I'll do one better and show you a person that believed that in 1965: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

All one needs to build a functional firearm is a drill and some extraordinarily mundane materials from any local hardware store. Oh, and the ability to read. And that weapon is far more likely to kill the target rather than the shooter, when compared to anything coming out of a 3D printer.

If you actually think that 3D printers are what makes it possible for a larger group of people to get weapons, you have demonstrated your depth of ignorance on the topic of firearms. Which is really the whole problem; people who have no clue whatsoever about firearms, and foist that ignorance onto equally ignorant politicians who create ill-concieved knee-jerk laws.

Yes. And a 3D gun that's exponentially more viable is as easily created by a water jet cutter, or plasma cutter, or oxyfuel cutter, or a laser cutter. Any of which requires roughly the same level of training to utilize as a home 3D printer. Granted those technologies are much more expensive, but there are 1000's of them in use in machine shops in the US and Europe. All one needs is the file that defines the part, and the ability to access the machinery.

Now you may be able to argue that the ease of access to home 3D printers makes it possible for more whacko's to get their hands on printed guns. But they will have shitty little pea shooters that might work once without blowing up in their faces. Whereas the 10s of 1000s of machine shop owners/employees out there are just as likely to be whacko's, and capable of producing things much more dangerous than some idiot in his basement. You're worried about a 15 round magazine being printed? How about a vulcan cannon?

Hell, a marginally talented machinist with knowledge of firearms can make a damn effective weapon out of some pipe, using a lathe and a drill.

So where's the moral outrage against the people with machine shops? Cutters? Drills? Maybe laws should be passed to regulate the purchase of pipes?

The guy that fixes your uber eco bicycle as every tool he needs to kill you and everyone within 50 feet of you. But you are freaking out about a chunk of plastic.

I dont think that those kinds of things actually rot the brain. I just believe that people priorities and values are so far out of whack that they spend exponentially more time finding out what shoe brand Snookie is wearing instead of reading the bills being proposed in Congress. They spend more time sharing videos of cats falling into toilets than they do finding 3 opposing articles on the practices of the Federal Reserve, and are appauled at the notion that they doi a little research to see which article appears to be grounded in the most fact. They sign petitions supporting causes they've never heard of, they elect politicians based on the single piece of information they have (the party affiliation letter next to the name on the ballot), and they take as fact clever one-liners from hacks that label themselves journalists.

The fact that these mind-rot shows have high ratings isnt a cause-effect argument. It's a symptom of the level of intellectual strength and honesty of far too many Americans.

If it was unconstitutional at any point passing a law that says it's ok makes it no less unconstitutional. Any law professor worth a god damn could tell you that. But this particular law professor will sometimes pass a law as a token gesture or otherwise pass an executive order, and pretend that everything is on the up and up now because he knows there's no way in hell to pass a constitutional amendent making what is being done actually legal.

The point is that you assumed any significant number of people were paying attention. They werent. They were blissfully ignorant, and a damn notable percentage of them still are.

"There's no way our government would do that."
"There's no way we wouldnt already know if they were doing that."
And from the last several years,
"Obama is going to fix all the abuses of the warmongering Republicans. So whatever evils were there they will be going away."

In the end we have purchased what has befallen us, but not through informed consent. It's simply been done through willful ignorance and denial. It takes minimal awareness to recognize how clueless most Americans are, wholly consumed with the mind-rot like Jersey Shore or Facebook.

So yes, most are/were surprised.

You did as soon as you suggested having parents enter a contract to which they are likely ignorant of the consequences.

And if a parent chooses to purchase that phone for their kid, they obviously take any risks associated. That's their choice. It is not something pushed by the state. And not giving a kid access to anything they might choose to indulge in is not censorship. It is not the responsibility of any school to ensure that any kid can access any material. In fact I would argue that damn near any parent in the US would be able to cite several examples of material they better not ever find their kid's school providing.

This is a bullshit argument and you know it. We're not talking about the launch codes for nukes, or the medical diagnosis for a disorder reported in 1 in 2 billion patients. If it's mundane information that's relevant to a kid's research it's probably printed in about 5000 different sources. Not to mention that if the research is part of the curriculum don't you think perhaps, just maybe, that the school already has exceptions for that research? Or maybe, just maybe, more than one kid will report they are being blocked from their assigned research?

By that reasoning you have a problem with the rich kids being able to watch paid cable channels. And go see the newest movies, in 3D. Or buying the hottest new albums, and having 5000 songs on their iTunes account. The state is obviously blocking all those underprivileged kids from all that culture.

