iRobot proposes 3-D printing with less human intervention

Jan 25, 2013 by Nancy Owano report
Credit: USPTO

(Phys.org)—iRobot Corporation, the Bedford, Massachusetts-based makers of Roomba, have a wish list for 3-D printing that goes something like this: Cut out the human labor, automate everything, and the result is reduced manufacturing costs and higher product quality. Putting their efforts into action, iRobot filed a patent last year for just that reason. Their patent calls for a 3-D printer that produces completely finished products without the need for humans to assemble or finish the object.

The Robotic Fabricator, as their patent is called, presents methods in which an all in one automated fabricator would make things and put them together too. The patent filing makes note of tools toward this end. The system would include a tool-head for manufacturing, and manipulators.

"In traditional ," said the iRobot filers, "designs must still be divided into parts for production, and a trained individual assembles the fabricated parts into the final product after printing."

The human involvement in traditional 3-D printing creates increased factory safety risks. As important, they argue that the that they are recommending reduces the risk of failure of the end product.

"Connectors, fasteners, seams, and similar interfaces are frequently a source of failure in the end product. A fabrication device that reduces the number of connectors, fasteners, seams, and similar component interfaces increases the quality of the end product and reduces product failure."

Included in their patent discussion is how fabrication could be centered around a six- industrial robotic manipulator (primary manipulator) that handles the product from seed component to mature product. "The primary manipulator positions the product for manufacturing operations such as additive and subtractive manufacturing (3D printing, milling and drilling). A secondary manipulator handles component pick-and-place and secondary manufacturing operations such as wire placement and hardware testing."

As an option, they suggest that the system could include high-precision sensors to measure parameters and characteristics of the device while the process is taking place. The feedback from the sensors would allow the system to estimate product qualities, such as tolerances, dimensions, and mass.

The processes described in the patent, including Robocasting, would allow for products composed of materials including but not limited to ABS, polycarbonate, silicone rubbers, urethane rubbers, and plastics, low melting temperature metals, and combinations of these materials.

Reactions to news of the filing for a full printing and finishing device have been favorable, as a means of taking the 3-D printing process up higher, to a level that can handle the connectors, seams, and fasteners that lock the parts together.

Explore further: IBM's Watson advises US soldiers on life after service

More information: Patent application

via 3ders

Related Stories

Printing soil science

Nov 28, 2012

Imagine printing a 3-D object as easily as a typed document. Lose a button? Print one. Need a new coffee cup? Print one. While the reality of printing any object on demand may lie in the future, the technology necessary to ...

3D printing to transform the economy, UK report claims

Oct 17, 2012

The Government needs a plan for the arrival of 3D printing, to ensure that the UK can reap the full economic benefits of this revolutionary technology and to address risks such as illegal gun production.

Recommended for you

Medical advances turn science fiction into science fact

Jul 18, 2014

Exoskeletons helping the paralysed to walk, tiny maggot-inspired devices gnawing at brain tumours, machines working tirelessly as hospital helpers: in many respects, the future of medicine is already here.

User comments : 82

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

leondari
1 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2013
Gee , That's really dumb . Who's going to buy what you print if robots will do all the jobs eh ?
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (18) Jan 25, 2013
Who's going to buy what you print if robots will do all the jobs eh ?

Since it's going to be free: No one. But everyone is going to get it anyways.

I know - that's the nightnmare of all capitalists: and end to scarcity and a ful democratization of availability to resources and products.
But then again: who cares about parasites?
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (53) Jan 25, 2013
Gee , That's really dumb . Who's going to buy what you print if robots will do all the jobs eh ?


There are endless examples of jobs made obsolete due to advances in technology in the history of capitalist societies,... yet we still manage to employ 90% of the population!

The Form of jobs change in time. This has always been the case since the industrial revolution. Nothing new. For example, there is not mucn call for horseshoe makers, what with all the cars now.

To answer your question,... if something is not sustanable (i.e. lack of people with jobs to buy things), then by definition its unsustainable,... which means that won't occur for the reson you stated.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (57) Jan 25, 2013
Who's going to buy what you print if robots will do all the jobs eh ?

