XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.electronics.design
In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:
> "David Mitchell" wrote in message
> news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>
>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home?
>>>>
>>>> Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets.
>>>
>>> Could you be any more vague?
>>
>>Yes. Yes I could.
>>
>>Things. People will make things. All of the things.
>
> I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal
> computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only need
> a few major mainframes.
Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of smart
phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and facebook.
> Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and printing
> parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner of
> things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong and no
> one will effectively use a 3D printer at home.
How many people do you know that own 3D printers?
I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling machines,
drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer.
> Honestly, it's pretty damn presumptuous to claim that there's no future to
> 3D printing at home. I suspect 10-20 years from now we'll be laughing at
> such claims. Like computers, it will continue to improve. It'll get faster,
> more capable, capable of using more materials, etc.
Since no one in this thread has made that claim, your post is nonsense.
--
Jim Pennino
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
