Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #638597 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-03 08:31 -0400 |
| Last post | 2017-07-26 14:08 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 337 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-03 08:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-07-03 09:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 06:31 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-03 08:37 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 15:21 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 13:14 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 08:00 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-07 15:34 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 14:03 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-07 17:22 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 15:19 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 17:01 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-09 12:49 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-09 23:26 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 20:04 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 07:32 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-10 12:21 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 17:35 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-10 16:10 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-10 17:40 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-10 17:22 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-10 19:49 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2017-07-13 20:17 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-13 21:42 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-13 20:53 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 02:05 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:25 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-03 17:04 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-03 14:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-03 18:28 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-03 16:14 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-03 20:57 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 16:14 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 00:45 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 20:11 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 04:55 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 02:29 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 06:49 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 18:02 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-04 22:59 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 04:51 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-07-04 21:33 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 07:16 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 16:47 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 11:08 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 21:02 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 19:12 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 22:16 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 23:30 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:35 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 10:05 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:20 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-07 08:03 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:19 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-06 13:09 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 23:05 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 10:52 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 18:07 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-05 14:21 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 19:34 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 15:32 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 23:00 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 10:12 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-06 13:15 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 06:20 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-07 09:39 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 08:11 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-07 14:13 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-06 20:04 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-04 20:08 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-04 09:11 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-04 11:47 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 18:19 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-04 23:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 04:56 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 23:16 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 18:12 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 07:20 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 16:54 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-05 18:42 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 23:07 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:30 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-06 06:35 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-06 16:34 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:25 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-07 04:56 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 02:09 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-07 20:18 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 06:19 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-07 17:13 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 06:49 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-08 17:13 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 07:12 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-09 17:44 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 12:48 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-09 23:27 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 07:11 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 16:30 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 06:49 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-11 17:47 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 13:15 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-11 16:27 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 14:46 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-11 18:36 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 18:20 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-11 21:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-11 22:12 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-07-11 19:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 02:24 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 22:44 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-12 10:24 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 20:57 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:17 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:42 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 16:11 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 18:21 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-12 07:28 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 05:10 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 17:45 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-12 18:39 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 21:29 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-13 20:27 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:22 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-14 11:55 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 21:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 02:11 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 22:56 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 05:03 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:50 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 23:49 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 23:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 05:02 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 08:51 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 17:23 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 18:08 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 02:02 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 12:53 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 13:04 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 09:51 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 11:04 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 17:55 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 16:15 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 20:26 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 15:32 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:08 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-07-16 15:21 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:53 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 17:00 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 09:06 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-17 20:23 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 15:27 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 17:39 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-07-17 09:46 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:16 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 13:04 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 07:04 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 17:48 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 06:50 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-13 17:29 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 05:51 