The Doctor wrote:

It has been done, actually. Haveblue [url=https://drwho.virtadpt.net/archive/2012/07/29/3d-printed-weapons-and-fud... an all-plastic AR-15 lower[/url] and ran several hundred rounds through it safely. However, there are lots of metal bits that are still sufficiently specialized (and unlikely to have laying around) that cannot yet be printed on a 3D printer yet. Now, a F/OSS CNC with the right kind of alloy...

In fact, the AR-15 plastic lower receiver has gotten quite a bit of news lately, as it is the only part of the weapon that is stamped and registered with a serial number. Because of this, it is officially possible to produce an unregistered firearm, should you have all other components of the gun (or have another AR-15 which you can discard the lower receiver from). Of course, this makes firearm legislation all the more hard. If someone find the proper material for 3d printing a high-tension spring, we will likely be looking at a new age of "pirate" weaponry, which anyone will be able to manufacture and no one will be able to track. Imagine a world where anyone can produce pistols at home and no one will have the means to track them. But it's more than just the loss of weapons tracking. Soon, 3d printer-equipped workshops could pump out VINless vehicle parts. All those things that are currently tracked will very soon become nigh-untrackable. A brave new world, baby.

Some ideas that can be easily abused to make weapons or IED's http://inhabitat.com/3d-printed-robot-spider-can-save-lives-and-analyze-... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFFFiB_if18

@ Extrasolar Angel Please read what The doctor linked https://drwho.virtadpt.net/archive/2012/07/29/3d-printed-weapons-and-fud Respect to the Man: this curveball is aimed at 3D printing. This is BAD tech because criminals will make GAZILLION of guns and kill your daughter/wife/dog!!! ... sorry, I tend to get carried away. Not to repeat what smarter people then me wrote please read the link.

Gantolandon wrote:

Defense Distributed, however, claims to work on a firearm which would have all its parts 3D-printed ([url=http://defensedistributed.com/wikiwep-b]Wikiwep B[/url]). How feasible is that is another story - they claim to be close, but, for some reason, the site sets my bullshit meter off. Mostly because they have nothing to show and there is no trace of any work being done on their wiki. Still, someone is bound to try it one day.

Actually, there are two guns they are working on. The first is Wikiwep A, which is a design with non-moving parts, an electronic firing pin and caseless ammunition. That's the one they need a high-end 3d printer for, as they are trying to make it as precise and high end as possible. Wikiwep A will also be a testing ground for them to learn the tolerances of ABS plastic and figure out just what the material can handle. Wikiwep B is effectively their final product, once they have come to understand all they need about the material and weapon design thanks to Wikiwep A; it will effectively be a traditional semi-automatic firearm made completely through 3d printing. Every component will have its blueprints on the net, and be capable of manufacture from any RepRap. The only thing you can't print is the rounds themselves (for now).

Extrasolar Angel wrote:

Unfortunately very advanced 3D printing will probable enable access to weapons for wanna-be shooters, disgruntled employees, terrorist organizations, criminals etc. In effect making the world a more dangerous and deadly place-countries in Europe for example could face similar problems as USA which has the highest homicide rate among western developed countries.

Save for the fact that a fair amount of specialized knowledge is required to properly fabricate and assemble the components. It is still cheaper and more expedient to purchase weapons on the black market (or, in the case of psycho-shooters, buy a handgun normally and use it, because planning to die in the attempt means not worrying about where and how the weapon was acquired in the first place).

Decivre wrote:

Ammo might be the problem now, but I think it too will eventually be bypassed.

Propellant seems like the biggest problem.

Decivre wrote:

As far as I know drones also have been already 3d printed.

Several different models have, yes. Rather nice ones, too.

Decivre wrote:

So besides weapons we will probably see mass 3d printed missiles, suicide-bots(spider-like bots were already 3d printed), IED's.

The problem with explosives is that one cannot fabricate a block of C4 on a RepRap. Explosives need to be synthesized or purchased, and that is exceedingly difficult these days. The precursors to explosives are well known and carefully monitored, and attempting to acquire them raises eyebrows these days. In short, fabbing the chassis is not, in itself the key, but making the stuff that goes "BOOM!" is.

