123D Catch app rarely ever works. And never works with transparent materials.
123D Catch app rarely ever works. And never works with transparent materials.
Yeah. I think of something made of plastic that I'd like to print maybe once a year. I think of something metal I'd like to print once every other week or so.
The word revolution also contains the word evolution, and you might have noticed that we've evolved past the point of calling a paper printer a necessary component of computing today.
And the word "internet" contains the word "tern", so clearly it is built upon angry arctic birds with sharp beaks that dive bomb anyone who gets too close to their nesting grounds.
Indeed. I've ordered 3d prints online several times and as things stand there is no reason I'd ever do otherwise. The choice is, "have something produced using top notch hardware and finished by professionals", or "have something produced by crappy hardware, by you". The marginal cost may be lower if you do it yourself, but you have to plop down $1k first, so unless you 3d print a lot, you don't win even on that comparison. It's just not worth it.
If you run a business where you're 3d printing prototypes every day, that would be different. But regular for home users, I just can't see an argument for it.
That's really a key issue. Most "standalone" things people want are not made of plastics, except for toys. There are a some things - for example, parts for a small homemade drone or whatnot, where strength is not important but lightness is. But most often, if you want something "standalone", you want it out of metal.
Being able to print replacement plastic parts for other things could be nice, mind you. For example, I've twice had to replace a plastic part on my refrigerator and it cost something like $50 each time with a nearly month delay, due to customs fees, shipping to where I am, etc. Having been able to print one out would have been great. Except, having a 3d printer alone wouldn't have been enough, because there's no "universal spare part database" that manufacturers upload to. A 3d scanner as well might have been able to enable reproducing the part from scanning its broken pieces, except that not only do you have to have one, the part was transparent, and many 3d scanners don't like transparent objects.
A "3d printing revolution" may come some day. But things are a lot more complicated than just making it possible to print something out of some material.
Hence what I said about "overly literal geeks". You think so long as you can find something that you consider to be logically consistent, that'll work and you are out of trouble. I'm telling you that is NOT how it works in a court. They very much take the "reasonable man" approach and factor in intent. Doesn't matter how clever you think you are, what matters is what the law says and how the judge applies it.
Please ignore the correlation between "looks" and genetic indicators of reproductive health
That would be a nice argument if there was some universal agreement on what is attractive. In some cultures, thin is attractive. In others, fat. Some places like women who stretch their necks out. Others like their feet bound to the point that they can hardly walk. In Meiji era Japan, it was seen as attractive for women to paint their teeth black. Do you find that hot? There is no single standard of beauty. You cannot just declare yours to be universally applicable.
The majority of "beauty" traits have nothing to do with genetic indicators of reproductive health. That said, there are some. For example, for both sexes, "clear skin" is usually desirable, as that is an indicator of immune system fitness. And of course standard secondary sex characteristics, including having typical voice ranges appropriate to their sex, muscle mass in men, in women breasts and wide hips, etc. But the majority of the specific details that make up the "look" of an attractive man or woman versus other men and women in their society are simply cultural.
"We know A LOT about clouds. If you've got any cloud questions, ask us."
I doubt they'd have a hard time stretching it to over something like this. If you have a device who's only purpose is to destroy something and it goes and destroys something, well you are pretty likely to get in trouble for it.
Remember courts aren't operated by overly literal geeks who think if they can find some explanation, no matter how outlandish or unlikely, it'll be accepted. The law bases a lot around what is reasonable, and around intent. So your attempt at being cute won't work, and you'll be off to jail.
It also may very well be illegal just to have, or be made illegal if not. There are devices that are outlawed purely because they have no legit use. Many states ban burglary tools, which can include things like the cracked ceramic piece of a spark plug (the aluminum oxide ceramic breaks tempered glass easily). If they catch you and can prove intent, then you are in trouble just for having them with the intent to use them illegally.
Oh and don't think they have to read your mind or get a confession to prove intent. They usually just have to show that the circumstances surrounding the situation are enough to lead a reasonable person to believe that you were going to commit a crime.
And a post like this, would count for sure.
The problem with a device like this is it is hard to find a substantial legitimate use for it. Given that, they are likely to be targeted for a lawsuit and they are likely to lose that suit.
While it is perfectly ok to sell a device that gets used to commit crimes, you generally have to have a legit reason to be selling it and it can't be something that is totally made up that nobody actually believes. So for example while a crowbar can certainly be used to break in to a house to or attack someone, they are also widely used used to get nails out of things and pry stuck objects apart. As an opposed example a number of companies that sell devices to help you cheat on urine tests have gotten in trouble since their devices had no use other than said cheating.
It is very, very hard to think of a legit use for this and I can't imagine they'll get many legit sales. So it'll probably get them in legal trouble.
I bought an Anker USB C-C cable. I got an LG phone with C, and Qualcomm quick charging on it so I needed some new adapters to be able to charge it at full speed. Gout a couple of adapters, and couple of A-C cables and then said "why not?" and got a C-C cable too. No use for it yet, but I figured I'd get it since I'm sure my next laptop will have C on it.
A few weeks later, Anker sent me a recall notice. Apparently there was a problem in the cables that could cause issues with high power use cases so they gave me my money back and promised a replacement when available.
The issue was actually apparently in the ICs on the cable. Yes that's right, the cables have to have controllers on them too since they have to communicate what kind of power they can handle.
It is likely to be a problem for some time. The good news is A-C cables aren't such an issue since A supports much lower voltages and currents (can only go up to 12v and and like 2.5a) so they don't have to be as insulated and don't need as much protection (apparently a resistor on them does the trick) but still. The C-C stuff though, it will be an issue.
Try extending your graph back to 2000 - it tells a story opposite to the one you're thinking of.
By the way, most of those manufacturing jobs are never coming back. A lot of them have simply been priced completely out of the US market. Many of them don't even exist anymore, having been taken over by automation.
As for where US job growth has been: the US is increasingly a service economy. Also energy has been growing a lot. Correspondingly, construction too. Healthcare... retail... business & professional services..leisure and hospitality... all strong growth fields.
What tax policy did Obama pass "by fiat"?
The Democrats controlled the House in the 80s, so spending budgets came from them.
Right. It's the Democrats who are really into extreme tax cuts for the wealthy! Why didn't I notice this before? I also apparently missed the part where the president signs bills that he doesn't support.
The "Reagan tax cuts" that passed were very close to what Reagan was seeking in each case.
According to this graph
"According to this deliberately deceptive graph..."
Anything that shows financial issues a long period of time, without including inflation, while trying to argue that "the last person in the list did the most of X", is being partisan at best, intentionally misleading at worst. In reality, even inflation alone isn't enough; the best figure you can use is debt as a fraction of GDP. But I digress.
As a second issue, you make it misleading when you focus on debt and not the deficit. Because the deficit makes much clearer what sort of situations the next person inherits, as well as the immediate impact of financial shocks and passed bills.
The reality is, when Obama took office, there was a massive deficit left behind by Bush. During Obama's administration it reduced every year.
Talking about debt isn't helping your case any. Here's the deficit (change in debt) from year to year: Link
Why is that Republicans keep blowing the budget? Well, let's look at the case of Bush. Wow, whodathunkit, massive tax breaks to top income earners skyrockets debt, news at 11! And yes, having the government hawk itself into debt is great for the short term strength of the stock market.
Re, debt outlook under Trump: absolutely not if he enacts his "Bush Tax Cuts+++ proposal.
"If truth is beauty, how come no one has their hair done in the library?" -- Lily Tomlin