Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #640134 > unrolled thread
| Started by | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-12 07:04 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-07-16 16:36 -0700 |
| Articles | 14 on this page of 114 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
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
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 09:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oksu4j$apa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641654 |
wrote in message news:396v3e-s4g.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> ... >>>> Strati is little more than a $30,000 golf cart and the finish is an >>>> abomination. >>> >>> Not the point, remember the whole "mature technology" thing? >>> If we can do that *now*, imagine what we'll be able to do in 30 years >>> time. >> >>Yes, it is the whole point. >> >>They get speed by using thick layers as there is no other way to do it. >>This >>results in a crap finish. >> >>And this IS an industrial grade printer. >> >> > >A National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) noted this is a >problem with 3D-printing, that there is wide variation in results and >quality even in 3D-prints of objects by the same process: > >NIST ADDRESSES METAL 3D PRINTER CHALLENGES WITH DIGITAL THREAD STRATEGY. >BEAU JACKSON 2017-07-17 8:17 PM >[quote] >In collaboration with Duck Bong Kim at Tennessee Technological University >(TTU), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has >published a study addressing three of the challenges to production-ready >metal 3D printing. >The proposed model could eventually form a standard for 3D printed metal >parts and aid additive manufacturing through the certification process – >often seen as a primary barrier to progress.[/quote] >https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/nist-addresses-metal-3d-printer-challenges-digital-thread-strategy-118409/ > >They propose solutions based on a uniformity of the digital information >provided both before and after processing. > > > On the other hand see this: Navy Partnership Goes to New Depths with First 3D-Printed Submarine. JULY 20, 2017 https://energy.gov/eere/articles/navy-partnership-goes-new-depths-first-3d-printed-submarine It's a 3D-printing of a carbon-fiber submarine hull. Judging by the video the finish is quite smooth in this case, which would be required for a submarine. Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 17:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rcp94e-ebo.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #641657 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > wrote in message news:396v3e-s4g.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> Strati is little more than a $30,000 golf cart and the finish is an >>>>> abomination. >>>> >>>> Not the point, remember the whole "mature technology" thing? >>>> If we can do that *now*, imagine what we'll be able to do in 30 years >>>> time. >>> >>>Yes, it is the whole point. >>> >>>They get speed by using thick layers as there is no other way to do it. >>>This >>>results in a crap finish. >>> >>>And this IS an industrial grade printer. >>> >>> >> >>A National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) noted this is a >>problem with 3D-printing, that there is wide variation in results and >>quality even in 3D-prints of objects by the same process: >> >>NIST ADDRESSES METAL 3D PRINTER CHALLENGES WITH DIGITAL THREAD STRATEGY. >>BEAU JACKSON 2017-07-17 8:17 PM >>[quote] >>In collaboration with Duck Bong Kim at Tennessee Technological University >>(TTU), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has >>published a study addressing three of the challenges to production-ready >>metal 3D printing. >>The proposed model could eventually form a standard for 3D printed metal >>parts and aid additive manufacturing through the certification process – >>often seen as a primary barrier to progress.[/quote] >>https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/nist-addresses-metal-3d-printer-challenges-digital-thread-strategy-118409/ >> >>They propose solutions based on a uniformity of the digital information >>provided both before and after processing. >> >> >> > > On the other hand see this: > > Navy Partnership Goes to New Depths with First 3D-Printed Submarine. > JULY 20, 2017 > https://energy.gov/eere/articles/navy-partnership-goes-new-depths-first-3d-printed-submarine > > It's a 3D-printing of a carbon-fiber submarine hull. Judging by the video > the finish is quite smooth in this case, which would be required for a > submarine. Exactly what a 3D printer is usefull for, a one off prototype. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 13:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <et1smnF3hn1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #640717 |
"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: >>New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. > >So what? They don't need to be cheaper. People literally buy millions of >items made out of aluminum and plastic every day and throw them out, the >material is so cheap. The amount of aluminum in a soda can has decreased dramatically over time. I remember seeing an article on can engineering in SciAm twenty or so years ago. It's probably halfed again since then. Cars once had frames under the body. Now, carefully shaped bodies serve the purpose that once required a frame. New technologies can dramatically reduce the amount of aluminum or plastic that you require to do something. You can overdo it. My mother believed in bulk purchasing and in having suitable treats on hand when the grandkids arrived. When preparing the estate, we discovered a five foot stack of soda in one of the closets. One flat (24 cans) of Costco "Simply" cola had pinhole-ruptured almost all of the cans, but had leaked slowly enough that nothing sprayed and nothing escaped the cardboard flat that the cans were sitting on. The white carpet under the dark brown leaks was untouched. All of the plastic two-litre bottles had lost their pressurization - the CO2 having presumably leaked past the caps in the time since purchase. (She was in various forms of care for about a year before the end, and we held the house off the market for another five months for price-cycle reasons. I don't know how long the soda was there before she went into care.) -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 09:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kOednRqpBJE6XfXEnZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #640330 |