Decivre wrote:

As to the weapons-I think there might be a backlash against this, and another dystopic development-to secure the safety of citizens an idea of Panopticon Singularity might be proposed(in fact people like David Brin already suggested such move) http://www.antipope.org/charlie/old/rant/panopticon-essay.html

There was an excellent talk at HOPE Number Nine about this, too.

Decivre wrote:

In future we thus might see a states that desire full information awareness to protect themselves and political entities that safeguard privacy of citizens.

Shades of the restricted fabbers in the Planetary Consortium?

Gantolandon wrote:

The thing is that this step probably has to be made and solved somehow. It's either that or giving the governments at least partial control over 3D printing. This couldn't be done without a lot of security measures: licensed printers, monitoring (mandatory spyware), outright bans on projects such as RepRap. Which could probably mean severe limitations on what could be printed.

Thinking about it a little more (read: after my second cup of coffee), this would not work, either. To prevent people from building their own 3D printers, people would have to be forced back to an almost neo-primitivist technology base. Case in point, [url=http://www.reprap.org/wiki/Builders/JunkStrap]the JunkStrap[/url]. The one that I watched in action a few years ago was built out of parts scavenged from a couple of dot matrix printers that had been picked out of a dumpster. Good luck preventing people from dumpster diving for repurposable components.

Quote:

It is still cheaper and more expedient to purchase weapons on the black market (or, in the case of psycho-shooters, buy a handgun normally and use it, because planning to die in the attempt means not worrying about where and how the weapon was acquired in the first place).

Where I lived it was impossible, black market for guns is almost non-existent and for high profile criminals only, while getting normal gun is practically not doable due to restrictions made by law(several psychological tests, approval from high police officer, you have to justify that your life is threatened etc). Of course improvement of 3D technology is a worry for me, since it can mean widespread availability of weapons that so far my home country has avoided.

Gantolandon wrote:

Sure, but not everyone can (or wants to) make their own 3D printer from trash. And I wouldn't expect it to be very precise, so a firearm printed with something like that would probably be as dangerous to its user as to the person currently being shot. It's an option only for most desperate.

Precision isn't as important for structural integrity as the printing material itself. In fact, a piece of mere sandpaper can be used instead of a high-precision head; the basic form can be printed, and you can simply sand down to the finished product.

Gantolandon wrote:

I don't think it really has to. It needs to last several shots and, when malfunctions, do it in a way harmless to its user. It's even better if the destroyed parts are the ones that can be quickly replaced. And this, I think, is within the realm of possibility - I think we can expect that the weapon will be weaker than normal handguns anyway.

There are certain interesting effects that the frailer design will have as well. The plastics of the design make the weapon easily melted and eliminated. Furthermore, barrel warping potentially makes ballistics testing nigh-impossible even if the weapon is retrieved. Lastly, the plastic material makes the weapon undetectable by traditional weapon scanners.

Gantolandon wrote:

It really seems now that the nation states are getting obsolete. Their normal modes of communication are too slow and the Internet, because of its structure, seems to penalize large, centralized systems over distributed ones. Unless they can fundamentally change the way they work, they can't hope to be competitive.

Amen to that. Direct democracy was a failed concept in ages past; when information, education and speed of transmission was archaic, the idea of people ruling themselves was unsustainable. Today, the concept may finally see its day. This project is part and parcel to that concept, and shows us that we as people must become our own governors, and stop relying on a few representatives to do the dirty work for us.

Gantolandon wrote:

. Unless they can fundamentally change the way they work, they can't hope to be competitive.

I wouldn't be so sure. Internet users usually underestimate the power of the state, while overestimating the influence of the net. Russia has so far successfully managed the internet presence, mostly using traditional methods that were employed before. China has used innovative methods, but so far keeps it under control as well As USA changes politically in an interesting way towards something very interesting but yet not clear(we will what will ultimately become of USA) it does catch up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_Wind_(code_name) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapwire

Extrasolar Angel wrote:

As a very long term editor on Wikipedia-I know how direct democracy works. I don't find the idea utopian. Quite opposite. The closest other examples of direct democracies are small towns and Switzerland. Neither of which are places I would like to live in.

The biggest problem direct democracy faces is apathy. Even in many of the community projects that exist today, there are a lot of community members that forgo their voting rights. Idiots tend to be the most likely to want their voices heard, and theirs a reason for the term "silent majority". That's why within Eclipse Phase, Titan has an actual social effort to peer-pressure people into constantly voting and participating in the system. Whether Wikipedia or a governmental body, we need that social pressure and coerced participation. Wikipedia has millions of members and only a few thousand (at best) active participants. Hence problems. This gets mitigated once community participation nears 100%, even if it never achieves 100%.