It's not the responsibility of the state to grant access to Facebook any more so than it is to ensure that the kids have access to the latest Lil' Wayne album or Kim kardashian's sex tapes. You could attempt to argue that these are equally necessary "culture", but any rational person would laugh in your face just as quickly as when you argued they must have access to Facebook at taxpayer expense.

You just argued that it's oppressive censorship to block a kid from all the (undefined) things they cant get to for their research. And yet if a kid doesn't have an iPad they might have to *gasp* go to a library. And that is not significantly more oppressive?

Can you honestly argue that this would be the most stupid case to go to a jury, or that has actually succeeded? There are kids winning lawsuits stating their rights are violated because they are asked to learn the Pledge of Allegiance, and you don't think entering into signed contracts or risk unequal learning potential qualifies?

Exactly.

You're saying that it's stupid to expect the child to use this free device strictly to further their education, and instead this device should be considered as suitable for schoolwork and for general amusement. By stating that it logically follows that the state then takes on the burden of repairing or replacing said device if from no other impact than substantially more wear and tear from extended use.

No matter how you cut it (asshole kids hacking the device, breaking the device, infecting the device, or just using it to the point of failure), you are stating that because so many kids are assholes (judging from the pure volume that hacked the devices in the first week) that it will break it anyway, so just give up and let them abuse this free tool for their education for whatever use they see fit, no matter how improper, and that I should pay more in taxes to maintain it.

Explain how getting to Facebook or Twitter or enables a student to further their education? Unless the lesson plan is covering narcissism or obsessive compulsive behavior I cant see how those would be relevant. Web filters have been in use in business for a couple of decades. They really aren't that hard to maintain, and there are companies that do it as their bread and butter. It's not at all hard to allow access to mundane materials one might use for research while blocking video game and porn sites. Its not rocket science, and claiming that doing so is a hindrance to the learning of a kid is either desperate or ignorant.

Which, combined with the earlier argument about contracts, could be considered coercing the parents into a contract.
"You don't have to sign the permission slip, but if your kid fails, well, that'd be a real shame wouldn't it... "

Contract void.

First, you cant enforce a contract that relinquishes your rights. If the school board fails to impliment policies that give "reasonable" protection to the child, then the contract is unenforcable. The trick is defining what "reasonable" is. Also, you cannot assume that parents understand the technology or the risks associated. You cannot ask them to enter into a contract without fully disclosing those risks, or the possible punishments. This is particularly important when you propose to use these devices in largely low education, low income populations like L.A., where providing these devices is meant to be a boost to kids who would not otherwise be able to obtain them.

Second, lets say I refuse to sign the petition slip because I dont want to risk me taking the heat for what my kid does, or maybe because I dont want my kid to have access to a device that allows him or her to do things I do not approve of. Does that mean that the school must have a different curriculum that is paper-based? Or a different set of systems that can only be accessed from school? Does my kid have to do homework differently, turn in homework differently, or take tests differently? Can the school ensure that my child is not at a disadvantage because of these differences?

How long do you think it would take for a parent of a failing student who didnt have an iPad/laptop to sue the school for unfair treatment. How does the school defend against that?

So your reaction to this is not irritation that kids are hacking free devices that were intended to be solely for their education. It's irritation that school system is even trying to issolate the use of the devices to only education.

WTF is wrong with you?

Essentially you're saying that kids will be kids, and lets just give them free shit to do whatever it is they want to do with it.

How about the cost to repair all the damage that the users do to the devices after cracking them? How about all the aps with malware they can install? Or the viruses (although limiited on IPads)? It doesnt take any skill at all to follow a YouTube video to crack the security. It takes even less to do shit that you should never do because of pure ignorance that makes the device unstable at best, or a doorstop at worst.

If you want to buy your kid something they choose to fuck up, that's your problem. When you want the state to buy it with tax payer funding, and then fix it because you think your kid should have the freedom to fuck it up, then it's my problem.

This is all before you even discuss the value of them having the device to further their education to begin with.

If you eat birds, fish, and mammals, you've already eaten bugs, or worse. You just dont see them in a form you recognize.

You assume that your average game actually produces a notable profit under traditional investment terms. Many lose money, and few really roll in massive cash. In fact the goal of a lot of game developers is to break even, and get a little money back into their pockets. That's a hell of a lot more possible on a kickstarter model than under the thumb of someone like Microsoft or EA, who not only requires a significant percentage of any net profits, but also strongarms the design and regularly derails the design goals of the game creators.

If a good game costs tens of millions of dollars to make and distribute, it doesnt really matter if you're "wealthy" with a couple of million in the bank. It matters even less when your source of income was (past tense) the game you produced 10+ years ago, and havent really worked since.