wrote in message news:nonk3e-pk9.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > >In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> >wrote: >> "David Mitchell" wrote in message >> news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk... >>> >>>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. >> >> I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal >> computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only >> need >> a few major mainframes. > >Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of smart >phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and facebook. > This actually hurts your point. A dozen or more years ago, no one would have imagined using phones for what we use them for now. And really a smart phone is just a tiny computer that happens to make phone calls. Again, it's the same argument made decades ago but folks not needing computers in the home. >> Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and >> printing >> parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner of >> things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong and >> no >> one will effectively use a 3D printer at home. > >How many people do you know that own 3D printers? I'd have to poll, but at least 2 I'm sure of, and I think the number is closer to 6. And if I include access to them at libraries, workerspaces, etc. then easily dozens. > >I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling machines, >drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer. Really? You need to get out more. I'd say the number of folks I know who own 3D printers is about the same as those who own the other items you mention. > >> Honestly, it's pretty damn presumptuous to claim that there's no future >> to >> 3D printing at home. I suspect 10-20 years from now we'll be laughing at >> such claims. Like computers, it will continue to improve. It'll get >> faster, >> more capable, capable of using more materials, etc. > >Since no one in this thread has made that claim, your post is nonsense. > > That is basically your claim. -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net IT Disaster Response - https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Response-Lessons-Learned-Field/dp/1484221834/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 17:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vpan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #640442 |
In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: > wrote in message news:nonk3e-pk9.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> >>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> >>wrote: >>> "David Mitchell" wrote in message >>> news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk... >>>> >>>>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. >>> >>> I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal >>> computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only >>> need >>> a few major mainframes. >> >>Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of smart >>phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and facebook. >> > > This actually hurts your point. A dozen or more years ago, no one would have > imagined using phones for what we use them for now. > > And really a smart phone is just a tiny computer that happens to make phone > calls. Again, it's the same argument made decades ago but folks not needing > computers in the home. Very few people want a computer in their home, most people want an entertainment device. >>> Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and >>> printing >>> parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner of >>> things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong and >>> no >>> one will effectively use a 3D printer at home. >> >>How many people do you know that own 3D printers? > > I'd have to poll, but at least 2 I'm sure of, and I think the number is > closer to 6. And if I include access to them at libraries, workerspaces, > etc. then easily dozens. > >> >>I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling machines, >>drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer. > > Really? You need to get out more. I'd say the number of folks I know who own > 3D printers is about the same as those who own the other items you mention. I will admit I know very few teenagers. >>> Honestly, it's pretty damn presumptuous to claim that there's no future >>> to >>> 3D printing at home. I suspect 10-20 years from now we'll be laughing at >>> such claims. Like computers, it will continue to improve. It'll get >>> faster, >>> more capable, capable of using more materials, etc. >> >>Since no one in this thread has made that claim, your post is nonsense. >> >> > > That is basically your claim. Yet another knee jerker that reads what they think was written and not what was actually written. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 16:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3pjimch4j1u0lnghc4iqcs2e8998vejaoa@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #640467 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>> wrote in message news:nonk3e-pk9.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>
>>>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>> "David Mitchell" wrote in message
>>>> news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal
>>>> computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only
>>>> need
>>>> a few major mainframes.
>>>
>>>Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of smart
>>>phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and facebook.
>>>
>>
>> This actually hurts your point. A dozen or more years ago, no one would have
>> imagined using phones for what we use them for now.
>>
>> And really a smart phone is just a tiny computer that happens to make phone
>> calls. Again, it's the same argument made decades ago but folks not needing
>> computers in the home.
>
>Very few people want a computer in their home, most people want an
>entertainment device.
>
>>>> Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and
>>>> printing
>>>> parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner of
>>>> things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong and
>>>> no
>>>> one will effectively use a 3D printer at home.
>>>
>>>How many people do you know that own 3D printers?
