User:Klk5327
Contents
Katerina Kostadinova
Greetings fellow players! Here's where I'll be recording my RepRap adventures.
Player Info
I'm an Integrative Arts major at Penn State, looking to hopefully graduate Spring '13. My major has been a bit of a journey... I came to Penn State for Physics, the math quickly scared me off and I scampered off into Biology. Eventually I discovered I'm not half bad at math and began majoring in Engineering Science. Well, that didn't quite work out so I'm feeding my creative passion as an art student right now while trying to figure out how to work in my skills/interests in the sciences into my grand master plan.
We'll see how all that works out. Feel free to make bets as to whether or not I'll be living in a box in 10 years.
As far as art goes I'm steering myself down the route of 2D and 3D animation so I know a thing or two about 3D modeling. I don't have any technical skills when it comes to actually building things so I'm hoping to pick up on some during this course.
Blog
Week 5
- 1. Imagine that you were a dedicated member of the DIY gun project: What might you do now?
Considering the entire project is in a 'regulatory grey area' there must be a way to proceed with it. Acquiring a manufacturing license seems like only a temporary solution to the problem since if the overall goal is for anyone to be able to print a gun at home, it's impossible for everyone to acquire such a license. Looks like this project is at the mercy of laws that haven't been created/regulated yet.
- 2. Another article asks ”Should 3D printing, especially when it’s being used to create items like guns, be regulated? Can you regulate it?” Check your Blog #3 Questions 1 & 3 (and my comments to them) if you haven’t already. Do you have any more to say about this issue of 3D printer regulation (gov’t or corporate)?
It makes me kind of nervous to think about some of the things people can make with this technology. What if someone brings a plastic gun on a plane? That can move through security very easily. Then again, I've always had the belief that if someone wants to make something like that to happen they'll do it whether they use a 3D printer in their basement or not. I know we discussed TV licenses and whatnot in class and how we shouldn't rule out the idea that things like this can be regulated...but I'm going to rule that out anyways. At least for the US, if regulation like that occurs people are going to be out in front of the white house rioting like crazy. It could be possible to enforce something like this before the technology gets big and widespread...but that won't take long. To look at it a slightly different way, okay, some 'bad' people can make their own guns but you know what, everyone else can too. Pretty much the only way to deal with such things is to either let no on have the technology or let everyone have it. Basically I don't thing such things can or should be regulated.
- 3. Guns (and other weapons) seem to be prone to prohibitions. What other 3D printable constructs might attract similar attention/derision/prohibition?
First thing that comes to is anything having to do with drugs. Let's say someone figures out how to print out a meth lab (I've been watching a lot of Breaking Bad lately...) or something along those lines. That would definitely get attention.
I...can't really think of anything else though. Every time I think of an object that could attract negative attention like this I realize there's already plenty of ways to fairly easily acquire such a thing. A guy in the comments section pointed out that with a CnC mill one could easily make an all metal gun. I guess I don't see what the big deal with the plastic guns is either. I feel like the people that are freaked out by it grossly underestimate the ingenuity and persistence of human beings. We already have access to everything, 3D printing just makes it more accessible. I'm completely failing to see the problem with that.
Week 4
- Comment on Makerbot’s position (as far as we know), Prusa’s concerns, and ownership of designs. Should we look for a new thingiverse?
I'll be honest, I'm having trouble grasping the significance of Makerbot making their next model Closed Source. What I'm having trouble understanding is exactly why they would make this decision. From the comments on the article other people seem to have the same question. Yes people are copying their work and making profit, but what did Makerbot expect to happen by providing an Open Source consumer product? It's a very logical progression.
I think Prusa has every right to be concerned about Thingiverse's new Terms of Use. It seems like a pretty underhanded change. As someone pointed out in the comments there's people on the site that upload things for everyone to use, but also plan on making money off of their designs. Now Thingiverse can make money off of his work too. I'm honestly not sure what the best choice of action is? Look for a new Thingiverse or do something about the state of the site. I'm very pessimistic that a new site won't have the same end result.
Week 3
- 1. It seems that 3D printing isn’t going to disappear, but the exact nature in which it will develop is not well defined. On that note, we currently place restrictions (DRM) onto our media to control distribution, with limited ‘success’. Do you think this might be applied to 3D printing? How or why not?
