Because three stories on the exact same non-story in one week is excessive.

99.999% of Slashdot readers will never even see one of these cars in real life, and that's on the unlikely assumption it ever even makes it into production. It's a safe bet that not a single Slashdot reader will ever actually drive one, let alone buy one.

As for your other assertion, sorry, but no. This was represented in the first of three stories we saw this month as a vehicle which would be manufactured en masse using 3D printing, with a completely unrealistic production level of 10,000 cars per year. So no, the point is not that it's "just a proof of concept". And even if that was really the case, what, precisely does it bring that's new to 3D printing? As far as I can see, nothing.

This is a totally unrealistic project that's just trying to build hype by using the latest buzzword. No more, no less. Once upon a time, it wouldn't have gotten a word on a geek site worth its salt. Now it gets three fawning articles in a week. It's a bit sad, really, and hence I vented about that. There are real stories out there which are far, far more worthy than this...

This is at least the third separate post on this in the last eight days, all solely because they used the buzzwords "3D printing". The fact it is 3D-printed adds absolutely nothing to the project, which is no lighter or better than a regular sports car of space frame construction.

Which begs the question, what's the deal? How much is Slashdot being paid for these ads, because they're clearly not newsworthy...

Since we're recycling stories now, I'm going to recycle my last comment on the same story:

Frankly, this isn't terribly impressive. The Ariel Atom 500 will manage a 0-60 of 2.3 seconds or less from 200 *fewer* horsepower than the Blade, thanks to an even lighter weight of 1,213 pounds. And like the Blade, it has space frame construction, they just haven't wrapped some flimsy composite panels and a plexiglass windshield over it all. (But what did that add to the weight, really? I doubt it was 187 pounds, so the Atom is still lighter...)

All the Atom really lacks is the "look-at-us" headline-grabbing use of 3D printing, which doesn't seem to be bringing terribly much of an advantage to the table here. And I guess, the styling that's right out of a kid's calendar. But really, what's revolutionary here? It's certainly not the construction or performance...

Up next on Slashdot: A revolutionary new 3D-printed paperweight that holds down paper better than ever. It's going to revolutionize the paperweight industry!

There is one thing conspicuously absent from those videos. At no point do we see a transition from vertical takeoff to traditional flight.

In fact, only one of those three videos is even VTOL, and it's the one where the plane lifts vertically, hovers, and lands vertically without ever moving horizontally to any significant degree. The other two videos aren't VTOL, one is carrier-based STOVL -- short takeoff and vertical landing -- and since it's carrier based and so landing on a moving target, it isn't actually a completely vertical landing. The plane just has to slow to match the speed of the carrier. And the other is short takeoff, but no landing is shown at all.

What I'd like to see -- even under ideal conditions -- is a true VTOL flight cycle that transitions from vertical takeoff thru forward flight and back to vertical landing, taking off and landing on a stationary platform. Care to cite an example?

This. Block or ignore the pings and move on. If your network monitoring freaks out over a small handful of pings from a small handful of known IP addresses and you can't figure out how to address them, you probably shouldn't be in charge of it anyway. (And I say this as somebody who was for quite a few years a network engineer for what, at the time, was a top 25 company on the Fortune 500. After being promoted a few times I chose to move on to a different, more challenging career, incidentally. The long shift hours take it out of you, and don't lend themselves to family life.)

From the summary: "And since adult household members pay the cable bills, TV content has to be grown-up content: "The Sopranos," "Mad Men," "Breaking Bad," "The Wire," "The Good Wife."

Never in my life have I read such nonsense.

For one thing, of the shows cited, not a single one is from the last five years. (Yes, some ended within the last five years, but the most recent of the bunch in terms of start date is already six years old. Two (The Sopranos and The Wire) are more than a decade old, and predate the existence of YouTube. Only two of the shows listed are more recent than Netflix's unlimited streaming service. These shows are hardly indicative of a reaction to the internet.

Secondly, a ten-second glance at your TV is enough to confirm that these shows are a tiny, tiny minority. The overwhelming majority of shows -- while extremely adult in nature -- are plotless, crass and utterly childish drivel that is the furthest thing possible from grown-up content. Think, for example, of the entire catalog aired by Bravo, a channel once devoted to "fine arts and film", but now almost entirely populated by "reality" TV drivel. If anything, this would prove the opposite of the assertion: That TV's response to the internet has been a dumbing-down to provide a constant stream of lowest common denominator trash.

However, I wouldn't make that assertion because unlike the submitter of this article, I understand that correlation doesn't equal causation. It's just as possible we'd have gotten the same drek on our TVs even without the existence of the Internet.

My goodness, they've sent you pings? How appalling! What next, email??