Gantolandon wrote:

Sure, but not everyone can (or wants to) make their own 3D printer from trash. And I wouldn't expect it to be very precise, so a firearm printed with something like that would probably be as dangerous to its user as to the person currently being shot. It's an option only for most desperate.

If personal 3D printing ever becomes a truly viable means of producing things one needs, there are two possible paths the technology could take: One is that a lot of people really do purchase (or build) their own and run off whatever they need. The second (and this seems more likely) is that a relatively small number of people will have them but the set of people who use them (directly or indirectly) will be rather large. As for the JunkStrap's precision, I was quite impressed with the detail of objects around the scale of one-eigth of an inch. Far from perfect, but not terrible, either. That was, incidentally, one of my arguments for most of the coverage of weapon fabrication being FUD - the risk inherent in using a 3D printed firearm being much higher than the utility inherent.

Gantolandon wrote:

Quote:

There is no way that ABS or PLA can withstand the kind of forces that accompany a single gunshot.

I don't think it really has to. It needs to last several shots and, when malfunctions, do it in a way harmless to its user. It's even better if the destroyed parts are the ones that can be quickly replaced. And this, I think, is within the realm of possibility - I think we can expect that the weapon will be weaker than normal handguns anyway.

If a gun barrel printed out of ABS or PLA cannot survive one shot, it could not survive several shots. Those are not strong plastics, and making the barrel of a gun out of them would be a bad idea. A more dense plastic possibly (perhaps a cast resin of some kind), but the kinds of plastics hobbyists like you or I use with 3D printers right now not so much. As for devices failing catastrophically yet predictably safe to the user, I cannot speak to this. I find the notion dubious because when things blow up and turn into shrapnel, the process tends to be unpredictable.

Gantolandon wrote:

It really seems now that the nation states are getting obsolete. Their normal modes of communication are too slow and the Internet, because of its structure, seems to penalize large, centralized systems over distributed ones. Unless they can fundamentally change the way they work, they can't hope to be competitive.

This is the assumption that some of us are working under these days.

Smokeskin wrote:

The biggest problem with democracy is that clueless people vote. One vote per head is just plain silly. If we want to keep something like democracy running efficiently, weighing votes according to for example income (or perhaps more fairly paid taxes, he who pays for the party and all that) would be a good idea.

Intelligence doesn't come in hand with being rich. Many intellectuals lived in poverty or were unemployed.Heck, I have two university degrees and read quite sophisticated literature but so far remain unemployed throughout most of my life and without income. Also considering the fact that future will probably have continuous levels of unemployment around 50-80% such proposal would only speed it up the inevitable rise of oligarchy and feudalism that awaits us in my view.

Smokeskin wrote:

I don't really agree with that. Both Western Europe and USA have those, but Europe totally failed to adress the communist threat in the 20th century.

I lived in communist society. I regret that it was destroyed. Contrary to mainstream vision by western media, life was in many ways better than today. I really think it wasn't a "threat" at all.

"Extrasolar Angel" wrote:

I wouldn't be so sure. Internet users usually underestimate the power of the state, while overestimating the influence of the net. Russia has so far successfully managed the internet presence, mostly using traditional methods that were employed before. China has used innovative methods, but so far keeps it under control as well

It doesn't really look like the states are managing the Internet so well. Russia just kinda ignores it, occasionally removing one site or the other. China is a better example, but I'm not sure how airtight really the Great Firewall is. I don't feel competent enough to discuss this country.

Quote:

As USA changes politically in an interesting way towards something very interesting but yet not clear(we will what will ultimately become of USA) it does catch up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_Wind_(code_name) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapwire

It's not enough. The nation-state, to function properly, needs to control the flow of information within its boundaries, or at least encourage flow of information beneficial to its existence and prevent harmful memes from spreading too far. Mass-media used to perform this role quite well - the mainstream ones are usually quick to reach consensus and the rest is marginalized. Of course, dissent still happens, but it's reduced to topics and forms considered acceptable. The Internet works differently - less centralized, publishers doesn't need to appeal to advertisers as much and data, once published, won't disappear quickly. It's easier to find like-minded people, so opinions are harder to marginalize. It's still possible, of course - some of virtual societies are frequently shamed and tend to insulate themselves, which reduces their influence. Mass media can't cope with that. Some of them gradually lose respect on their own, some are working very hard to undermine their influence (like the movie industry and their war with digital piracy). Right now it is one of the fronts where the nation-states lost - they can only react to the dissent, not control it.

