There's a wide gulf between operating in secret, and not requiring explicit public input on every tiny step of the process. Would that work in any other organization?
Having a law against 3D-printing guns is not the same as not letting people print working and functional guns. You will make the activity illegal, but enforcing such a law would be pretty much impossible in practice. In fact, the people who print those for the sake of their curiosity would likely be the easy targets, while those printing guns for their criminal activity would just keep quiet about it until the point they use their creation (at which point you have a real crime to charge them with, anyway).
If you don't want to "let people print working guns", you need to ban 3D-printing in general. And CNC machines. And maybe drills.
All of the three people that you have listed have advocated for armed citizenry precisely on the grounds that the state that they have created might not endure as a free republic forever, and they saw threat of another revolution as both a deterrent and a fail-safe.
We have legal restricted gun ownership here, as a result less deaths caused by guns. FACT, period.
You had fewer deaths than US long before either country started to regulate firearms. Which implies that the difference is not due to said regulation.
Those other laws are to prevent accidental killings, not intentional ones. Traffic laws don't stop someone from deliberately running over another guy in his car.
The fear about Liberator, on the other hand, seems to be mostly concentrated on intentional use - that someone will print it, take it somewhere "gun-free" through various security checkpoints, and then use it for an assassination or a killing spree. But, as GP notes, someone who has already decided on doing that will not stop just because the first part of the plan, 3D-printing a gun, is illegal.
I can print Liberator for the sake of satisfying my curiosity, or shooting at a target. Similarly, I can go buy a nail gun for the sake of using it against the person.
The intent is only in the head of the guy pulling the trigger, at the moment he makes said pull. Unless you're a telepath, it's pretty hard to guess in advance.
Make the possession of printing instructions for a weapon of this type illegal (as is the possession of certain types of images)
... and possession of certain types of algorithms or code. Like, say, DeCSS.
FPSRussia is neither ethnically Russian nor a Russian resident. He's an American residing in US.
Russian gun laws are, indeed, extremely strict. Handguns are banned outright. Civilians can own smoothbores if they have a "valid reason"; self-defense is explicitly disqualified. In practice this means that you need to be either a hunter or a sportsman (and must possess membership in a hunting or a sporting club to prove that). You must also be of a "good moral character", which is determined by your local police department. After owning a smoothbore for 5 years without any issues, you can then get a permit for a rifle, again, provided that you still have a "valid reason". The number of firearms one may own is limited, and ammunition can only be purchased for one of the firearms registered in one's name. There are also strict requirements on home storage of firearms (basically it requires having a trigger lock and being in a locked safe at all times).
A reasonable and fair comparison is between the U.S. and Russia
As a Russian currently residing in US, I can assure you that it's not. Russia is almost a third world country, with only trappings of its imperial past holding it slightly above that line.
Suppose, for example, that you used a steel pipe for a barrel and maybe a block of metal for a bolt face, then were able to print a reliable fully-automatic action and a high-capacity magazine. You could easily assemble the rough equivalent of a machine pistol.
There already is a step-by-step guide on how to do all that, with no 3D-printing involved at all.
Indeed. Millikelvins FTW!
I'm sorry but you are wrong, games like Donkey Kong WERE cutting edge graphics back in the day,one of the selling points of the NES back in the day was how well it could bring the arcade experience into the home.
I think with the Wii U they just bet the farm on the casual market but as we've seen the casual market is "here today, gone this afternoon" and I think the casual market has moved to tablets and phones. That said if both the PS4 and Xbox S (One is a stupid name) are always online DRM crapfests I can see Nintendo picking up a shitload of pissed off former sony and MSFT customers, kinda like how Yahoo ended up getting all the pissed off Hotmail and Messenger customers from MSFT.
That is why I think in the future we are gonna be seeing more games like Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon, where you make the triple A game and then use the engine to make smaller episodic games that you can sell cheaper.
But you can't blame THQ on the gaming market as they would still be here if they hadn't sunk over 100 million dollars into a drawing tablet for consoles. No shit, I'm not kidding, they spent over 100 million dollars cranking out Wacom style drawing tablets for consoles which I wouldn't be surprised if they end up on woot! for a couple of cents on the dollar.
Last I heard EA was up for sale thanks to the previous CEO wanting their own Call Of Duty so bad that he wasted huge bags of money on games that would never be able to even break even, such as how Dead Space 3 would have had to sell over 5 million copies at launch price just to break even.
That is why I think the future will be more bite size gaming and indies, when a game only costs $10-$20 million to make its a hell of a lot easier to turn a profit as opposed to some 100 million dollar money sink. I have argued for years the $60 price point just isn't sustainable in a dead economy and the number of games that don't even break even bares this out IMHO, a game has to have a pretty hardcore fan base to have them shell out $60 and when you add in the cost of all the DLC most of the new triple A titles would cost more like $100+ just to own the complete game and that shit just ain't gonna cut it.
While that might be true when it comes to beancounters look up the Angry Joe video I linked to, the new Xbox is gonna be DOA thanks to it adding DRM so draconian that people didn't believe what they were being told, nobody thought a company could be THAT stupid but...yep! Always online or no games and all games tied to an account so no more trading, selling, or renting...its dead Jim, before it even comes out.
The simple fact is there is a REASON why Forbes named Ballmer worst CEO and its because Google and Apple couldn't ask for a better competitor as he is so fucking retarded and greedy he kills anything good they come up with, Zune, Kin, Windows 8 (which it appears we are gonna get to see our first double flop from MSFT, as Win 8.1 takes everything people hate about Win 8 and makes it even worse) and now the Xbox.
Sadly you could have chimps throw poo at the financial section and invest on what the poo sticks to and get a better ROI than what MSFT has done in the past 5 years, for every success they had enough failures that they never even break even.
Dude you are missing the point, the point I was making was NOT whether shared memory for APUs is a good idea, I'd argue that is a non brainer, its whether a chip designed for netbooks is gonna make for a good gaming rig and I'm saying its not, the IPC is too low and putting all the memory on the die itself isn't gonna change that.
Let me put it THIS way...would you want to buy a "gaming rig" that was powered by an Intel Atom quad with hyperthreading? because that is EXACTLY what you have here, a chip designed to compete NOT with even the low end Pentiums and Celerons but with the ATOM both on price and power usage which I'm telling you all the memory tricks in the world isn't gonna change the fact that your CPU is primitive. Look at what chips they compare the last gen E1800 to or even read TFA where they say the new chip is pretty mediocre on everything but power use.
Hell by that argument the 733MHz Celeron in the first Xbox would beat an i3 if only you put the memory on die and we know that isn't the case, why? Because the Celeron is a MUCH more primitive design compared to the i3, and the same goes for comparing a Bobcat to even the lowest Athlon duals, there is just no comparison when it comes to IPC, none at all.