>>
>> I'd have to poll, but at least 2 I'm sure of, and I think the number is
>> closer to 6. And if I include access to them at libraries, workerspaces,
>> etc. then easily dozens.
>>
>>>
>>>I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling machines,
>>>drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer.
>>
>> Really? You need to get out more. I'd say the number of folks I know who own
>> 3D printers is about the same as those who own the other items you mention.
>
>I will admit I know very few teenagers.
>
>>>> Honestly, it's pretty damn presumptuous to claim that there's no future
>>>> to
>>>> 3D printing at home. I suspect 10-20 years from now we'll be laughing at
>>>> such claims. Like computers, it will continue to improve. It'll get
>>>> faster,
>>>> more capable, capable of using more materials, etc.
>>>
>>>Since no one in this thread has made that claim, your post is nonsense.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That is basically your claim.
>
>Yet another knee jerker that reads what they think was written and not
>what was actually written.
>
Chimp, when everyone sees you saying something you insist you haven't
said, the problem is not everyone else...
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 22:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4JSdnQo8fZ_KVvfEnZ2dnUU7-b3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #640467 |
wrote in message news:vpan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > >In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> >wrote: >> wrote in message news:nonk3e-pk9.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> >>>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> >>>wrote: >>>> "David Mitchell" wrote in message >>>> news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk... >>>>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>> I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal >>>> computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only >>>> need >>>> a few major mainframes. >>> >>>Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of smart >>>phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and facebook. >>> >> >> This actually hurts your point. A dozen or more years ago, no one would >> have >> imagined using phones for what we use them for now. >> >> And really a smart phone is just a tiny computer that happens to make >> phone >> calls. Again, it's the same argument made decades ago but folks not >> needing >> computers in the home. > >Very few people want a computer in their home, most people want an >entertainment device. Exactly. Because people who claimed that "no one needs a computer in their homes" was basing the usage model on a very limited viewpoint of how computers were being used. But those "entertainment devices" are at their heart computers. > >>>> Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and >>>> printing >>>> parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner of >>>> things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong and >>>> no >>>> one will effectively use a 3D printer at home. >>> >>>How many people do you know that own 3D printers? >> >> I'd have to poll, but at least 2 I'm sure of, and I think the number is >> closer to 6. And if I include access to them at libraries, workerspaces, >> etc. then easily dozens. >> >>> >>>I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling >>>machines, >>>drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer. >> >> Really? You need to get out more. I'd say the number of folks I know who >> own >> 3D printers is about the same as those who own the other items you >> mention. > >I will admit I know very few teenagers. > Which has jacksquat to do with what I said? What do teenagers have to do with my reply? >>>> Honestly, it's pretty damn presumptuous to claim that there's no future >>>> to >>>> 3D printing at home. I suspect 10-20 years from now we'll be laughing >>>> at >>>> such claims. Like computers, it will continue to improve. It'll get >>>> faster, >>>> more capable, capable of using more materials, etc. >>> >>>Since no one in this thread has made that claim, your post is nonsense. >>> >>> >> >> That is basically your claim. > >Yet another knee jerker that reads what they think was written and not >what was actually written. > > You keep doing that. I suggest you stop. -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net IT Disaster Response - https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Response-Lessons-Learned-Field/dp/1484221834/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 03:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0q2r3e-gp1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #640719 |
In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: > wrote in message news:vpan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> >>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> >>wrote: >>> wrote in message news:nonk3e-pk9.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> >>>>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> >>>>wrote: >>>>> "David Mitchell" wrote in message >>>>> news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk... >>>>>> >>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>> I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal >>>>> computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only >>>>> need >>>>> a few major mainframes. >>>> >>>>Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of smart >>>>phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and facebook. >>>> >>> >>> This actually hurts your point. A dozen or more years ago, no one would >>> have >>> imagined using phones for what we use them for now. >>> >>> And really a smart phone is just a tiny computer that happens to make >>> phone >>> calls. Again, it's the same argument made decades ago but folks not >>> needing >>> computers in the home. >> >>Very few people want a computer in their home, most people want an >>entertainment device. > > Exactly. Because people who claimed that "no one needs a computer in their > homes" was basing the usage model on a very limited viewpoint of how > computers were being used. > But those "entertainment devices" are at their heart computers. Irrelevant