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 05:11 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 06:36 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-15 00:27 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 08:52 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 06:40 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-16 16:02 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 06:02 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-17 20:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 06:32 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-18 21:10 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 05:08 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-19 20:17 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-20 01:11 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 06:23 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 03:35 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 05:56 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-20 10:18 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-07-20 11:34 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-20 16:25 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-20 20:42 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 16:40 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-20 19:54 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-20 19:15 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-20 20:38 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-21 07:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-20 16:24 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 17:26 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 11:33 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 17:39 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 21:03 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:19 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:52 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 16:12 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 19:54 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 09:43 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-13 09:30 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-13 17:37 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 21:07 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 02:18 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 22:59 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 05:07 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 11:19 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-14 13:59 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:55 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 23:53 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 23:07 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 05:06 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 23:17 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 08:57 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 17:53 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 18:12 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 02:07 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 03:13 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-14 07:14 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 17:11 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-14 20:09 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 02:14 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-14 23:09 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 05:13 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 23:19 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 06:57 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 18:19 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 07:06 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 14:06 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 20:29 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-15 00:33 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-15 16:11 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 21:27 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 18:17 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-15 22:30 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-15 22:07 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 03:15 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 07:16 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 11:45 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:13 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 16:33 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:09 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 06:11 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 16:46 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 22:24 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 21:53 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 06:38 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 17:35 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 20:26 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 20:12 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 22:12 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-19 00:49 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 05:30 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-19 04:54 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 06:34 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-19 16:14 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 17:24 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-19 00:00 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-19 20:21 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-21 08:00 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-21 09:08 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 17:14 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 13:21 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-14 09:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 17:15 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 16:10 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-15 22:11 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 03:23 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 09:58 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 12:05 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:15 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-16 10:56 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:19 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 16:36 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-05 08:19 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-05 10:39 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 16:59 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 11:11 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 21:11 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 19:28 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:32 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 19:38 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-09 21:55 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 12:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-10 12:25 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-07-11 13:00 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 12:44 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 18:21 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 16:44 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 19:52 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:33 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 03:29 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 21:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-06 01:22 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 22:18 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-06 05:06 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:36 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-07 05:00 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-07 20:25 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-08 00:40 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 17:53 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-09 21:56 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 05:08 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 23:06 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 12:38 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 17:31 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 12:47 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 18:22 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 22:35 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-07-07 13:41 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2017-07-05 17:47 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-03 22:55 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 20:16 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Peter Stickney <p_stickney@verizon.net> - 2017-07-13 19:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-04 20:04 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-05 08:20 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 05:43 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-04 20:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 06:21 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-07-03 18:35 -0800
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 05:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-06 13:38 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 05:10 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-10 17:16 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 05:13 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 08:35 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-07 10:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-09 22:15 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-07-10 10:43 +0300