Since it's going to be free: No one. But everyone is going to get it anyways.

I know - that's the nightnmare of all capitalists: and end to scarcity and a ful democratization of availability to resources and products.
But then again: who cares about parasites?


It's not a nightnmare specifically to capitalists, but to ALL humanity as was clearly and unabiguously demonstrated in modern history.

Your absurd childish fantasy was already attempted in the catastrophic experiment of communism. THEY thought they could acheive it also, by controlling human behavior against the our vary intrinsic nature. Those who are ignorant of the past are bound to repeat it.
antialias_physorg
3.1 / 5 (15) Jan 25, 2013
Your absurd childish fantasy was already attempted in the catastrophic experiment of communism.

Funnily the guys who attempted it had some very clear ideas on who should have the say-so and who should not - and who should get first pickings at the goods poduced (which isn't really the idea of communism. There are communes where it works quite well.)

But I agree that communism isn't a particularly good idea in a scarcity environment (I'd even argue that it's as bad as capitalism).

In a non-scarcity environment (as we'd have with fully robotic workforce) the whole concepts of ownership (whether by the individual or the community) becomes moot.

If you can have anything any time you want - why would you need to KEEP anything for yourself?
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (53) Jan 25, 2013
Capitalism is the greatest force for human progress known to history, and there has never been a better way, .... while communism has resulted in millions of deaths. This is a undeniable fact. To say that they are "ewually" bad demonstrates that you're clueless.

In a non-scarcity environment (as we'd have with fully robotic workforce) the whole concepts of ownership (whether by the individual or the community) becomes moot.


It would make good sci-fi, for sale, but is otherwise gibberish. Capitalism would have to be a prerequisite to such a fantasy society in anycase, AND control of human behavior counter to natural instincts would be required as well.
antialias_physorg
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2013
AND control of human behavior counter to natural instincts would be required as well.

Not in any more drastic case than we do right now. e're pretty good at controlling our instincts (e.g. by refraining from killing people willy nilly, or just having sex whenever we want to with whomever we want to (though arguably some have less of an ability to control that thnan others).

The drive for "mine, mine, mine" isn't that hard to get rid of. Most parents manage it quit easily.
grondilu
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2013
Just build a Von Neumann probe already.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (48) Jan 25, 2013
There is a difference between self control as a response to consequences, and control forced upon one by government.

The natural instinct of egoism is a necessary component of being human. You could more easily remove the circulatory system of a man without killing him than remove his egoistic nature, .. both having evolved over the course of millions of years for a purpose.

Only a robot or a oppressed people could lose the desire for want.

The success of capitalism is a historical fact. The extreme and cartoonish utopian society that you imagine has never been a reality. To acheive it, government control over humans would have to be resoundingly oppressive,... and there would remain zero motive for progress. One already sees this in work unions, some refuse to work harder than othes have too,.. and efforts are regulated. Idiotic.
Sean_W
1.9 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2013
You'll know this concept is about to be disruptive when it becomes good enough to make the robot arms and processors and such to create a replica of itself -which will still require some assembly but perhaps nothing that a secondary, mobile robot--which could be printed out--couldn't do. When one guy can order a kit to make this and print out a kit for someone else it becomes pretty hard to stop, theoretically.
Eikka
2.4 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2013
Since it's going to be free: No one. But everyone is going to get it anyways.


It still costs something to make the machines and run them, so you can't distribute the products for free. At least you have to pay something for the materials you use, in some form, be it money or other.

But with people out of work, you don't have anyone paying for the products, so you can't pay for the materials and energy, so you can't build the factory.

How do you solve that problem?

The only way I see it happening is if people become producers of energy and raw materials that they can use to buy products, but since this is highly inefficient compared to centralized production, most people will not have a function in the world and will subsequently starve to death or be killed.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (51) Jan 25, 2013
In a non-scarcity environment (as we'd have with fully robotic workforce) the whole concepts of ownership (whether by the individual or the community) becomes moot. If you can have anything any time you want - why would you need to KEEP anything for yourself?


