What would that "need" be? Are you sure it is not a "want"? I have a decent job and $6000 is almost two months salary. To me that is too high for a want.

Except that inkjet printers produce consistent text that is readable. On the other hand, consumer grade FDM printers are very finicky.

That is why there is a difference between "consumer grade" and "hobby grade". Hobby grade has a tendency to be more expensive and require a lot more technical skill than consumer grade. Hobbyists generally do things for the process while consumers are mainly interested in the outcome.

Define "work". If you mean the ability to cut then you are correct and it works. If you mean "cut consistently without distorting the material" then you have a long way to go. I looked at your video. I assume all the lizards were cut using the same template. Here are some issues;
1. Depending on the material their shapes are different. Compare the shape of the yellow one on the left with the light brown one above it. The left arm is much thinner in the yellow one.
2. There is unacceptable over burn in some materials. The wood one in the lower left is almost completely black.
3. There is distortion near the edges especially present in the red and green plastic ones. Look at the raised edges along the cuts. The red one in the lower right looks like it started to burn across the top.

All of these are caused by using a low power which burns rather than vaporizes. It requires the beam to move slowly and the heat, instead of being dissipated by the vaporized material, to be transferred to item being cut.

I also wonder how long it works without an air source keeping the fumes away from the lens. I bet crud builds upon it pretty fast.

I am dissing you work based on what you present as products of your cutting.

So your premise is that all drug laws should be abolished/not enforced. Sorry but I only partially agree. Certain drug laws, marijuana for example, are overreaching. Other drugs do cause harm to society.

I agree but some drug consequences are not confined to consenting adults. Some drugs cause people to be unable to hold jobs, cause them to commit crimes to support their habit, etc. I realize that alcohol does similar things but to a much lesser extent. The percentage of productive crackheads is much less than the percentage of productive alcohol use. The consequences of this drug use is spread to the rest of society in welfare costs, health costs, insurance costs, policing costs, etc.

The problem with the US Constitution is that it is imprecise.

The issue is around the word "unreasonable" which can be interpreted differently by different people. What is unreasonable to one person may be reasonable to another. Too many people seem to interpret this an "any search without a warrant" but that is not what the Constitution says.

Not quite

Yeah you are right "Galileo Gambit" does not apply. It is just straight Association Fallacy. (Nice pun) The premise being that since we are now doing thing we though were impossible everything that we think is impossible now is actually possible later.

Warrants can be a catch-22. To get a warrant one needs evidence that a crime has been or is beginning committed which is difficult to get if a warrant is needed to gather evidence that a crime has been or is beginning committed. In my opinion anything visible from the street is fair game.

Association Fallacy or Galileo Gambit to be specific.

Those are very small pieces of graphine. It is more like the tiny industrial diamonds that were initially produced. Most of graphine's use is when larger sheets can be made.

Note necessarily. There are many jurisdictions that have "truck routes" where trucks that are not making local deliveries are allowed to drive. There are also hierarchy of streets. When secondary/tertiary streets are being used like primary streets then things get changed. Secondary/tertiary streets are narrower/windier than primary streets. There are many secondary/tertiary streets that are restricted to local traffic only. Do you really think it is safe for commuters who are trying to get to work as fast as possible to be routed through a residential area?

Actors sign release forms such as these;

Actors in effect sign over their rights as they pertain to the movie. One of those right is copyright. Without a valid release copyright to the actor's image is retained by the actor. The DMCA allows copyright holders to have they property taken down. She is not "going after" Google but Google is going after her. She filed a DMCA and the courts agreed with her position. Now Google is appealing the decision.

This just shows how little you actually know how the DMCA works. Google does not have to track down anything. The procedure is as follows.
1. Google received a DMCA take down request.
2. Google takes the video down and informs the poster.
3. The poster files a counter claim with Google.
4. If the person that filed the take down request does not provide proof that they have filled a case in court the material goes back up.
Google does not "judge" anything. It is up to the courts to do that. Few people would go through this process unless they had a chance in court as they could be assessed court costs and defendant fees.

Listen up Chicken Little, the DMCA has been around for a while and the internet is still here.

Because these people with the intent to do terrorism might find someone who will supply them with actual bombs. It is much the same way people are caught hiring hit men when the hit man is actually a police officer.

I said nothing about "Freedom of Speech". I don't see how you comment applies to the validity of a legal release.

I think the heart of the issue is That she signed a release for one use but the film was completely different that what she was told. To me it would seem that any release she signed would be invalid and she would have the same rights as someone who did not sign a release. Any film maker would know that everyone in the film must sign a release.