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-10 21:32 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 12:39 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-12 10:58 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 17:54 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-12 15:18 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 20:00 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-12 11:42 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-13 04:17 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 14:05 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-07-16 15:08 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-26 13:33 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-26 17:58 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-26 14:08 -0400
Page 9 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 17 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 05:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0d0m3e-lpd.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #640414 |
In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> 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. >>>> >>>> Great, yet another techno nerd weenie who spends way too much time watching >>>> Star Trek reruns. >>>> >>> Bless. It's almost as though you imagine anyone give even the tinest of fucks >>> what you think. >> >> It's almost as though you imagine I think puerile techno nerds represent >> the average person. > > I think you need to find a better insult - "techno nerd" is a bit tautologous - > and I've never made any particular claim to represent anyone. How about pie-in-the-sky dreamer? Like I've said before, most people can't be bothered to make things as trivial as bread and biscuits. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 06:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qLWdnf6cbMByNPTEnZ2dnUU78KvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #640418 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Great, yet another techno nerd weenie who spends way too much time watching >>>>> Star Trek reruns. >>>>> >>>> Bless. It's almost as though you imagine anyone give even the tinest of fucks >>>> what you think. >>> >>> It's almost as though you imagine I think puerile techno nerds represent >>> the average person. >> >> I think you need to find a better insult - "techno nerd" is a bit tautologous - >> and I've never made any particular claim to represent anyone. > > How about pie-in-the-sky dreamer? > > Like I've said before, most people can't be bothered to make things as > trivial as bread and biscuits. Well, lots of people *do* make bread and biscuits; and a series about baking was one of the most popular UK programs for some time. As I keep, apparently, having to explain - I am talking about *mature* fabrication technology - something capable of working with multiple materials, and able to fabricate something at the push of a button more quickly than driving to buy it, and more cheaply.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 00:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <estqvsF5eecU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #640585 |
David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> >jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Like I've said before, most people can't be bothered to make things as >> trivial as bread and biscuits. > >Well, lots of people *do* make bread and biscuits; and a series about baking was >one of the most popular UK programs for some time. There was a fad for affordable automatic breadmakers in the nineties. I'm happy enough with cheap factory bread, but I offered that my wife might want one. She didn't. I haven't heard much about them lately. Perhaps shrunken kitchens don't have the counter space for single-use devices. -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 08:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <8v3kmcp6duf83ic89pce0h9seaivl5e2al@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #640585 |
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 06:36:41 +0100, David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> Great, yet another techno nerd weenie who spends way too much time watching >>>>>> Star Trek reruns. >>>>>> >>>>> Bless. It's almost as though you imagine anyone give even the tinest of fucks >>>>> what you think. >>>> >>>> It's almost as though you imagine I think puerile techno nerds represent >>>> the average person. >>> >>> I think you need to find a better insult - "techno nerd" is a bit tautologous - >>> and I've never made any particular claim to represent anyone. >> >> How about pie-in-the-sky dreamer? >> >> Like I've said before, most people can't be bothered to make things as >> trivial as bread and biscuits. > >Well, lots of people *do* make bread and biscuits; and a series about baking was >one of the most popular UK programs for some time. Watching is not making. >As I keep, apparently, having to explain - I am talking about *mature* >fabrication technology - something capable of working with multiple materials, >and able to fabricate something at the push of a button more quickly than >driving to buy it, and more cheaply. Not going to happen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 06:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <OJidnZFO_bXeYffEnZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #640615 |
krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 06:36:41 +0100, David Mitchell
> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Great, yet another techno nerd weenie who spends way too much time watching
>>>>>>> Star Trek reruns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bless. It's almost as though you imagine anyone give even the tinest of fucks
>>>>>> what you think.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's almost as though you imagine I think puerile techno nerds represent
>>>>> the average person.
>>>>
>>>> I think you need to find a better insult - "techno nerd" is a bit tautologous -
>>>> and I've never made any particular claim to represent anyone.
>>>
>>> How about pie-in-the-sky dreamer?
>>>
>>> Like I've said before, most people can't be bothered to make things as
>>> trivial as bread and biscuits.
>>
>> Well, lots of people *do* make bread and biscuits; and a series about baking was
>> one of the most popular UK programs for some time.
>
> Watching is not making.
True; but search for "The Great British Off effect".
"In the six years it has been on the air, “The Great British Bake Off” has
fundamentally changed the way the British regard baking, dessert-eating and even
their own culture of sweets. The “Bake Off Effect,” as it is known, has
manifested in a resurgence in home baking, a noticeable increase in the quality
of baked goods sold all over the country, and a growing number of people
pursuing careers as professional pastry chefs."
"The Mary Berry effect: How the Great British Bake Off revived the Women's Institute
WI membership reached 211,000 last year, its highest level since the 1970s
22,600 new members joined last year and 144 institutes were created
Organisation's chairman said Great British Bakeoff 'inspired' more women to
take up home baking"
"A recent survey from Waitrose revealed that baking is more popular than ever,
with 19 per cent of people saying they now bake at least once a week and nearly
half admitted to baking more than they did five years ago."
>
>> As I keep, apparently, having to explain - I am talking about *mature*
>> fabrication technology - something capable of working with multiple materials,
>> and able to fabricate something at the push of a button more quickly than
>> driving to buy it, and more cheaply.
>
> Not going to happen.
It would be good if you could back that up, rather than simply asserting it.
We've noted that nearly all technology improves with time, as fabrication
technology has, and that prices always fall, and that as that of fabrication
technology has; and sales are increasing non-linearly, up to 400000 last year,
with projected sales of 1.2 million this year (search "3-D printer sales") -
which provides motication for their continued improvement and revenue to support it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 16:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <gbhnmcdkd2lig8gd1eonb42d6v1q0js65j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #640740 |