I'm sorry, but no. The frame could be assembled by normal people without any training without being 3D-printed. It's just buzzword for buzzword's sake, and it's idiotic.

Perhaps instead of posting nonsense, you could try Googling first.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ariel+ato...

Let's see, so that's effectively a cylinder of 70cm diameter and 21,344km length. Give or take, that's 8,214,134 cubic meters of niobium-tin.

In a ratio of 75% niobium to 25% tin as you'll be wanting for your superconductor, you'll be needing about 6.2 million cubic meters (53.1 million metric tonnes) of niobium and 2.1 million cubic meters (15.5 million metric tonnes) of tin, presuming you don't have too much wastage. (I've already given you a little wiggle room with my rounding of both numbers. You're welcome!)

I'm presuming that won't be too much of a problem for you to scrounge up, right? After all, we've got at least 4.4 million tonnes of niobium and 4.8 metric tonnes of tin waiting to be mined here on Earth. That should get you started, if you can get it off the ground and on its way to Mars! Won't take much energy at all to have it mined and on its way!

And then you'll have something to work on machining into a really long, thick wire while you're waiting on the bean counters to approve creation and ramp-up of the small mining industry required to find your remaining 48.7 million tonnes of niobium and 10.7 million tonnes of tin...

/removes tongue from cheek
//geek mode: Off
///waits for somebody to point out a rookie error in my math
////I'm not ashamed to admit I'm a rookie

I should also note here that it may not self-protect perfectly. Yes, it is prone to galvanic corrosion, and to pitting, crevice corrosion or staining from contact with impure water, salty or sulfurous air, alkali or dirt. However, that in no way changes the fact that aluminum does self-protect. It just doesn't self-protect against everything.

a) He implied most features are there. They're not. Exceptionally basic, entry-level features like the ability to rotate the page (!!) are missing unless you pay.

b) If you were talking about the PC, I'd agree the average user would be non-commercial. However, we're not talking about the PC, we're talking about a phone version. You know who uses Office on their phone? Business folk who are trying to travel light. You know who doesn't typically use Office on their phone, and who if by some rare chance does use it on their phone, most likely uses it solely as a reader? Consumers.

Therefore you are fundamentally incorrect, and Microsoft is being extremely misleading by representing it as free.

Aluminum does not self-protect when the surface oxidizes.

Ummm... Yes. Yes, it does.

From Wiki: "Aluminium is remarkable for ... its ability to resist corrosion due to the phenomenon of passivation."

Or if you prefer, you could just look around your house. Chances are fairly good that you have some untreated aluminum (as opposed to aluminum alloys, which need treatment) somewhere -- perhaps in a window frame if your house is of the right age, or in pots, pans, camping gear, etc. You'll be able to recognize it from its dull finish, and the fact that it looks identical to the day you bought it. Were your assertion correct, it would long since have oxidized away to nothing...

Incidentally, one of those treatments for aluminum alloys? Alclading, which is just what it sounds like it would be, and which wouldn't work if your assertion was correct. It's the process of bonding a thin layer of pure aluminum to the surface of the alloy, thereby protecting the greater whole because the aluminum layer self-protects when it oxidizes.

Well yes, but weight matters more, and I can't very well compare torque when Divergent Microfactories hasn't stated it, now, can I?

But OK, I'll humor you. The Atom 500 has just 296 lb-ft of torque. That's actually a bit less than what you could find in a typical executive sedan like, say, the Audi A6 (325 lb-ft). The weight is the important bit, though: The Ariel weighs about one-third what the Audi does.

And like I said, it also weighs less than this supposed-supercar, despite being street-legal and providing you with not one but two seats.

So what, pray tell, is so special about this car that it merited being on Slashdot, other than that it contained the buzzword-du-jour in the press release?

Grandparent represented it as fully-featured other than obscure features like version tracking: That's not true. Microsoft are representing it as free, but for business use (which is the primary use for something like this), that's not true either.

Sorry you don't like my post, but that doesn't make it any less correct.

Frankly, this isn't terribly impressive. The Ariel Atom 500 will manage a 0-60 of 2.3 seconds or less from 200 *fewer* horsepower than the Blade, thanks to an even lighter weight of 1,213 pounds. And like the Blade, it has space frame construction, they just haven't wrapped some flimsy composite panels and a plexiglass windshield over it all. (But what did that add to the weight, really? I doubt it was 187 pounds, so the Atom is still lighter...)

All the Atom really lacks is the "look-at-us" headline-grabbing use of 3D printing, which doesn't seem to be bringing terribly much of an advantage to the table here. And I guess, the styling that's right out of a kid's calendar. But really, what's revolutionary here? It's certainly not the construction or performance...

Up next on Slashdot: A revolutionary new 3D-printed paperweight that holds down paper better than ever. It's going to revolutionize the paperweight industry!