The far left and their utopian idealism are intellectually disinterested, dishonest, and irresponsble, because they ignore 99% of reality.

Funnily the guys who attempted it had some very clear ideas on who should have the say-so and who should not - and who should get first pickings at the goods poduced


Liberals and socialists are experts at class warfare,... "those guys" are all the same and are the only ones who would implememt your utopian society, and by necessity via force. My above point does not even hinge on them treating some different than others,... it's that they force social engineering upon the masses at all that oppresses their natural instincts.
Eikka
2.9 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2013
In a non-scarcity environment (as we'd have with fully robotic workforce)


Non-scarcity does not result from a fully robotic workforce.

To have non-scarcity would require abundant and free energy and raw materials. Without these two, a fully roboticized workforce will just put the products out of reach for 99% of humanity since they have been made redundant, yet it still costs something to make the products that they need so they can't be just distributed for free.

When one person works to produce all the raw materials and energy that ten people need, and there's no function for the other nine since robots are doing all the rest of the work, their options are either to die away, or enslave the first person.

IronhorseA
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2013


If you can have anything any time you want - why would you need to KEEP anything for yourself?


Mementos primarily.
Eikka
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2013
If you can have anything any time you want - why would you need to KEEP anything for yourself?


Because keeping something is having it.

So your argument turns out to be nonsensical. You're essentially asking that if you can have something anytime you want, why would you need to have it?

Well, the only answer to that one is "Because you need it". There can be any number of reasons why you need to have something, from wants to neccesities.
Eikka
2.8 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2013

Mementos primarily.


I would say that in the real world you can never actually achieve a situation where you truly can access everything you want any time you want.

For example, if someone takes your car, the replacement unit will take some time to arrive to your house, and will use some energy and raw materials to do so. That means you won't get it immediately when you want it, and it won't be free.

You have to compensate for the wear and tear on the parts you cause somehow, and if you're put out of work by robots, how is that possible?

Of course, if we change what you want... which gets you back to the argument about how social planning is evil.
Jeddy_Mctedder
1.3 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2013
Ego and individual psychology and competition for hot babes off course can all ignored with respect to the proprty puzzle because the control freak governing body and social ethos will put every individual in their perfect place. Non scarcity my foot

In a non-scarcity environment (as we'd have with fully robotic workforce) the whole concepts of ownership (whether by the individual or the community) becomes moot.


It would make good sci-fi, for sale, but is otherwise gibberish. Capitalism would have to be a prerequisite to such a fantasy society in anycase, AND control of human behavior counter to natural instincts would be required as well.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (50) Jan 25, 2013
Capitalism would have to be a prerequisite to such a fantasy society in anycase, AND control of human behavior counter to natural instincts would be required as well.


What I meant by this quote, is that capitalism would have to have existed to establish such a highly developed state of society to begin with, .... and THEN the social engineers would need to replace it with control of the masses.

But antialais_physorg speaks of sci-fi in the year 2150, and so is quite irrelevent to the present. But I suppose that the form of jobs could eventually evolve to basically controlling data,.,. but this will never cause equality to magically happen. Some will always be better than others and therefore will always feel entitled to more for it.
FrankHerbert
1.6 / 5 (19) Jan 25, 2013
Capitalism is the greatest force for human progress known to history
-Noumenon

Anyone who can't realize that capitalism is a stepping stone from industrialization to automation is a fool. You are no different than someone arguing for permanent feudalism.

Some will always be better than others and therefore will always feel entitled to more for it.
Oh so you are full of yourself and have an entitlement complex. I don't really think anyone is surprised to learn that. The real question is, why should anybody care about your feelings (and those of other galtian ubermensch) when you are clearly incapable of empathy?
philw1776
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2013
Filing a patent is one thing. Getting it approved is another. Best wishes to iRobot and others as 3-D printing and robotics bring manufacturing (but not the jobs) back to the US. 3rd world cheap labor's manufacturing run ends before 2030.
Eikka
2.2 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2013
3rd world cheap labor's manufacturing run ends before 2030.