On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 06:40:16 +0100, David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 06:36:41 +0100, David Mitchell >> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Great, yet another techno nerd weenie who spends way too much time watching >>>>>>>> Star Trek reruns. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bless. It's almost as though you imagine anyone give even the tinest of fucks >>>>>>> what you think. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's almost as though you imagine I think puerile techno nerds represent >>>>>> the average person. >>>>> >>>>> I think you need to find a better insult - "techno nerd" is a bit tautologous - >>>>> and I've never made any particular claim to represent anyone. >>>> >>>> How about pie-in-the-sky dreamer? >>>> >>>> Like I've said before, most people can't be bothered to make things as >>>> trivial as bread and biscuits. >>> >>> Well, lots of people *do* make bread and biscuits; and a series about baking was >>> one of the most popular UK programs for some time. >> >> Watching is not making. > >True; but search for "The Great British Off effect". > >"In the six years it has been on the air, “The Great British Bake Off” has >fundamentally changed the way the British regard baking, dessert-eating and even >their own culture of sweets. The “Bake Off Effect,” as it is known, has >manifested in a resurgence in home baking, a noticeable increase in the quality >of baked goods sold all over the country, and a growing number of people >pursuing careers as professional pastry chefs." > >"The Mary Berry effect: How the Great British Bake Off revived the Women's Institute > > WI membership reached 211,000 last year, its highest level since the 1970s > 22,600 new members joined last year and 144 institutes were created > Organisation's chairman said Great British Bakeoff 'inspired' more women to >take up home baking" > >"A recent survey from Waitrose revealed that baking is more popular than ever, >with 19 per cent of people saying they now bake at least once a week and nearly >half admitted to baking more than they did five years ago." Irrelevant. My wife watches a lot (way too much ;-) of cooking shows and also does a lot of baking but not once has she ever made anything that was on the TeeVee. She does make biscuits, on special occasions, but not bread. > >> >>> As I keep, apparently, having to explain - I am talking about *mature* >>> fabrication technology - something capable of working with multiple materials, >>> and able to fabricate something at the push of a button more quickly than >>> driving to buy it, and more cheaply. >> >> Not going to happen. > >It would be good if you could back that up, rather than simply asserting it. There is no need. There is no efficiency of scale. It's too much work to design things and get them ready (and then the retries). Few will put up with the bullshit. No, I don't think people will download designs for plastic jewelry and make it. Well, maybe a few 6 year-olds. >We've noted that nearly all technology improves with time, as fabrication >technology has, and that prices always fall, and that as that of fabrication >technology has; and sales are increasing non-linearly, up to 400000 last year, >with projected sales of 1.2 million this year (search "3-D printer sales") - >which provides motication for their continued improvement and revenue to support it. > Irrelevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 06:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <zcqdnfGFEvNz2fHEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #640863 |
krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 06:40:16 +0100, David Mitchell > <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > >> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 06:36:41 +0100, David Mitchell >>> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Great, yet another techno nerd weenie who spends way too much time watching >>>>>>>>> Star Trek reruns. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bless. It's almost as though you imagine anyone give even the tinest of fucks >>>>>>>> what you think. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's almost as though you imagine I think puerile techno nerds represent >>>>>>> the average person. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you need to find a better insult - "techno nerd" is a bit tautologous - >>>>>> and I've never made any particular claim to represent anyone. >>>>> >>>>> How about pie-in-the-sky dreamer? >>>>> >>>>> Like I've said before, most people can't be bothered to make things as >>>>> trivial as bread and biscuits. >>>> >>>> Well, lots of people *do* make bread and biscuits; and a series about baking was >>>> one of the most popular UK programs for some time. >>> >>> Watching is not making. >> >> True; but search for "The Great British Off effect". >> >> "In the six years it has been on the air, “The Great British Bake Off” has >> fundamentally changed the way the British regard baking, dessert-eating and even >> their own culture of sweets. The “Bake Off Effect,” as it is known, has >> manifested in a resurgence in home baking, a noticeable increase in the quality >> of baked goods sold all over the country, and a growing number of people >> pursuing careers as professional pastry chefs." >> >> "The Mary Berry effect: How the Great British Bake Off revived the Women's Institute >> >> WI membership reached 211,000 last year, its highest level since the 1970s >> 22,600 new members joined last year and 144 institutes were created >> Organisation's chairman said Great British Bakeoff 'inspired' more women to >> take up home baking" >> >> "A recent survey from Waitrose revealed that baking is more popular than ever, >> with 19 per cent of people saying they now bake at least once a week and nearly >> half admitted to baking more than they did five years ago." > > Irrelevant. My wife watches a lot (way too much ;-) of cooking shows > and also does a lot of baking but not once has she ever made anything > that was on the TeeVee. She does make biscuits, on special occasions, > but not bread. Ah yes, your one anecdote easily trumps my three data points. Seriously? That's your counter? One person? Wait! I know two people who bake! I win! >> >>> >>>> As I keep, apparently, having to explain - I am talking about *mature* >>>> fabrication technology - something capable of working with multiple materials, >>>> and able to fabricate something at the push of a button more quickly than >>>> driving to buy it, and more cheaply. >>> >>> Not going to happen. >> >> It would be good if you could back that up, rather than simply asserting it. > > There is no need. There is no efficiency of scale. It's too much > work to design things and get them ready (and then the retries). Few > will put up with the bullshit. No, I don't think people will download > designs for plastic jewelry and make it. Well, maybe a few 6 > year-olds. As I keep, apparently, having to explain - I am talking about *mature* fabrication technology - something capable of working with multiple materials. So, not just "plastic jewelry", as you must surely be able to appreciate. > >> We've noted that nearly all technology improves with time, as fabrication >> technology has, and that prices always fall, and that as that of fabrication >> technology has; and sales are increasing non-linearly, up to 400000 last year, >> with projected sales of 1.2 million this year (search "3-D printer sales") - >> which provides motication for their continued improvement and revenue to support it. >> > Irrelevant. Entirely relevant to the point that mature technology is on the way; which was the point you tried to refute.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 20:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <p9lqmchnb0dufdns2n1hr5adu7cm98i6h8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #640977 |
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 06:02:37 +0100, David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 06:40:16 +0100, David Mitchell >> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 06:36:41 +0100, David Mitchell >>>> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Great, yet another techno nerd weenie who spends way too much time watching >>>>>>>>>> Star Trek reruns. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bless. It's almost as though you imagine anyone give even the tinest of fucks >>>>>>>>> what you think. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's almost as though you imagine I think puerile techno nerds represent >>>>>>>> the average person. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think you need to find a better insult - "techno nerd" is a bit tautologous - >>>>>>> and I've never made any particular claim to represent anyone. >>>>>> >>>>>> How about pie-in-the-sky dreamer? >>>>>> >>>>>> Like I've said before, most people can't be bothered to make things as >>>>>> trivial as bread and biscuits. >>>>> >>>>> Well, lots of people *do* make bread and biscuits; and a series about baking was >>>>> one of the most popular UK programs for some time. >>>> >>>> Watching is not making. >>> >>> True; but search for "The Great British Off effect". >>> >>> "In the six years it has been on the air, “The Great British Bake Off” has >>> fundamentally changed the way the British regard baking, dessert-eating and even >>> their own culture of sweets. The “Bake Off Effect,” as it is known, has >>> manifested in a resurgence in home baking, a noticeable increase in the quality >>> of baked goods sold all over the country, and a growing number of people >>> pursuing careers as professional pastry chefs." >>> >>> "The Mary Berry effect: How the Great British Bake Off revived the Women's Institute >>> >>> WI membership reached 211,000 last year, its highest level since the 1970s >>> 22,600 new members joined last year and 144 institutes were created >>> Organisation's chairman said Great British Bakeoff 'inspired' more women to >>> take up home baking" >>> >>> "A recent survey from Waitrose revealed that baking is more popular than ever, >>> with 19 per cent of people saying they now bake at least once a week and nearly >>> half admitted to baking more than they did five years ago." >> >> Irrelevant. My wife watches a lot (way too much ;-) of cooking shows >> and also does a lot of baking but not once has she ever made anything >> that was on the TeeVee. She does make biscuits, on special occasions, >> but not bread. > >Ah yes, your one anecdote easily trumps my three data points. >Seriously? That's your counter? One person? >Wait! I know two people who bake! I win! No, stupid. The existence of cooking shows doesn't mean everyone is cooking. There are a couple of networks dedicated to buying homes but more people aren't buying houses every week. Bread machines were once popular but are a total bust, these days. >>>>> As I keep, apparently, having to explain - I am talking about *mature* >>>>> fabrication technology - something capable of working with multiple materials, >>>>> and able to fabricate something at the push of a button more quickly than >>>>> driving to buy it, and more cheaply. >>>> >>>> Not going to happen. >>> >>> It would be good if you could back that up, rather than simply asserting it. >> >> There is no need. There is no efficiency of scale. It's too much >> work to design things and get them ready (and then the retries). Few >> will put up with the bullshit. No, I don't think people will download >> designs for plastic jewelry and make it. Well, maybe a few 6 >> year-olds. > >As I keep, apparently, having to explain - I am talking about *mature* >fabrication technology - something capable of working with multiple materials. It really would be nice if you could read. Mature doesn't matted if there is no need. >So, not just "plastic jewelry", as you must surely be able to appreciate. So you're going to sell personal gold printers? Nice! I wish you well in that endeavor. >>> We've noted that nearly all technology improves with time, as fabrication >>> technology has, and that prices always fall, and that as that of fabrication >>> technology has; and sales are increasing non-linearly, up to 400000 last year, >>> with projected sales of 1.2 million this year (search "3-D printer sales") - >>> which provides motication for their continued improvement and revenue to support it. >>> >> Irrelevant. > >Entirely relevant to the point that mature technology is on the way; which was >the point you tried to refute. No, it's not. Most have cars, these days too. They're mature, sure, but there they also fulfill a need.