"Smokeskin" wrote:

The biggest problem with democracy is that clueless people vote. One vote per head is just plain silly. If we want to keep something like democracy running efficiently, weighing votes according to for example income (or perhaps more fairly paid taxes, he who pays for the party and all that) would be a good idea.

The more money one has, the better he is able to influence the legislative process. Which means he is more able to ensure he gets even more money. This is true even now and there is no reason to make this positive feedback even stronger. Not to mention that an impoverished member of such a society would have every right to riot. Seriously, what hope would they have when they were not even represented?

Quote:

This is more of an American thing, and interestingly the US is far ahead of Europe. I think you're focusing too much on some getting rich as a bad thing, rather than seeing the big picture.

Uh... I'm not sure what do you mean by "being far ahead". It has been hit by the crisis as much as Europe, is engaged in numerous wars which show no sign to be concluded and its political system is a mess, which favors two not very different parties. Social mobility is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_State... than in most European countries (with higher economic inequality), intentional homicide rate is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_r....

Quote:

Everyone has a right to riot. Democracy doesn't give any sort of legitimacy. Why should it?

Well, why would anyone who is poor choose to participate in a system which not only lets him stay poor, but also disenfranchises him for that? Wealth-based voting systems were already tried and they didn't work. The first time this backfired horribly was just before the French Revolution.

Quote:

Everyone has a right to riot. Democracy doesn't give any sort of legitimacy. Why should it? And why should the poor be trod down just because they get a smaller vote? They're already in the minority, if the rest of the population wanted to take all help away from them it would already have happened. How do you account for charity, welfare and foreign aid if you think people are kust selfish bastards?

Because this is not about being given some scraps which can will be taken away every time a nation has a crisis. It's about being able to live a satisfying life.

Smokeskin wrote:

The biggest problem with democracy is that clueless people vote. One vote per head is just plain silly. If we want to keep something like democracy running efficiently, weighing votes according to for example income (or perhaps more fairly paid taxes, he who pays for the party and all that) would be a good idea.

Eliminating the concept of social equality and bringing back feudalism in a consumer economy is the worst possible thing we could do for free society. The biggest problem that ancient Greece's democracy had was that it only gave a select few voting rights and power. It's such a narrow definition of citizenry that creates the concept of "Tyranny of the Majority".

Arenamontanus wrote:

You are assuming democracy is about different things. Deceivre, you seem to be leaning towards democracy as having representatives of the people, making the state legitimate. Smokeskin, you seem to be leaning towards democracy as bringing in good or competent people. In reality democracies are a mix, with several incompatible goals at the same time. We want people who represent all of us, yet agree with *ourselves*. They are to be super-competent, willing to make tough decisions we would not want to do but are in our best interest, yet they should respond quickly to what we want. And so on.

The problem with trying to govern a nation with the skills and potential of "good or competent" people is that we have to then define what we mean when we say "good or competent". Is someone convicted under an unjust law "evil"? Is someone denied any chance for an education "incompetent"?

Arenamontanus wrote:

It is often useful to recognize that the most important things for a good society is having an open society (you can freely criticise and change things) and rule of law (things are predictable and rights respected); how the government actually works is less important if it is compatible with these.

Agreed. A representative government would not be so bad if a person in office was relegated a much lower degree of privacy than the average citizen. Tyranny starts at ignorance of the populace. A democracy functions optimally when voters are working under "informed consent". But centralized power does not necessarily become less corrupt simply by merit of transparency. What we define as "corrupt" is not necessarily the same elsewhere. Whereas many in the western world see religious freedom as a key element to a good society, others would rather have their religion as the only one recognized... many in my country only see religious freedom as it concerns their faith.

Smokeskin wrote:

This is more of an American thing, and interestingly the US is far ahead of Europe. I think you're focusing too much on some getting rich as a bad thing, rather than seeing the big picture. Also, lobbyism doesn't do much for the vast majority of [b]high income people[/b] - the system is used by corporations mainly. There's a big difference in the incentives.