to the point. >>>>> Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and >>>>> printing >>>>> parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner of >>>>> things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong and >>>>> no >>>>> one will effectively use a 3D printer at home. >>>> >>>>How many people do you know that own 3D printers? >>> >>> I'd have to poll, but at least 2 I'm sure of, and I think the number is >>> closer to 6. And if I include access to them at libraries, workerspaces, >>> etc. then easily dozens. >>> >>>> >>>>I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling >>>>machines, >>>>drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer. >>> >>> Really? You need to get out more. I'd say the number of folks I know who >>> own >>> 3D printers is about the same as those who own the other items you >>> mention. >> >>I will admit I know very few teenagers. >> > > Which has jacksquat to do with what I said? What do teenagers have to do > with my reply? It would be primarily teenagers that would be interested in making essentially useless gadgets and jewelry. Again, I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling machines, drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer. All of these are middle aged or older adults. >>>>> Honestly, it's pretty damn presumptuous to claim that there's no future >>>>> to >>>>> 3D printing at home. I suspect 10-20 years from now we'll be laughing >>>>> at >>>>> such claims. Like computers, it will continue to improve. It'll get >>>>> faster, >>>>> more capable, capable of using more materials, etc. >>>> >>>>Since no one in this thread has made that claim, your post is nonsense. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> That is basically your claim. >> >>Yet another knee jerker that reads what they think was written and not >>what was actually written. >> >> > > You keep doing that. I suggest you stop. When you stop knee jerking and read what was actually written. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 09:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.33d53b1ef8329f7a989991@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #640731 |
In article <0q2r3e-gp1.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... > >> > >>I will admit I know very few teenagers. > >> > > > > Which has jacksquat to do with what I said? What do teenagers have to do > > with my reply? > > It would be primarily teenagers that would be interested in making > essentially useless gadgets and jewelry. > > Again, I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling > machines, drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer. > > All of these are middle aged or older adults. > Do they have turntables and tube amps becuase of the "warm sound" because CDs are "harsh"? VHS tapes for movies? No? Then do they also have huge collections of CDs and DVDs? HD audio discs and BluRay discs? These days, I keep most of my media on a 2TB server, and that is considered antiquated by people younger than me who simply use their phones coupled with streaming services to listen to music and watch movies and TV shows. The idea of "owning" music and movies is outdated to quite a few younger people. Why would anyone clutter their house with that crap when the Internet can provide anything you want, anywhere you want, anytime you want. Technologies improve, costs go down, times change. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 12:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <okg6cl$1d6s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #640783 |
On 7/16/2017 8:58 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: > In article <0q2r3e-gp1.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > says... >>>> >>>> I will admit I know very few teenagers. >>>> >>> >>> Which has jacksquat to do with what I said? What do teenagers have to do >>> with my reply? >> >> It would be primarily teenagers that would be interested in making >> essentially useless gadgets and jewelry. >> >> Again, I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling >> machines, drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer. >> >> All of these are middle aged or older adults. >> > > Do they have turntables and tube amps becuase of the "warm sound" > because CDs are "harsh"? VHS tapes for movies? No? Then do they also > have huge collections of CDs and DVDs? HD audio discs and BluRay discs? > > These days, I keep most of my media on a 2TB server, and that is > considered antiquated by people younger than me who simply use their > phones coupled with streaming services to listen to music and watch > movies and TV shows. The idea of "owning" music and movies is outdated > to quite a few younger people. Why would anyone clutter their house > with that crap when the Internet can provide anything you want, anywhere > you want, anytime you want. > > Technologies improve, costs go down, times change. > > Jeff > heads up, digital storage has *major long term storage problems*, HDs last 5 to 7 years at best, they have many failure modes. the technology improved, but the reliability went down. Too easy to lose files now, or erase them. silicon storage is not mature enough yet, it could last a long time, but many thumb drives get blown out as power comes on or goes off. CDs are Al foil on plastic, and a drop of ketchup will eat a hole in the AL layer, making the disk usless. (my kid this this) Also, heat, age, UV will all seperate the AL from the plastic, destroying data. Very poor long term stuff, the AL layer also will oxidize on you. (archival CDs disks have protective layer of plastic on it.) storing it in the cloud is another problem, read the T+C's they are not responcable for your data, the company can go out of business, no data, or get sold and teh new company sells your files, as you gave them to them, so they own it, you gave that right up, like those photos you uploaded to Facebook, are not yours anymore.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 18:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u2ns3e-me7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #640783 |
