gadzook33 writes: I had an interesting experience at work recently wherein a colleague suggested during a meeting that we were building something that would make it far too easy for the customer to perform a certain task; a task that my colleague felt was deleterious. Without going into specifics, I believe an apt analogy would be giving everyone in the country a flying car. While this would no doubt be enjoyable, without proper training and regulation it would also be tremendously dangerous (also assume training and regulating is not practical in this case). I retorted that ours is not to reason why and that we had the responsibility to develop the best possible solution, end of story. However, in the following days I have begun to doubt my position and wonder if we don't have some responsibility to artificially "cripple" the solution and in doing so protect the user from themselves (build a car that stays on the ground). I do not for a second imagine that I am playing the part of Oppenheimer; this is a much more practical issue and less of an ethical one. But is there something to this?
angry tapir writes: The police force of Australia's largest state has issued a warning about the potential for 3D printed guns to be used in crimes. The NSW police revealed that they had downloaded and printed multiple 'Liberator' pistols and conducted ballistics testing with them. They experienced one catastrophic misfire, but also managed to simulate a probably fatal shot. The police said that the government may have to examine regulations that address the issues surrounding 3D printed weapons.
Just so there is no confusion:
In 2012 the North and South poles of the Earth will be swapped.
In 2038 all the computers will think its 01/01/1970 again.
Probably the world won't end until sometime after that unless there is a nuclear war or huge asteroid.