And corporations shareholders and management are primarily (answer is bolded for your convenience)....

Smokeskin wrote:

Everyone has a right to riot. Democracy doesn't give any sort of legitimacy. Why should it? And why should the poor be trod down just because they get a smaller vote? They're already in the minority, if the rest of the population wanted to take all help away from them it would already have happened. How do you account for charity, welfare and foreign aid if you think people are kust selfish bastards?

Just because there are plenty of people who aren't selfish bastards does not mean we should create a system built for being gamed by people who are. It's a false dichotomy; you seem to be implying that either everyone must be evil, or no one at all is and we should work under either assumption. I'd rather assume that we should put some checks in to make sure those that try to game the system can't, rather than assuming that we can trust every person. Besides, how do you know that a voting system restricted by income would bring out the most positive of people? At any point in time when you take a filtered representation of the populace, you risk bringing out the worst in a population. I think this is one of the key problems that the Republican party face; despite having a multitude of "silent majority" reasonable people within, the party heads tend to pander to the extremist base... a filter that apparently brings out the worst in the party.

Somebody on the Tor prediction markets is cheering... StrataSys (manufacturer of the 3D printer that Defense Distributed leased for the WikiWeapons project) [url=http://defdist.tumblr.com/post/32381907035/imagine-if-your-biggest-part-... the lease[/url] and is said to have [url=http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/3d-gun-blocked/]sent a repo team to take the printer back[/url]. A few folks in the hacker community (myself included) think that this was the intended end result. I guess it is now time for the 'community to prep yet another set of disclaimers...

Gantolandon wrote:

I find it hilarious that a project, which was supposed to enable anyone to print a gun in their own home, requires a commercial-grade 3D printer which had to be leased.

... for the prototype. You left that part out. The prototype weapon (WikiWep A) is not necessarily designed for being printed at home, and in fact includes parts that can't be printed (the electric solenoid). WikiWep B is the weapon that will be built for home-printing, but that is down the line. It's all in their project outline.

Gantolandon wrote:

And, of course, it's more than a month since this discussion started. The author still needs several weeks to finish, still didn't publish or show anything. For additional bonus, enter his Wiki and click "Recent changes". Yeah, seems totally legit. I'm just not sure if he is just going to take the money he got and call it a day, or try to gather some money for a 3D printer. It appears that crowdfunding still has a long way to go - people need to learn to demand results before giving money. I observe the same pattern on Kickstarter too frequently.

Well, the loss of their printer didn't help in the process of speeding up their research, so I can see why progress has been slow. Not to mention their crowdfunding project being removed from Indiegogo. You can't really hold them culpable when everybody they are trying to get help from keeps pulling the rug out from under them.

Gantolandon wrote:

I haven't seen any outline on their site, except of a short description of [url=http://defensedistributed.com/wikiwep-a/]Wikiwep A[/url] and [url=http://defensedistributed.com/wikiwep-b/]B[/url]. There is also a short video, but they don't expand their this topic much further. Is there anything else?

If memory serves, the video did detail WikiWeps A and B, at least regarding their design and such. Beyond that, they give a decent amount of info in the FAQ.

Gantolandon wrote:

I would really like to believe them, but I have no reason to think that they are actually doing anything at all. Their blog publishes nothing beyond an occasional photo (sometimes a stock one, like with a 3D printer) described with a vague one-liner. The only active users on their Wiki are spambots, filling it regularly with cheap Viagra ads, and it has looked that way since a month ago at least. No partial blueprints, no test results, no tests being planned, no milestones or goals more specific than "design a moving-parts weapon". There is nothing there that would convince me that these guys actually even plan to finish this project.

[url=http://defensedistributed.com/faqs/how-long-it-will-it-take-to-have-a-fu... first blueprints were announced to release within 90 days of receiving a printer.[/url] And considering their first printer was taken from them before they got it out of the box, I'd say the clock hasn't technically started for that. They've already stated that this wouldn't be a lightning-quick project, and that time and resources were necessary to make it happen. If they haven't released blueprints by month 4 of them receiving a printer, then yeah... I'll probably stand with you and say the project is a bust.