Replaced by 3rd world cheap robotic manufacturing because it's still cheaper to build and maintain the factories there where you don't need to mind the environment and the energy/material prices are cheaper.

Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (48) Jan 25, 2013
Capitalism is the greatest force for human progress known to history -Noumenon


Obama agrees with my statement you quoted above. Didn't you vote for Obama?

Anyone who can't realize that capitalism is a stepping stone from industrialization to automation is a fool. You are no different than someone arguing for permanent feudalism.- RatingTrollFrankH


I already mentioned exactly that in my previous post before yours. The history of technological advancement throughout the industrial age is one of "automation" replacing manual,.... and it was thought to be a problem each time. It's not. We evolve the 'form of labour', not the 'need of it'.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (47) Jan 25, 2013
Oh so you are full of yourself and have an entitlement complex. I don't really think anyone is surprised to learn that. The real question is, why should anybody care about your feelings (and those of other galtian ubermensch) when you are clearly incapable of empathy?


I mean only that some are able to create more value in ideas or work, etc,... and by definition value should be paid for. As far as being "incapable of empathy",.... it is a statistical fact that conservatives give more of their own money to charity while liberals are better only at giving away more of other peoples money. Plus, empathy is not in making people dependent upon government, nor is it in lowering the bar of expectations.
antialias_physorg
3.6 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2013
I would say that in the real world you can never actually achieve a situation where you truly can access everything you want any time you want.

Depends how outrageous your wishes are.
If you make small concessions (e.g. the ability to wait a few hours while the thing you wished for is being constructed) then I do think it will some day be possible.
3D printing is only the first step towards atomic construction (and atomic deconstruction). All that is left is to get to that resolution (a pretty big "all", I admit)

But once you have that it's just a matter of energy and continually recycling the stuff you are currently not using into the stuff you currently want. The concept of 'having something and storing it until you need it again' will become obsolete.
VendicarD
2 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2013
iRobot does.

"But then again: who cares about parasites?" - Antialias

This is a patent application they are going for. The patent produces nothing novel but allows them to parasite themselves on any commercial producer that decides to produce a machine that can perform assembly after extrusion.

iRobot intends for itself to be the Parasite.
VendicarD
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2013
Do you feel that society has a value Tard Boy?

"and by definition value should be paid for." - NoumenTard

If so, then don't forget to pay your taxes.

If not, then you should remove yourself from a society that you find worthless.

VendicarD
1.9 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2013
It is a statistical fact that Conservative States are parasites on the American Union, taking more money from the Union while the Blue States provide more than they take.

It is also a statistical fact that the Liberal States have higher average IQ's than the Red States.

"it is a statistical fact that conservatives give more of their own money to charity" - NumenTard
VendicarD
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2013
Hmmm. Letes follow NumenTard's logic.

Deficit spending is not sustainable. Therefore deficit spending is unsustainable.

Therefore by NumenTard logic deficit spending won't occur.

"if something is not sustanable (i.e. lack of people with jobs to buy things), then by definition its unsustainable,... which means that won't occur for the reson you stated." - NumenTard

NumenTard has thereby solved America's budget problem.

His solution.... There is no problem. Deficit spending can't happen.

Ahahahahahahah......... Welcome to the land of ConservaDopia.

VendicarD
2.1 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2013
NumenTard is a little boy who imagines all manner of nonsense when it comes to Communinism.

This Communist disaster is of course a figment of his imagination, as well as a historical fact on planet ConservaDopia.

But here in the real world, the true disaster to befall the USSR were the failed economic policies that were promoted by Economists from the Austrian School, (Free Market), of Economics that pushed Russia into a deep economic depression.

"Your absurd childish fantasy was already attempted in the catastrophic experiment of Communism." - NumenTard

These are the same Austrian School, (Free Market), Economists that are responsible for destroying the American economy and under Bush, pushing the U.S. economy to be brink of depression.

Some Russians believe that those Free Market Economists were sent by the west to destroy Russia.

I think they are right.
VendicarD
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2013
NumenTard believes that Capitalism is a superior way to control human behavior than Communism.

