Nah, I’m just joshin my favorite Doctor is Russell T Davies.
Interesting title choice for this article.
I will say as someone in favor of the Second Amendment I’m disappointed to see it become an issue that not only strongly aligns with one’s broader political affiliation along the left/right divide we see in this country, but one that has become ridiculously polarized with hyperbole effectively defining the argument as presented in media and even at an individual level.
With regards to 3D printing and other increasingly cheap means of automated production coming down the pike, access to firearms could follow the same curve as software/movies/music piracy where the old methods of restricting access were implicitly dependent upon duplication being difficult or inaccessible to the layperson then later via the arms race of encryption. The critical dimensions for the typical firearm receiver aren’t a secret nor terribly difficult to reverse-engineer and trying to restrict the distribution and/or production of such information at endpoints will be laughably difficult. You could threaten the likes of Shapeways if they make a receiver/barrel/trigger/etc but smaller operations or even hobbyists are harder to detect and harder still to regulate.
The paradigm of restricting access via traditional industrial channels (production, distribution, retail) will eventually fail. Sure, right now it’s people doing nonsense like single-use barrels with a safety factor of 1 and trrbl ballistics or fragile FDM-printed receivers. But far better plastics technology as well as metal printing is available today, with access largely being encumbered by patents making the machines expensive; in another decade or two those patents will lapse and we’ll see what the true cost of those methods is as their protected secret sauce is made available to everyone.
I wonder if we’ll see some old concepts re-appear in the process; i.e it might become practical to, say, roll your own single-use superposed-load barrels with electric ignition at a reasonable price that mates to a grip with the firing electronics, sights, and a battery - the only true moving parts would be the projectiles.
With all that in mind, it’s not terribly surprising that the government would use the most convenient method available to throw at Distributed Defense. They’re moving faster than the technology, itself moving faster than regulation.
And for sure there’s a lot of FUD going around - as I mentioned earlier today’s widely-available and cheap methods of 3D printing aren’t exactly a threat to conventional means of production. And despite the formulas being widely available for decades, there aren’t a lot of weapons being made by hobbyists in machine shops despite broadening CNC availability, and those that are seem be closely-held curiosities.
5 Likes
You say it is not surprising that the government would use the most convenient method available to throw at Distributed Defense. But, how was this the most convenient method? It seemed more likely this was a convoluted and elaborate run around which opened the government to a possible major shift had this pushed to a supreme court ruling. Had Distributed Defense not settled and this gone to a supreme court ruling, this could of been the next Roe V Wade, further defining freedom of speech and access to information in our country.
Personally, I’m sad this ended in a settlement. The settlement means that there wasn’t a precedent set here. The governing bureaucracy got off by saying, hey we will change a bit, but there is nothing stopping them from returning to the practice after the dust settles through slightly re-framed circumstances. Distributed Defense is now free to do what they wanted to do, but can other follow in their foot steps? This is unclear.
Attacking freedom of speech is done when you can’t convince governed to follow your ideas. Freedom of speech serves as the testing grounds for governing ideas. As long as all speech is free, the best ideas are able to rise to the top, rather than relying on force to decide all.
By wrapping it up in ITAR they were able to pre-emptively shut them down since internet anything is kind of by definition international.
I expect there will be additional maneuverings related to this matter.
I see your chuckle and I raise you indifference and boredom.
1 Like
If you are bored come the the space and do something. I have lots of things that I need help with for you to do. 
5 Likes
I’ve already been down that road … it wasn’t pleasant. 
1 Like
This is normal! Human beings are not made to get along. We are made to battle and fight. That’s how change occurs. To thinks it’s all Kumbaya is a bit naive. NO advance has ever occurred without battle of some sort. The best humans can do is not to kill each other in the battle.
Remember it is the battle of ideologies! It’s physics, cause and effect. There will always be Bad Guys and they are the ones who want control over others no matter their stripes.
So if anybody wants a potent life, ones needs to see the enemy and engage in battle.
My experience has been different. Presenting the issue in an adversarial fashion causes the neutrals to edge away and energizes opponents. Bumper sticker tic-tac-toe arguments commence and absolutely nothing is learned.
You had it right the first time, the (subjectively) best Doctor was Christopher Eccleston.
Different ways to fight. Some subtle some not. That’s the level of skill a potent leader possesses. The situations and people involved will dictate how any fight is engaged. Depends on their ideologies and values. Cooperation many times mean lowering your values. That can never be done and expect to win for the Good Guys.
tic-tac-toe? The only way to win is not to play.
2 Likes
Fantastic …
… that David Tennant took over … allons-y!
1 Like