    - smsm42 13y ago
      Most of the crimes always were, are and will be committed with most readily available means. This is why in most violent crimes, the weapons used are fists, knives, clubs and alike, and regular common handguns. One needs to either have very special circumstances or very special state of mind to choose to commit a crime with such very exotic weapon as 3d-printed gun. It's like choosing to shoot somebody with 15-century longbow - possible, but who really would do it? Of course, among 300+ mln people sooner or latter there would be some weird people that do that, however I highly doubt banning those files would stop them either from committing the crime and from committing the crime with this specific weapon if they already decided to do it.
gjulianm 13y ago
I think that 3D-printed-guns should be controlled because, even when I'd like to think that everybody is responsible and there isn't need for control, I know there are dumb or bad people who can harm themselves and others using this. I think that every gun (3D printed or not) should be controlled because of that same reason. Now, how can we control it? I don't really know. I'm not for DRM. I'm not for controlling 3D printers, or 3D materials. And making an automated system so 3D printers don't print guns is infeasible, error-prone and a hassle. Maybe the best alternative is leaving those 3D printed guns uncontrolled, because any other option is ineffective. The fact that 3D printed guns control is infeasible doesn't mean that leaving them uncontrolled is a good idea.
- zero_intp 13y ago
  >The fact that 3D printed guns control is infeasible doesn't mean that leaving them uncontrolled is a good idea. Actually, that is exactly what it means. Infeasibility is a good place to stop, as it means that what you are doing is not reasonably possible.
  - gjulianm 13y ago
    I don't agree. Something impossible can be a good idea, i.e. "The fact that inmortality is infeasible doesn't mean that dying is a good idea".
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    I think there was some semantic mismatch here. The fact that something is infeasible means that it should not be the option selected. The fact that something is infeasable says nothing about whether it would be desirable granted feasibility. I am fairly confident you and the parent comment's author agree on both these points.

jaibot 13y ago

But you'll still stop _most instances_ of would-be piracy - the 14-year-old kids hanging out at a park, unable to _easily_ send a movie from one smartphone to another. Not impossible - just hard enough to not bother. You can't absolutely stop 3D printing of dangerous artifacts. But you can lower the appeal by increasing penalties, requiring the party to take more steps to avoid being caught, attaching a strong social stigma to the practice. It's physically impossible to keep someone from barreing their car at 80mph down the wring side of the highway into oncoming traffic, but this is one among countless potential potential disasters we almost never see in practice. It is worth considering why such things happen as rarely as they do.

ta25252 13y ago
It's physically impossible to keep someone from barreing their car at 80mph down the wring side of the highway Not really. Government mandated speed governor in every car, limited to 55 mph.
- jaibot 13y ago
  You're right, of course. s/physically/practically
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - ta25252 13y ago
    Did you mean "practically" or "politically"? Because, while it does not cover the "wrong way down a highway" part of your scenario, such a law would certainly save lives. High speed is a significant contributor to fatal car accidents. The EU already has such a law for large trucks.
    - hga 13y ago
      I'm not at all sure about this. Very possibly for cargo carrying trucks, they have different design tradeoffs. But as I understand it, "high speed" WRT to accidents starts at about 35 mph, which is a speed at which, if you come to an immediate stop, wearing the normal shoulder and waist belts, your head will hit the steering wheel with enough force to cause serious injury, unless an airbag prevents it. Any reasonable governor is going to be way above that. According to a [citation needed] Wikipedia item (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_(device)#Trucks_.28HGVs.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_(device)#Trucks_.28HGV...), the EU governor speed is 90 or 100 kph, 56 or 62 mph, which sounds plausable. This http://www.usroads.com/journals/aruj/9803/ru980302.htm http://www.usroads.com/journals/aruj/9803/ru980302.htm indicates those speeds are quite lethal. Keeping people driving for longer periods of time is also going to cost lives....
      - ta25252 13y ago
        Yes, I meant commercial cargo trucks.
smsm42 13y ago
>>>> But you'll still stop _most instances_ of would-be piracy Really? Is it how it is working out? Last time I looked all those DRM-ed things were still available easily - together with cracks. >>> But you can lower the appeal by increasing penalties Really? Is it how it is working out? I remember we have increased penalties for drug offenses, which completely eradicated drugs from the market. Oh wait, it didn't, it is actually worse than ever and increased penalties mostly hurt innocent people with no criminal intent or criminal past, routing them into the vast prison industry. >>> but this is one among countless potential potential disasters we almost never see in practice. As opposed to mass shootings with a 3d-printed plastic guns, which we see in practice every day, right? It is fascinating how common sense can be compartmentalized so neatly - here you can distinguish imaginary threat from real one, and here you completely can't. >>> It is worth considering why such things happen as rarely as they do. But it's much more worth considering why some things that never happen is OK but some things that never happen require immediate government action and give exception from all the Constitution.
- jaibot 13y ago
  It is difficult to measure counterfactuals, but I strongly suspect that the rate of piracy is much lower than it otherwise would be. Everything you say regarding availability is accurate - but consider, for example, the difference in piracy rates between console and PC games. There _are_ cracked versions of console games, but they are much less widespread because using them is much, much more difficult. I am not happy that DRM appears to be effective - I would much rather that not be the case - but it does appear to significantly reduce the level of piracy from what it would otherwise be. You are correct to note the absence of printed-gun crimes. The technology is young, the printers are not widespread, and the initial designs are likely far short of what is possible. As accessibility, knowledge, and affordability increase, I expect those crimes to start occurring. I further expect that the rate of those crimes will be lower with federal intervention than without. I really hope I'm wrong about that, too.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    Most of the crimes always were, are and will be committed with most readily available means. This is why in most violent crimes, the weapons used are fists, knives, clubs and alike, and regular common handguns. One needs to either have very special circumstances or very special state of mind to choose to commit a crime with such very exotic weapon as 3d-printed gun. It's like choosing to shoot somebody with 15-century longbow - possible, but who really would do it? Of course, among 300+ mln people sooner or latter there would be some weird people that do that, however I highly doubt banning those files would stop them either from committing the crime and from committing the crime with this specific weapon if they already decided to do it.

gjulianm 13y ago

I think that 3D-printed-guns should be controlled because, even when I'd like to think that everybody is responsible and there isn't need for control, I know there are dumb or bad people who can harm themselves and others using this. I think that every gun (3D printed or not) should be controlled because of that same reason. Now, how can we control it? I don't really know. I'm not for DRM. I'm not for controlling 3D printers, or 3D materials. And making an automated system so 3D printers don't print guns is infeasible, error-prone and a hassle. Maybe the best alternative is leaving those 3D printed guns uncontrolled, because any other option is ineffective. The fact that 3D printed guns control is infeasible doesn't mean that leaving them uncontrolled is a good idea.

zero_intp 13y ago
>The fact that 3D printed guns control is infeasible doesn't mean that leaving them uncontrolled is a good idea. Actually, that is exactly what it means. Infeasibility is a good place to stop, as it means that what you are doing is not reasonably possible.
- gjulianm 13y ago
  I don't agree. Something impossible can be a good idea, i.e. "The fact that inmortality is infeasible doesn't mean that dying is a good idea".
- dllthomas 13y ago
  I think there was some semantic mismatch here. The fact that something is infeasible means that it should not be the option selected. The fact that something is infeasable says nothing about whether it would be desirable granted feasibility. I am fairly confident you and the parent comment's author agree on both these points.