Communists can also be terrorists. They are not mutually exclusive.
Because of these issues, researchers at NASA KSC have been studying a very intuitive method of 3D printing on the surfaces of other planets. Their method is very similar to that of large industrial selective laser sintering 3D printers, which lay down layers of material that are then sintered (melted and hardened) by heat lasers.
They are not talking about using liquids at all
Considering the area covered by the aerostat that kind of area does not exist in the continental US. Sorry by testing only in Alaska is very inconvenient and invalid since the weather is very different. Yeah lets open up a new proving ground due to "privacy concerns" caused by testing one system. What a waste of funds. Another issue is getting people to move to the middle of nowhere to run those proving grounds.
This is an military proving ground. It is used to test new equipment including radars and targeting equipment. These tests include endurance tests to see how long the aerostat can be kept aloft. The fact that it can see long distances is a good thing in a battle area. I bet they tested JSTARS somewhere over the US. JSTARS has most of the capability of the aerostat if at shorter ranges. Where would you have them test prototypes? They can't test a military surveillance device because it might see too much?
How long did it take you to get to that rate? What are you creating? How complex are the objects? Do they have any thin horizontals? How rough are they? Do you only print when the environmental conditions are correct?
How long does it take to calibrate before each print? If it takes half an hour or more to find the right temperatures and feed rate to work under current conditions there is a problem. If you print many test objects before printing your desired object I can see you getting a high success rate. To me every test run would be akin to a failure.
Would the average person consider your creations successful? I have seen many 3D printed objects that the creator considered successful but I considered failures. For example, I was shown a 3D printed cup that was considered a success by the maker. The problem was that it leaked. Lets see some pictures of your "successes".
You can't see a need for a $6000 3D printer, but I sure can.
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.
That's a bit like saying I don't want an inkjet printer, because it's just a fountain pen with a positioning system.
Except that inkjet printers produce consistent text that is readable. On the other hand, consumer grade FDM printers are very finicky.
but I'm really tired of technology having to dumb itself down to the lowest common user to be consider "consumer".
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.
If you're paying attention you will notice two things: these cases are almost entirely drug cases, and that drug prohibition is failing to make drugs scarce.
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.
nothing confined to consenting adults should ever be a crime.
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.
favored following the Constitution over prosecuting a drug criminal.
The problem with the US Constitution is that it is imprecise.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
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.
preventing any further action until the senator removes said hold.
Holds, like filibusters, can be defeated through a successful cloture motion.
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.
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.
The freeway and the side-streets are public spaces, and no one living on a public street has a right to demand that anyone else not use it as they like,
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?