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 06:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dumdnW_exNPnAPDEnZ2dnUU78bfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #641141 |
krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 06:02:37 +0100, David Mitchell > <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > >> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 06:40:16 +0100, David Mitchell >>> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 06:36:41 +0100, David Mitchell >>>>> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Great, yet another techno nerd weenie who spends way too much time watching >>>>>>>>>>> Star Trek reruns. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bless. It's almost as though you imagine anyone give even the tinest of fucks >>>>>>>>>> what you think. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's almost as though you imagine I think puerile techno nerds represent >>>>>>>>> the average person. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think you need to find a better insult - "techno nerd" is a bit tautologous - >>>>>>>> and I've never made any particular claim to represent anyone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How about pie-in-the-sky dreamer? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Like I've said before, most people can't be bothered to make things as >>>>>>> trivial as bread and biscuits. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, lots of people *do* make bread and biscuits; and a series about baking was >>>>>> one of the most popular UK programs for some time. >>>>> >>>>> Watching is not making. >>>> >>>> True; but search for "The Great British Off effect". >>>> >>>> "In the six years it has been on the air, “The Great British Bake Off” has >>>> fundamentally changed the way the British regard baking, dessert-eating and even >>>> their own culture of sweets. The “Bake Off Effect,” as it is known, has >>>> manifested in a resurgence in home baking, a noticeable increase in the quality >>>> of baked goods sold all over the country, and a growing number of people >>>> pursuing careers as professional pastry chefs." >>>> >>>> "The Mary Berry effect: How the Great British Bake Off revived the Women's Institute >>>> >>>> WI membership reached 211,000 last year, its highest level since the 1970s >>>> 22,600 new members joined last year and 144 institutes were created >>>> Organisation's chairman said Great British Bakeoff 'inspired' more women to >>>> take up home baking" >>>> >>>> "A recent survey from Waitrose revealed that baking is more popular than ever, >>>> with 19 per cent of people saying they now bake at least once a week and nearly >>>> half admitted to baking more than they did five years ago." >>> >>> Irrelevant. My wife watches a lot (way too much ;-) of cooking shows >>> and also does a lot of baking but not once has she ever made anything >>> that was on the TeeVee. She does make biscuits, on special occasions, >>> but not bread. >> >> Ah yes, your one anecdote easily trumps my three data points. >> Seriously? That's your counter? One person? >> Wait! I know two people who bake! I win! > > No, stupid. The existence of cooking shows doesn't mean everyone is > cooking. There are a couple of networks dedicated to buying homes but > more people aren't buying houses every week. > > Bread machines were once popular but are a total bust, these days. I didn't say "everyone was baking". I said "19 per cent of people saying they now bake at least once a week and nearly half admitted to baking more than they did five years ago." > >>>>>> As I keep, apparently, having to explain - I am talking about *mature* >>>>>> fabrication technology - something capable of working with multiple materials, >>>>>> and able to fabricate something at the push of a button more quickly than >>>>>> driving to buy it, and more cheaply. >>>>> >>>>> Not going to happen. >>>> >>>> It would be good if you could back that up, rather than simply asserting it. >>> >>> There is no need. There is no efficiency of scale. It's too much >>> work to design things and get them ready (and then the retries). Few >>> will put up with the bullshit. No, I don't think people will download >>> designs for plastic jewelry and make it. Well, maybe a few 6 >>> year-olds. >> >> As I keep, apparently, having to explain - I am talking about *mature* >> fabrication technology - something capable of working with multiple materials. > > It really would be nice if you could read. Mature doesn't matted if > there is no need. Let me try to put in easier terms for you: when nearly any form of technology first appears it is often expensive and limited, so only the "early adopters" pick it up. That market is sometimes enough to drive the development of better, cheaper devices; and as a consequence, more people buy them. This cycle continues. You know this to be true, right? So the only question is whether fabricators are in this class of technology. I would submit that since they've already shown vast improvment in their capabilities, a reduction in price and non-linear take-up, that they clearly are. > >> So, not just "plastic jewelry", as you must surely be able to appreciate. > > So you're going to sell personal gold printers? Nice! I wish you > well in that endeavor. A fabricator capable of printing most kinds of metal isn't beyond the pale. > > No, it's not. Most have cars, these days too. They're mature, sure, > but there they also fulfill a need. As the non-linear growth shows, there appears to be a need for even these relatively crude devices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 21:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <eubtmcd9dsiaojqt2cvkdd3ahlpolu8tag@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #641177 |
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 06:32:42 +0100, David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 06:02:37 +0100, David Mitchell >> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 06:40:16 +0100, David Mitchell >>>> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 06:36:41 +0100, David Mitchell >>>>>> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Great, yet another techno nerd weenie who spends way too much time watching >>>>>>>>>>>> Star Trek reruns. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bless. It's almost as though you imagine anyone give even the tinest of fucks >>>>>>>>>>> what you think. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It's almost as though you imagine I think puerile techno nerds represent >>>>>>>>>> the average person. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think you need to find a better insult - "techno nerd" is a bit tautologous - >>>>>>>>> and I've never made any particular claim to represent anyone. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How about pie-in-the-sky dreamer? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Like I've said before, most people can't be bothered to make things as >>>>>>>> trivial as bread and biscuits. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, lots of people *do* make bread and biscuits; and a series about baking was >>>>>>> one of the most popular UK programs for some time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Watching is not making. >>>>> >>>>> True; but search for "The Great British Off effect". >>>>> >>>>> "In the six years it has been on the air, “The Great British Bake Off” has >>>>> fundamentally changed the way the British regard baking, dessert-eating and even >>>>> their own culture of sweets. The “Bake Off Effect,” as it is known, has >>>>> manifested in a resurgence in home baking, a noticeable increase in the quality >>>>> of baked goods sold all over the country, and a growing number of people >>>>> pursuing careers as professional pastry chefs." >>>>> >>>>> "The Mary Berry effect: How the Great British Bake Off revived the Women's Institute >>>>> >>>>> WI membership reached 211,000 last year, its highest level since the 1970s >>>>> 22,600 new members joined last year and 144 institutes were created >>>>> Organisation's chairman said Great British Bakeoff 'inspired' more women to >>>>> take up home baking" >>>>> >>>>> "A recent survey from Waitrose revealed that baking is more popular than ever, >>>>> with 19 per cent of people saying they now bake at least once a week and nearly >>>>> half admitted to baking more than they did five years ago." >>>> >>>> Irrelevant. My wife watches a lot (way too much ;-) of cooking shows >>>> and also does a lot of baking but not once has she ever made anything >>>> that was on the TeeVee. She does make biscuits, on special occasions, >>>> but not bread. >>> >>> Ah yes, your one anecdote easily trumps my three data points. >>> Seriously? That's your counter? One person? >>> Wait! I know two people who bake! I win! >> >> No, stupid. The existence of cooking shows doesn't mean everyone is >> cooking. There are a couple of networks dedicated to buying homes but >> more people aren't buying houses every week. >> >> Bread machines were once popular but are a total bust, these days. > >I didn't say "everyone was baking". >I said "19 per cent of people saying they now bake at least once a week and >nearly half admitted to baking more than they did five years ago." And half bought swamp land in Florida. >>>>>>> As I keep, apparently, having to explain - I am talking about *mature* >>>>>>> fabrication technology - something capable of working with multiple materials, >>>>>>> and able to fabricate something at the push of a button more quickly than >>>>>>> driving to buy it, and more cheaply. