XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.electronics.design
In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 05:06:13 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>That the post that started all this was claiming people would be printing
>>everything at home including cars?
>
> That wasn't my claim! I've been arguing on your side of that silly
> proposition.
What wasn't your claim?
That the post that started all this was claiming people would be printing
everything at home including cars?
The above is just a statement of fact.
>>I don't see you saying anything about the post that started all this.
>
> You're not looking.
>
>>>>> But let me put it another way.... If 3D printers are the "next
>>>>> thing", are you saying that there can't be any "next, next thing"? The
>>>>> world ends after "next"?
>>>>
>>>>3D printers are over 30 years old.
>>>>
>>>>"The world ends" is babble.
>>>
>>> Let me make this simple for the simple. If 3D printers are "the next
>>> thing". Why is there not another "thing" beyond "the next thing"? End
>>> of the world?
>>
>>3D printers are an old thing.
>
> Woooosssshhhh!
>
>>Are you saying we will have Star Trek replicators?
>
> Do pay attention.
I never said 3D printers are "the next thing" nor do I believe that.
The last "thing" in the manufacturing world was the industrial revolution
which started in the late 18th century and became fully mature in the
early 20th century.
THAT changed the world.
FYI I concider 3D printing to be little more than a refinement of Damascus
steel, a process from the 3rd century.
--
Jim Pennino
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