"THEY thought they could acheive it also, by controlling human behavior against the our vary intrinsic nature." - NumenTard

His brain washing is such that he has fully internalized the view that the pattern of 0's and 1's in his bank account are as much a restriction on his ability as wooden yolk around his neck.

His submission to his slave masters while continually pronouncing himself free and spending so much of his free time promoting the wage slavery that keeps him prisoner, makes me laugh.

In his eyes, he has all the freedom his money can buy, so he is maximally free.

Complete insanity.

VendicarD
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2013
Nope. That would be science, not Capitalism.

"Capitalism is the greatest force for human progress known to history" - NumenTard

Dollars don't find cures for disease. Research does.

And that research is primarily done with redistributed taxation.

Awwwww Poor NumenTard.
VendicarD
2 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2013
Every child who starves to death while a Capitalist stuffs dollars into his bank account is a death attributable to Capitalism.

"while communism has resulted in millions of deaths." - NumenTard

How many People has America murdered since it's creation? 30 million, isn't it?

How many people did America Murder Today?
VendicarD
2 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2013
In a utopia where I can make anything I need, almost instantly. Why would I need to have anything other than the device that instantly provides me with what I need right now?

"Because keeping something is having it." - Eikka

In an environment of instant production, and virtual ubiquity, the only items of worth are those that provide instant utility.

VendicarD
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2013
This is true, but since you won't own a car, and no one will ever need to steal your car, there will be no car for you to lose..

"For example, if someone takes your car" - Eikka

Further there will be no need for a police system to protect against theft since there will be no motivation for theft.

You will need transportation. You will arrange for it at a specific time. It will arrive, and take you to your destination.

Ownership will not be any more required than you require ownership of a taxi today.
Egleton
2 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2013
Please stop fouling the air with your Idealisms.
We have got to send one of these babies to the Moon.
We will need to leave a little of the moon there to provide us with stable Lagrange points.
When the moon has been consumed we will move on to the Earth/Sun Lagrangian points.
We have to get off this two dimensional surface.
VendicarD
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2013
Self replicating Mandrid drones consume the universe.

http://www.youtub...CMu-rtjk

We fight for Zev.
Parsec
5 / 5 (2) Jan 26, 2013
It is extremely unlikely that 3-D fabrication will ever complete with traditional production pieces created in volume. There are 2 reasons for this:

1) Most real products include metals and other long lived components that are unsuitable for 3-D printing.

2) 3-D printers are incredibly slow. I mean perhaps many hours or even days to produce a single product made from many components.

I am not discounting the incredible utility of 3-D printing. For making prototypes, or for proof of concept items, even a few days can be many times faster than production of a one off piece the old fashion way.

But lets get real about the potential here.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 26, 2013
Actually, I thought the speeds were in hours not days, but you're correct parsec, right now its just for prototyping. I'm sure it will develope faster and faster speeds, but will have get down to around 20 seconds to compete with traditional injection moulding, not to mention higher resolutions.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (44) Jan 26, 2013
In a utopia where I can make anything I need, almost instantly. Why would I need to have anything other than the device that instantly provides me with what I need right now?

In an environment of instant production, and virtual ubiquity, the only items of worth are those that provide instant utility. - VedicarD the adolescent and inventor of the troll


In a utopia, you are not constrained by reality, and so yes, anything is possible there. Why don't you write a sci-fi book, where such ideas are relevent.

Even if some magic device could spit out a tangible object in seconds like on star-trek,... someone still has to design that product. There will be people competing to design the best and most useful product, and so there will be an associated range of Value given the design.

Whenever there is relative value, whether it is in the form of work skill, design, knowledge, or whatever, there naturally arrises an economic means of expressing and transacting that value.
robert_coles_902
1.3 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2013
We evolve the 'form of labour', not the 'need of it'. - Nourmenon

Yes, largely speaking but history is not necessarily cyclical, as in everything that has gone before does not predicate that which may come to pass. If it were so, then there would be a predictive branch of history aka Asimov's concept of 'Phychohistory'.

