Yeah at first it will be. But can you picture the day where you can play that anti-piracy ad about downloading a car while you're downloading a car? It will be glorious!
------------------------- I'm not sick, but I'm not well
But people with legally-owned guns are harming people. Guns are weapons. They are for harming people. While they can be used for target shooting that is not what they are for, that is not their designed purpose (in the vast majority of cases).
That's like saying: I should be allowed to walk around strapped with C4. So long as I don't flick the switch then I'm not harming anyone so why not?
I may be well off with this view (and in years to come you're welcome to rub it in my face) but I think mass-produced products will still be of a better quality and much cheaper no matter how good 3D printing gets.
I certainly wouldn't consider driving a 3D printed car.
I do love the idea of 3D printing. I think it will be great for DIY, projects, building small stuff. But not for anything with many many parts, especially something that needs to be incredibly safe.
I agree. 3D printing in its current form (i..e polymers done layer by layer mainly) is pretty shit. It'll have some limited specific uses but broadly speaking it won't change much.
I'd get very excited about proper nano-printing. And the stuff Ben was talking about was very interesting (using bacteria to fabricate stuff on mars and that).
Why are guns only for killing people? I own lots of guns and have never killed anyone. We use guns for hunting here. The only way you'd get killed by me is if you dressed up as a deer. I do have pistols that /could/ be used for hunting but I use mine to make my dick larger.
------------------------- I'm not sick, but I'm not well
I am not, and yet somehow I've managed not to go on a shooting rampage against gay people! I know, pretty crazy but somehow I do it!
My view is that it's not right, BUT if they want to do it and it doesn't harm me then go for it. What do I care? My complaint is against them getting the same benefits as a traditional marriage.
------------------------- I'm not sick, but I'm not well
Why shouldn't they? Are they not two normal people who love each other and want to be public and open about their relationship and have the legal safeguards that come with marriage like any other people do?
Hunting rifles are designed for hunting. Target pistols and rifles are designed for target shooting. Most guns owned in the US, and certainly the ones we're bothered about here, are neither of those.
The guns we're concerned with are handguns, which are shit for hunting (with the exception of a few very high calibre revolvers and stuff); SMP/SMGs, which certainly have no non-combat purpose and assault rifles where... well, the clue is in the name.
These are all designed specifically for harming people. That is what they are for, that is the guiding principle when designing them.
Most guns here are rifles and shotguns. I'd say by at least a 10:1 margin. The explosion in the past year with pistols has been driven by the talk of banning them.
------------------------- I'm not sick, but I'm not well
Where I get angry is the government telling me I can or can't do anything, I don't care what it is. As long as I'm not harming anyone they shouldn't have a say in what I do.
quote:
There should only be laws against things that harm other people.
You can't actually mean those things and be against gay marriage, you realise that, right?
Hunting rifles and shotguns (hunting shotguns, not combat shotguns) are fine. We have those here, too. I don't think anyone here is particularly bothered about those.
We're talking about the handguns, SMP/SMGs and assault rifles.
That's just my opinion on it. I think marriage should be between a man and a woman. The whole purpose, IMO, of a marriage is to have and raise children.
------------------------- I'm not sick, but I'm not well