Gantolandon wrote:

Something made them think that they are able to make a functional gun in about 90 days. This something would be sufficient to me. Some vague concepts how are they going to prevent the most vulnerable parts from being destroyed. Tests they are going to perform to ensure that. It doesn't have to be much, just enough to prove that they actually have any idea beyond "let's make a plastic gun, we'll figure something out".

WikiWep A has no moving parts and uses caseless ammunition, so it's design is minimal. It will be a simple structure with a small opening for placing the solenoid. It's sole function is to be used as a test for finding out the stresses and tolerances of the printer plastic; see how many rounds it can handle, how to optimize its survivability, and see if they need to make tweaks to barrel and body design. In effect, WikiWep A is a test dummy to put through abuse, and see what they need to know for making the final product: WikiWep B

Gantolandon wrote:

And seriously, their setbacks are not terribly unexpected. Indiegogo rules explicitly forbid using their site to make firearms, why would they try there, instead of going with Bitcoin from the beginning? If they really needed to rent a printer despite having enough money to buy one ([url=http://www.uprint3dprinting.com/3d-printers/3d-printer-uprint.aspx]$15,900[/url], and they are supposed to have [url=http://defensedistributed.com/proofgun-2/]$20,000[/url]), what made them to publish on their blog not only the model of their printer, but also link to the producer's site and the fact that it's leased?

Well, the whole point was to have a largely open design project, so that comes with trying to publish as much as they can about the project at hand. Transparency obviously has its drawbacks. I would admit that Indiegogo was probably a poor choice, but bitcoin is still a relatively limited economic market. Not everyone has access to it as a currency. A crowdfunding site that uses USD is still a better way to appeal for money from the internet masses. Unfortunately, I don't know of a site that's tolerant to firearms design. And they went with leasing because that's what they stated they would do if they did not reach their goals. If they have to resort to a cheaper commercial printer, they probably will buy it outright.

Gantolandon wrote:

It doesn't really make me look at this project with more optimism. It sounds like their entire plan consists of printing a lot of prototype guns, detonate ammo inside them and see if they can endure that, possibly improving them. Basically play around with printed plastic and do something that will get them a working gun. This is painfully similar to a lot of video game Kickstarter projects. The same pattern is constantly repeated: there comes a guy with no experience who just needs a lot of money to make a great game. He promises a lot of impressive features, very hard to implement properly, with no explanation how is he going to do that beyond "I'll figure something out" or "I have a vague idea how could this work". All he can present is an enthusiastic description, a bit of mock-ups and (sometimes) a tech demo which doesn't have anything to do with actual features. More often then not, they either fail, or they quickly lose impetus after the goal is reached. This looks more and more like the same thing to me: a bunch of people promise a working gun with no plan beyond blowing up some plastic and hopefully get something in this process.

Which is a lot like colliding particles and hopefully getting something in the process. Research often involves simple trial-and-error. It's a proven system for getting crap done. I'm not particularly shocked that this is the methodology they plan to use.

Gantolandon wrote:

It's hardly transparent right now. Devblog and the main site are useless, Wiki is not working at all. There is a lot of ideologically-motivated bragging how is their project going to change everything, and nothing to back up their claim that it can be done.

I don't think they are scientists. From what I understand, all of the project members are volunteers doing this on their own time. This isn't a professional project. No one was expecting it to be (in fact, I would have been more suspicious of a professional research team putting up a kickstarter than an amateur team doing so). So it doesn't particularly shock me that the website isn't well-done. Many project sites are rather amateurish, often because the people involved aren't professional web designers. In this case, you have an 8-man team consisting of a law student, a philosophy major, a computer science graduate, an Android programmer, a Ron Paul enthusiast with no declared specialty, an electrical engineer, a gun enthusiast and an author. Nothing in that denotes any talent at web design. As I said before, I'll give them 90 days after they receive a printer. If they haven't delivered at least something modestly substantial by then, I'll probably join you in decrying the project. Until then, I'm more about "wait and see", because the project is definitely something I want to see happen.

Outbreak of the future for you - [url=http://fabbaloo.com/blog/2012/11/28/breaking-staples-to-use-mcor-iris-in... office supply chain Staples has announced that it will be deploying IRIS 3D printers in franchises in the Netherlands and Belgium[/url], with plans to expand into other countries later. Gentlebeings, start your BitTorrent and DCVS clients.