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > In article <0q2r3e-gp1.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > says... >> >> >> >>I will admit I know very few teenagers. >> >> >> > >> > Which has jacksquat to do with what I said? What do teenagers have to do >> > with my reply? >> >> It would be primarily teenagers that would be interested in making >> essentially useless gadgets and jewelry. >> >> Again, I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling >> machines, drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer. >> >> All of these are middle aged or older adults. >> > > Do they have turntables and tube amps becuase of the "warm sound" > because CDs are "harsh"? VHS tapes for movies? No? Then do they also > have huge collections of CDs and DVDs? HD audio discs and BluRay discs? No. <snip irrelevant crap about media> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 10:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4LqdnfYUHL4B4_bEnZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #640731 |
wrote in message news:0q2r3e-gp1.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > >In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> >wrote: >> wrote in message news:vpan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> >>>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> >>>wrote: >>>> wrote in message news:nonk3e-pk9.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> >>>>>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> >>>>>wrote: >>>>>> "David Mitchell" wrote in message >>>>>> news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>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. >>>>>> >>>>>> I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal >>>>>> computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll >>>>>> only >>>>>> need >>>>>> a few major mainframes. >>>>> >>>>>Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of >>>>>smart >>>>>phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and >>>>>facebook. >>>>> >>>> >>>> This actually hurts your point. A dozen or more years ago, no one would >>>> have >>>> imagined using phones for what we use them for now. >>>> >>>> And really a smart phone is just a tiny computer that happens to make >>>> phone >>>> calls. Again, it's the same argument made decades ago but folks not >>>> needing >>>> computers in the home. >>> >>>Very few people want a computer in their home, most people want an >>>entertainment device. >> >> Exactly. Because people who claimed that "no one needs a computer in >> their >> homes" was basing the usage model on a very limited viewpoint of how >> computers were being used. >> But those "entertainment devices" are at their heart computers. > >Irrelevant to the point. No, that's exactly the point and you keep missing it. > >>>>>> Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and >>>>>> printing >>>>>> parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner >>>>>> of >>>>>> things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong >>>>>> and >>>>>> no >>>>>> one will effectively use a 3D printer at home. >>>>> >>>>>How many people do you know that own 3D printers? >>>> >>>> I'd have to poll, but at least 2 I'm sure of, and I think the number is >>>> closer to 6. And if I include access to them at libraries, >>>> workerspaces, >>>> etc. then easily dozens. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling >>>>>machines, >>>>>drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer. >>>> >>>> Really? You need to get out more. I'd say the number of folks I know >>>> who >>>> own >>>> 3D printers is about the same as those who own the other items you >>>> mention. >>> >>>I will admit I know very few teenagers. >>> >> >> Which has jacksquat to do with what I said? What do teenagers have to do >> with my reply? > >It would be primarily teenagers that would be interested in making >essentially useless gadgets and jewelry. > >Again, I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling >machines, drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer. As I've said, your experience is not mine. > >All of these are middle aged or older adults. And same with all the folks I know that own 3D printers. > >>>>>> Honestly, it's pretty damn presumptuous to claim that there's no >>>>>> future >>>>>> to >>>>>> 3D printing at home. I suspect 10-20 years from now we'll be laughing >>>>>> at >>>>>> such claims. Like computers, it will continue to improve. It'll get >>>>>> faster, >>>>>> more capable, capable of using more materials, etc. >>>>> >>>>>Since no one in this thread has made that claim, your post is nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is basically your claim. >>> >>>Yet another knee jerker that reads what they think was written and not >>>what was actually written. >>> >>> >> >> You keep doing that. I suggest you stop. > >When you stop knee jerking and read what was actually written. > I'm not the one knee-jerking or making unsubstantiated claims (such as only teenagers buying 3D printers). -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net IT Disaster Response - https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Response-Lessons-Learned-Field/dp/1484221834/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 18:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9ans3e-me7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #640788 |
In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: > wrote in message news:0q2r3e-gp1.ln1@mail.specsol.com... <snip> > I'm not the one knee-jerking or making unsubstantiated claims (such as only > teenagers buying 3D printers). All hail and glory to the 3D printer, savior of humanity. Happy? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 16:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f2unmc12sinh13osc527jhha3i7v52otdh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #640826 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>> wrote in message news:0q2r3e-gp1.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>
><snip>
>
>> I'm not the one knee-jerking or making unsubstantiated claims (such as only
>> teenagers buying 3D printers).
>
>All hail and glory to the 3D printer, savior of humanity.
>
>Happy?
>
No, because you're still just acting like an anachronistic dickhead.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web