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not going to happen. >>>>> >>>>> It would be good if you could back that up, rather than simply asserting it. >>>> >>>> There is no need. There is no efficiency of scale. It's too much >>>> work to design things and get them ready (and then the retries). Few >>>> will put up with the bullshit. No, I don't think people will download >>>> designs for plastic jewelry and make it. Well, maybe a few 6 >>>> year-olds. >>> >>> As I keep, apparently, having to explain - I am talking about *mature* >>> fabrication technology - something capable of working with multiple materials. >> >> It really would be nice if you could read. Mature doesn't matted if >> there is no need. >Let me try to put in easier terms for you: when nearly any form of technology >first appears it is often expensive and limited, so only the "early adopters" >pick it up. That market is sometimes enough to drive the development of better, >cheaper devices; and as a consequence, more people buy them. >This cycle continues. > >You know this to be true, right? It's obvious to any non-geek. They're not going to want it. Personal computers would have forever been a toy, except for one or two applications (financial and Internet). Video players biggest (by far) "app" was porn, then the Internet made that silly. 3D printing? WHo wants cheap plastic jewelry? >So the only question is whether fabricators are in this class of technology. >I would submit that since they've already shown vast improvment in their >capabilities, a reduction in price and non-linear take-up, that they clearly are. Improvement, sure. They're great tools for industry and the three geeks who get into them. > >> >>> So, not just "plastic jewelry", as you must surely be able to appreciate. >> >> So you're going to sell personal gold printers? Nice! I wish you >> well in that endeavor. > >A fabricator capable of printing most kinds of metal isn't beyond the pale. Nonsense. >> >> No, it's not. Most have cars, these days too. They're mature, sure, >> but there they also fulfill a need. > >As the non-linear growth shows, there appears to be a need for even these >relatively crude devices. Was the growth of personal computers "linear"? VCRs? Sure, there are geeks playing with the things, until they get bored making useless trinkets.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 05:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <X86dnd0uLMDERvPEnZ2dnUU78N_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #641278 |
krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 06:32:42 +0100, David Mitchell > <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > >> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 06:02:37 +0100, David Mitchell >>> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 06:40:16 +0100, David Mitchell >>>>> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 06:36:41 +0100, David Mitchell >>>>>>> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, yet another techno nerd weenie who spends way too much time watching >>>>>>>>>>>>> Star Trek reruns. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bless. It's almost as though you imagine anyone give even the tinest of fucks >>>>>>>>>>>> what you think. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It's almost as though you imagine I think puerile techno nerds represent >>>>>>>>>>> the average person. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think you need to find a better insult - "techno nerd" is a bit tautologous - >>>>>>>>>> and I've never made any particular claim to represent anyone. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How about pie-in-the-sky dreamer? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Like I've said before, most people can't be bothered to make things as >>>>>>>>> trivial as bread and biscuits. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, lots of people *do* make bread and biscuits; and a series about baking was >>>>>>>> one of the most popular UK programs for some time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Watching is not making. >>>>>> >>>>>> True; but search for "The Great British Off effect". >>>>>> >>>>>> "In the six years it has been on the air, “The Great British Bake Off” has >>>>>> fundamentally changed the way the British regard baking, dessert-eating and even >>>>>> their own culture of sweets. The “Bake Off Effect,” as it is known, has >>>>>> manifested in a resurgence in home baking, a noticeable increase in the quality >>>>>> of baked goods sold all over the country, and a growing number of people >>>>>> pursuing careers as professional pastry chefs." >>>>>> >>>>>> "The Mary Berry effect: How the Great British Bake Off revived the Women's Institute >>>>>> >>>>>> WI membership reached 211,000 last year, its highest level since the 1970s >>>>>> 22,600 new members joined last year and 144 institutes were created >>>>>> Organisation's chairman said Great British Bakeoff 'inspired' more women to >>>>>> take up home baking" >>>>>> >>>>>> "A recent survey from Waitrose revealed that baking is more popular than ever, >>>>>> with 19 per cent of people saying they now bake at least once a week and nearly >>>>>> half admitted to baking more than they did five years ago." >>>>> >>>>> Irrelevant. My wife watches a lot (way too much ;-) of cooking shows >>>>> and also does a lot of baking but not once has she ever made anything >>>>> that was on the TeeVee. She does make biscuits, on special occasions, >>>>> but not bread. >>>> >>>> Ah yes, your one anecdote easily trumps my three data points. >>>> Seriously? That's your counter? One person? >>>> Wait! I know two people who bake! I win! >>> >>> No, stupid. The existence of cooking shows doesn't mean everyone is >>> cooking. There are a couple of networks dedicated to buying homes but >>> more people aren't buying houses every week. >>> >>> Bread machines were once popular but are a total bust, these days. >> >> I didn't say "everyone was baking". >> I said "19 per cent of people saying they now bake at least once a week and >> nearly half admitted to baking more than they did five years ago." > > And half bought swamp land in Florida. Actual sales are noticeable up (as I quoted) in actual shops. >>>> >>>> As I keep, apparently, having to explain - I am talking about *mature* >>>> fabrication technology - something capable of working with multiple materials. >>> >>> It really would be nice if you could read. Mature doesn't matted if >>> there is no need. >> Let me try to put in easier terms for you: when nearly any form of technology >> first appears it is often expensive and limited, so only the "early adopters" >> pick it up. That market is sometimes enough to drive the development of better, >> cheaper devices; and as a consequence, more people buy them. >> This cycle continues. >> >> You know this to be true, right? > > It's obvious to any non-geek. They're not going to want it. Personal > computers would have forever been a toy, except for one or two > applications (financial and Internet). Video players biggest (by far) > "app" was porn, then the Internet made that silly. 3D printing? WHo > wants cheap plastic jewelry? As I keep, apparently, having to explain - I am talking about *mature* fabrication technology - something capable of working with multiple materials. >>> >>>> So, not just "plastic jewelry", as you must surely be able to appreciate. >>> >>> So you're going to sell personal gold printers? Nice! I wish you >>> well in that endeavor. >> >> A fabricator capable of printing most kinds of metal isn't beyond the pale. > > Nonsense. How so? > Was the growth of personal computers "linear"? VCRs? Sure, there are > geeks playing with the things, until they get bored making useless > trinkets. There you are again, playing the trinket card; which I've already trumped.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 20:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0dtvmc532s5ndv1dln1d42mdi567l10bbc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #641297 |