I think something like that will most likely be applied to 3D printing with...similar success. Exchanging files for 3D printers is as easy as throwing it on a flash drive or sending it through an e-mail. It's just as simple as exchanging music files. It's actually going to be easier to obtain the technology as well since if one of your friends can give you the music for your MP3 player, but they can't give you the parts and have you build it on your own. Obviously this is possible with 3D printing. Not only will people not have to purchase the files to print from, they most likely won't pay almost anything for the actual machine as well. Since websites like Thingiverse already exist, I can't see them all of a sudden becoming illegal. I'm sure more 'official' and 'professional' sites will rise up where people can purchase files as well. Sort like iTunes compared to Pirate Bay. That and a lot of websites already have free 3D models available for larger products such as sofas or chairs on their websites. It would only make sense this trend will continue into smaller merchandise.
- 2. According to Bowyer, many people have a great idea (or perhaps a passion) that they love to tell people about. What is yours? Do you see this as a way to attract future mates? (or to get money?) Why/why not?
I think the only passion I have concerning this question would be art (both visual and martial art). I've definitely never seen my passion as a way to obtain money though I've never been particularly business oriented. I suppose passion could be used as a way to make friends and attract mates, it's an interesting idea at least. My first reaction was actually that ideas and passions serve more as a way to divide people into castes of sorts. The better the ideas the more valuable the person, right? Then I had the sad realization that that's not the case at all. The person who had the idea doesn't matter at all since it's always the person who executes it that gets all of the credit. Think remakes of old songs by soulless pop-artists.
- 3. Professor Bowyer seems to think that 3D printing will finally kill intellectual property, and he sounds pleased about it. Do you think he’s right about ending IP? Is this a good thing, a bad thing, or somewhere in-between?
There's really no events that are 100% good or bad, so my automatic response has to be the somewhere-in-between. Why though? Let's look at the internet as an example. It allows people to have ideas and express opinions and to have them anonymously, if they so please, or under a username which may as well be anonymity. I feel as though this has increased the rate production of all kinds of ideas as people deliver them free of fear of negative responses. Now the problem is that anonymity has also increased the production of really really horrible ideas (See: 4chan). The same thing will happen with the disappearance of IP. People with ideas are readily given less and less credit and, as I mentioned in the above question, those who execute them get more and more credit. And as far as I'm concerned Bowyer is spot-on about killing of IP.
Week 2
- 1. Do you think his goal of a ‘self-replicating universal constructor’ is feasible? What remains to be done to achieve this, or alternatively what would prevent such a goal?
Such a goal is most definitely feasible. According to this article more and more people are taking advantage of 3D printing every year. With such an extreme increase in interest the technology will no doubt grow at a high rate. I think the most difficult challenge will be to enable the machines realize their mistakes. For example, we started construction within our build groups in class today and had to use tricks in order to thread some of the parts due to imperfections. I'm going to assume that no matter how advanced the technology becomes there will always be the possibility of flawed parts. The machines need to be able to recognize these flawed parks and either fix them or, a more likely solution, remake them. If the right material is chosen a flawed part can easily be turned back into raw material and reused. Other than recognizing flawed parts the machine must also be capable of recognizing mistakes in the building process such that the quality of each machine does not decrease. This, I think, will be the hardest challenge
- 2. The phrase “wealth without money” is both the title of his article and the motto of the reprap project itself. What does this phrase mean? (To him and to you if they differ). Discuss implications, problems, and possibilities associated with this idea.
From what I understand, Bowyer seems to view the concept of 'wealth without money' as the ability to produce whatever goods one desires with no cost (other than material cost, of course). As Bowyer talks in the beginning the Communist Manifesto states that, "By proletariat is meant the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live." The technology envisioned here allows for putting production in the hands of the modern wage laborers and is a way for wealth to be spread through out the middle and lower classes of society.
- 3. The Darwin design was released in 2007. It is 2012 now. Imagine future scenarios for RepRaps and their ‘cousin’ 3D printing designs (Makerbots, Ultimachine, Makergear, etc.) how do you think the RepRap project (community, designs, website, anything and everything) might evolve in the future? Describe as many scenarios as you can envision.
I can't help but think a lot about how 3D printing will influence the art community so here's some thoughts concerning the subject. The more artists become involved in this way of creating artwork the more our perception of art will have to change. Does it 'count' as art if someone simply designed it with a 3D modeling program and sent it to a printer? Does an artist have to modify a piece afterwards for it to be considered 'true art'? These are some of the questions that will be begin to rise up. There's already a lot of people that don't consider use of programs such as Photoshop and Illustrator as 'artsy'. Aside from people's opinions I think the art itself may take an interesting turn. 3D printing can obviously make it easier for artists to create more mechanical works. Perhaps the art will take a turn for the mechanical much like the method of creation.
Week 1
Useful: I would bake cookies every day for the rest of my life.
Artistic/Beautiful: Oh...oh my.
Pointless/Useless: What can be more useless than a lie?
Funny: Seems legit.
Weird: Bonus points for the punny name, but I'm still going to have nightmares tonight.