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 05:08:56 +0100, David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 06:32:42 +0100, David Mitchell >> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 06:02:37 +0100, David Mitchell >>>> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 06:40:16 +0100, David Mitchell >>>>>> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 06:36:41 +0100, David Mitchell >>>>>>>> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, yet another techno nerd weenie who spends way too much time watching >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Star Trek reruns. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bless. It's almost as though you imagine anyone give even the tinest of fucks >>>>>>>>>>>>> what you think. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's almost as though you imagine I think puerile techno nerds represent >>>>>>>>>>>> the average person. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think you need to find a better insult - "techno nerd" is a bit tautologous - >>>>>>>>>>> and I've never made any particular claim to represent anyone. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How about pie-in-the-sky dreamer? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Like I've said before, most people can't be bothered to make things as >>>>>>>>>> trivial as bread and biscuits. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, lots of people *do* make bread and biscuits; and a series about baking was >>>>>>>>> one of the most popular UK programs for some time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Watching is not making. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> True; but search for "The Great British Off effect". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "In the six years it has been on the air, “The Great British Bake Off” has >>>>>>> fundamentally changed the way the British regard baking, dessert-eating and even >>>>>>> their own culture of sweets. The “Bake Off Effect,” as it is known, has >>>>>>> manifested in a resurgence in home baking, a noticeable increase in the quality >>>>>>> of baked goods sold all over the country, and a growing number of people >>>>>>> pursuing careers as professional pastry chefs." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The Mary Berry effect: How the Great British Bake Off revived the Women's Institute >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WI membership reached 211,000 last year, its highest level since the 1970s >>>>>>> 22,600 new members joined last year and 144 institutes were created >>>>>>> Organisation's chairman said Great British Bakeoff 'inspired' more women to >>>>>>> take up home baking" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "A recent survey from Waitrose revealed that baking is more popular than ever, >>>>>>> with 19 per cent of people saying they now bake at least once a week and nearly >>>>>>> half admitted to baking more than they did five years ago." >>>>>> >>>>>> Irrelevant. My wife watches a lot (way too much ;-) of cooking shows >>>>>> and also does a lot of baking but not once has she ever made anything >>>>>> that was on the TeeVee. She does make biscuits, on special occasions, >>>>>> but not bread. >>>>> >>>>> Ah yes, your one anecdote easily trumps my three data points. >>>>> Seriously? That's your counter? One person? >>>>> Wait! I know two people who bake! I win! >>>> >>>> No, stupid. The existence of cooking shows doesn't mean everyone is >>>> cooking. There are a couple of networks dedicated to buying homes but >>>> more people aren't buying houses every week. >>>> >>>> Bread machines were once popular but are a total bust, these days. >>> >>> I didn't say "everyone was baking". >>> I said "19 per cent of people saying they now bake at least once a week and >>> nearly half admitted to baking more than they did five years ago." >> >> And half bought swamp land in Florida. > >Actual sales are noticeable up (as I quoted) in actual shops. > >>>>> >>>>> As I keep, apparently, having to explain - I am talking about *mature* >>>>> fabrication technology - something capable of working with multiple materials. >>>> >>>> It really would be nice if you could read. Mature doesn't matted if >>>> there is no need. >>> Let me try to put in easier terms for you: when nearly any form of technology >>> first appears it is often expensive and limited, so only the "early adopters" >>> pick it up. That market is sometimes enough to drive the development of better, >>> cheaper devices; and as a consequence, more people buy them. >>> This cycle continues. >>> >>> You know this to be true, right? >> >> It's obvious to any non-geek. They're not going to want it. Personal >> computers would have forever been a toy, except for one or two >> applications (financial and Internet). Video players biggest (by far) >> "app" was porn, then the Internet made that silly. 3D printing? WHo >> wants cheap plastic jewelry? > >As I keep, apparently, having to explain - I am talking about *mature* >fabrication technology - something capable of working with multiple materials. You can dream all you want but that's all it is, just another one of your hallucinations. Materials are so different that it's highly unlikely that there will be a cheap way of building from multiple materials with one machine. Just the temperature variations alone... Not to mention waste. No one is going to be printing gold or silver (jewelry). >>>>> So, not just "plastic jewelry", as you must surely be able to appreciate. >>>> >>>> So you're going to sell personal gold printers? Nice! I wish you >>>> well in that endeavor. >>> >>> A fabricator capable of printing most kinds of metal isn't beyond the pale. >> >> Nonsense. > >How so? Uh, the widely varying properties, maybe? Titanium and gold have slightly different properties. >> Was the growth of personal computers "linear"? VCRs? Sure, there are >> geeks playing with the things, until they get bored making useless >> trinkets. > >There you are again, playing the trinket card; which I've already trumped. No, you haven't. You just keep hallucinating.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 01:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kjc54e-lg7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #641430 |
In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 05:08:56 +0100, David Mitchell > <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: <snip> >>There you are again, playing the trinket card; which I've already trumped. > > No, you haven't. You just keep hallucinating. Pointless; he just wants to argue until there is a "winner" and keeps spinning off in tangents. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 06:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <TvqdnSWit6TCo-3EnZ2dnUU78c3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #641454 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 05:08:56 +0100, David Mitchell >> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > > <snip> > >>> There you are again, playing the trinket card; which I've already trumped. >> >> No, you haven't. You just keep hallucinating. > > Pointless; he just wants to argue until there is a "winner" and keeps > spinning off in tangents. I am sorry that you can no longer follow complex arguments. Perhaps I could summarise for you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 03:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dq11nc5opv3qjk103cjque22m6i8rqbsht@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #641454 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 05:08:56 +0100, David Mitchell
>> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>There you are again, playing the trinket card; which I've already trumped.
>>
>> No, you haven't. You just keep hallucinating.
>
>Pointless; he just wants to argue until there is a "winner" and keeps
>spinning off in tangents.
>
Pot. Kettle. Star Trek Replicator.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 05:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <TqqdnZhjcKOUpe3EnZ2dnUU78b_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #641430 |
krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 05:08:56 +0100, David Mitchell > <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > >> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 06:32:42 +0100, David Mitchell >>> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 06:02:37 +0100, David Mitchell >>>>> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 06:40:16 +0100, David Mitchell >>>>>>> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 06:36:41 +0100, David Mitchell >>>>>>>>> <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, yet another techno nerd weenie who spends way too much time watching >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Star Trek reruns. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bless. It's almost as though you imagine anyone give even the tinest of fucks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you think. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's almost as though you imagine I think puerile techno nerds represent >>>>>>>>>>>>> the average person. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think you need to find a better insult - "techno nerd" is a bit tautologous - >>>>>>>>>>>> and I've never made any particular claim to represent anyone. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> How about pie-in-the-sky dreamer? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Like I've said before, most people can't be bothered to make things as >>>>>>>>>>> trivial as bread and biscuits. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well, lots of people *do* make bread and biscuits; and a series about baking was >>>>>>>>>> one of the most popular UK programs for some time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Watching is not making. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> True; but search for "The Great British Off effect". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "In the six years it has been on the air, “The Great British Bake Off” has >>>>>>>> fundamentally changed the way the British regard baking, dessert-eating and even >>>>>>>> their own culture of sweets. The “Bake Off Effect,” as it is known, has >>>>>>>> manifested in a resurgence in home baking, a noticeable increase in the quality >>>>>>>> of baked goods sold all over the country, and a growing number of people >>>>>>>> pursuing careers as professional pastry chefs." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "The Mary Berry effect: How the Great British Bake Off revived the Women's Institute >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WI membership reached 211,000 last year, its highest level since the 1970s >>>>>>>> 22,600 new members joined last year and 144 institutes were created >>>>>>>> Organisation's chairman said Great British Bakeoff 'inspired' more women to >>>>>>>> take up home baking" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "A recent survey from Waitrose revealed that baking is more popular than ever, >>>>>>>> with 19 per cent of people saying they now bake at least once a week and nearly >>>>>>>> half admitted to baking more than they did five years ago." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Irrelevant. My wife watches a lot (way too much ;-) of cooking shows >>>>>>> and also does a lot of baking but not once has she ever made anything >>>>>>> that was on the TeeVee. She does make biscuits, on special occasions, >>>>>>> but not bread. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah yes, your one anecdote easily trumps my three data points. >>>>>> Seriously? That's your counter? One person? >>>>>> Wait! I know two people who bake! I win! >>>>> >>>>> No, stupid. The existence of cooking shows doesn't mean everyone is >>>>> cooking. There are a couple of networks dedicated to buying homes but >>>>> more people aren't buying houses every week. >>>>> >>>>> Bread machines were once popular but are a total bust, these days. >>>> >>>> I didn't say "everyone was baking". >>>> I said "19 per cent of people saying they now bake at least once a week and >>>> nearly half admitted to baking more than they did five years ago." >>> >>> And half bought swamp land in Florida. >> >> Actual sales are noticeable up (as I quoted) in actual shops. >> >>>>>> >>>>>> As I keep, apparently, having to explain - I am talking about *mature* >>>>>> fabrication technology - something capable of working with multiple materials. >>>>> >>>>> It really would be nice if you could read. Mature doesn't matted if >>>>> there is no need. >>>> Let me try to put in easier terms for you: when nearly any form of technology >>>> first appears it is often expensive and limited, so only the "early adopters" >>>> pick it up. That market is sometimes enough to drive the development of better, >>>> cheaper devices; and as a consequence, more people buy them. >>>> This cycle continues. >>>> >>>> You know this to be true, right? >>> >>> It's obvious to any non-geek. They're not going to want it. Personal >>> computers would have forever been a toy, except for one or two >>> applications (financial and Internet). Video players biggest (by far) >>> "app" was porn, then the Internet made that silly. 3D printing? WHo >>> wants cheap plastic jewelry? >> >> As I keep, apparently, having to explain - I am talking about *mature* >> fabrication technology - something capable of working with multiple materials. > > You can dream all you want but that's all it is, just another one of > your hallucinations. Materials are so different that it's highly > unlikely that there will be a cheap way of building from multiple > materials with one machine. Just the temperature variations alone... You don't have to do it all in the same cabinet. Some assembly may be required. Having said that, interchangeable print heads on a carousel would probably work for a subset of all possible materials. > > Not to mention waste. No one is going to be printing gold or silver > (jewelry). Why do you think 3-D printing is inherently wasteful? > Uh, the widely varying properties, maybe? Titanium and gold have > slightly different properties. Jimp posted a reference to a Wikipedia article. You really should read it. We can 3-D print *right now*: Thermoplastics, eutectic metals, edible materials, Rubbers, Modeling clay, Plasticine, Metal clay (including Precious Metal Clay), Ceramic materials, Metal alloy, cermet, metal matrix composite, ceramic matrix composite Nylon or Nylon with short carbon fiber + reinforcement in the form Carbon, Kevlar, Glass and Glass for high temperature fiber Photopolymer,Photopolymer + thermally activated chemistry Almost any metal alloy including Titanium alloys > >>> Was the growth of personal computers "linear"? VCRs? Sure, there are >>> geeks playing with the things, until they get bored making useless >>> trinkets. >> >> There you are again, playing the trinket card; which I've already trumped. > > No, you haven't. See above. > You just keep hallucinating. I notice you share a characteristic with jimp, when you have no actual facts, the arguments become personal. It's quite revealing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 10:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <okqhk5$1oim$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #641499 |
On 7/19/2017 11:56 PM, David Mitchell wrote: > krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 05:08:56 +0100, David Mitchell >> Uh, the widely varying properties, maybe? Titanium and gold have >> slightly different properties. > > Jimp posted a reference to a Wikipedia article. You really should read it. > We can 3-D print *right now*: > > Thermoplastics, eutectic metals, edible materials, Rubbers, Modeling > clay, Plasticine, Metal clay (including Precious Metal Clay), Ceramic > materials, Metal alloy, cermet, metal matrix composite, ceramic matrix > composite > Nylon or Nylon with short carbon fiber + reinforcement in the form > Carbon, Kevlar, Glass and Glass for high temperature fiber > Photopolymer,Photopolymer + thermally activated chemistry > Almost any metal alloy including Titanium alloys > > why not print pizza.... ? should be a huge demand for that...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 11:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <6vSdnSsXGu4dUO3EnZ2dnUU7-aWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #641525 |
On 07/20/2017 11:18 AM, Serg io wrote: > On 7/19/2017 11:56 PM, David Mitchell wrote: >> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 05:08:56 +0100, David Mitchell > > >>> Uh, the widely varying properties, maybe? Titanium and gold have >>> slightly different properties. >> >> Jimp posted a reference to a Wikipedia article. You really should >> read it. >> We can 3-D print *right now*: >> >> Thermoplastics, eutectic metals, edible materials, Rubbers, Modeling >> clay, Plasticine, Metal clay (including Precious Metal Clay), Ceramic >> materials, Metal alloy, cermet, metal matrix composite, ceramic matrix >> composite >> Nylon or Nylon with short carbon fiber + reinforcement in the form >> Carbon, Kevlar, Glass and Glass for high temperature fiber >> Photopolymer,Photopolymer + thermally activated chemistry >> Almost any metal alloy including Titanium alloys >> >> > > why not print pizza.... ? should be a huge demand for that... I saw a pancake printer at Makerfest a few years ago. The pancakes were pretty good tasting too. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 16:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ac42nctcdf3dhc0b5k8uiffpo6qg97seb7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #641532 |
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:34:24 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >On 07/20/2017 11:18 AM, Serg io wrote: >> On 7/19/2017 11:56 PM, David Mitchell wrote: >>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 05:08:56 +0100, David Mitchell >> >> >>>> Uh, the widely varying properties, maybe? Titanium and gold have >>>> slightly different properties. >>> >>> Jimp posted a reference to a Wikipedia article. You really should >>> read it. >>> We can 3-D print *right now*: >>> >>> Thermoplastics, eutectic metals, edible materials, Rubbers, Modeling >>> clay, Plasticine, Metal clay (including Precious Metal Clay), Ceramic >>> materials, Metal alloy, cermet, metal matrix composite, ceramic matrix >>> composite >>> Nylon or Nylon with short carbon fiber + reinforcement in the form >>> Carbon, Kevlar, Glass and Glass for high temperature fiber >>> Photopolymer,Photopolymer + thermally activated chemistry >>> Almost any metal alloy including Titanium alloys >>> >>> >> >> why not print pizza.... ? should be a huge demand for that... > >I saw a pancake printer at Makerfest a few years ago. The pancakes were >pretty good tasting too. Why would you print, rather than extrude?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 20:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i6h74e-5qg.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #641555 |
In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:34:24 -0400, Phil Hobbs > <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > >>On 07/20/2017 11:18 AM, Serg io wrote: >>> On 7/19/2017 11:56 PM, David Mitchell wrote: >>>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 05:08:56 +0100, David Mitchell >>> >>> >>>>> Uh, the widely varying properties, maybe? Titanium and gold have >>>>> slightly different properties. >>>> >>>> Jimp posted a reference to a Wikipedia article. You really should >>>> read it. >>>> We can 3-D print *right now*: >>>> >>>> Thermoplastics, eutectic metals, edible materials, Rubbers, Modeling >>>> clay, Plasticine, Metal clay (including Precious Metal Clay), Ceramic >>>> materials, Metal alloy, cermet, metal matrix composite, ceramic matrix >>>> composite >>>> Nylon or Nylon with short carbon fiber + reinforcement in the form >>>> Carbon, Kevlar, Glass and Glass for high temperature fiber >>>> Photopolymer,Photopolymer + thermally activated chemistry >>>> Almost any metal alloy including Titanium alloys >>>> >>>> >>> >>> why not print pizza.... ? should be a huge demand for that... >> >>I saw a pancake printer at Makerfest a few years ago. The pancakes were >>pretty good tasting too. > > Why would you print, rather than extrude? Some people are monomaniacal about 3D printing. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web