Current trends of automation and AI advancements would suggest that it is only a matter of decades before 65% of service sector jobs are eliminated, followed by science and design positions as well, later on. Couple AI with evolutionary algorithms and product design itself can be be automated. In such a future Capitalism would break down and cease to function as it does now. In fact, even today the concepts of Socialism, Communism or Capitalism are woefully misleading if not anachronistic.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (44) Jan 26, 2013
3D printing is only the first step towards atomic construction (and atomic deconstruction). All that is left is to get to that resolution (a pretty big "all", I admit) But once you have that it's just a matter of energy and continually recycling the stuff you are currently not using into the stuff you currently want. The concept of 'having something and storing it until you need it again' will become obsolete.


There are physical limitations to anything approaching atom by atom assembly. For example, lets say you wanted to construct a tiny object the size of a penny out of metal, say copper,... and you had access to optical tweezer device that had the capacity to extract and position bunches of 100,000 atoms at a time, and could do so at 1/2 the speed of light. Lets say you even had a ready made source of copper gas that was half a meter away from your assembly. It would take 285 years to print your part.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (44) Jan 26, 2013
We evolve the 'form of labour', not the 'need of it'. - Nourmenon

Yes, largely speaking but history is not necessarily cyclical, as in everything that has gone before does not predicate that which may come to pass.


Unless there are physical constants involved, as is the case with human nature. Future predictions are constrained by physical realities. Humans have evolved mechanisms for survival, say egoism, over millions of years which are not in their capacity to hand over to world government or automation.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (44) Jan 26, 2013
Current trends of automation and AI advancements would suggest that it is only a matter of decades before 65% of service sector jobs are eliminated, followed by science and design positions as well, later on. Couple AI with evolutionary algorithms and product design itself can be be automated.


Again there are physical and economic constraints that sci-fi theorists ignore, so for them, anything goes wrt such predictions, but that is not how things actually can occur. You can't eliminate 65% of jobs and expect an economy to continue to exist, such that a world government could tax/use the value of contributions from the 35% to support the 65%.

Also, current AI is a fraud in the sense that it is light-years away from simulating even rudimentary human thought. Right now the quality standard for AI is limited to 'fooling' an observer,... because there is insufficient understanding of thought.

How the mind actually functions is not going to be discovered by computer dorks
antialias_physorg
2 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2013
Most real products include metals and other long lived components that are unsuitable for 3-D printing.

3D printing using metal has been around for over two decades (selective laser sintering).
Just 2 months ago I visited a manufacturer of hip implants. They print implants specificially adapted for the patient's anatomy out of either surgical steel or titanium.
(When standard implants don't fit. Yes: standard implants are currently still cheaper. But sometimes a patient has an unusual anatomy or there are other factors that necessitate a non-standard type.)

3-D printers are incredibly slow.

True (though it's more in the hours range - not days). But if every household has one: how much stuff do you need printed?
And the really big stuff that would necessitate a centralized printing factory - that stuff you need even less often.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (44) Jan 26, 2013

There are physical limitations to anything approaching atom by atom assembly. For example, lets say you wanted to construct a tiny object the size of a penny out of metal, say copper,... and you had access to optical tweezer device that had the capacity to extract and position bunches of 100,000 atoms at a time, and could do so at 1/2 the speed of light. Lets say you even had a ready made source of copper gas that was half a meter away from your assembly. It would take 285 years to print your part.


EDIT: that would be for one atom at a time,... in bunches of 100,000 it would take 24 hours even given that extremely advanced technology.
eachus
3 / 5 (5) Jan 26, 2013
antialias said:
In a non-scarcity environment (as we'd have with fully robotic workforce) the whole concepts of ownership (whether by the individual or the community) becomes moot.


Sigh! Economics is the study of scarcity. If a good is not scarce, ownership of that good is not an issue. But even if assemblers get much faster, and cheaper, and they will, there are goods which will retain value.

Realtors say that the most important values in a property are location, location, and location. This is going to become even more true. As manufacturing go toward zero--and this has already been true in electronics for decades--rare elements, such as gold and platinum will become the only scarce goods that can easily be traded. Government can continue to issue currencies, but the "real" backing of those currencies will be the ownership of land. (Metal stocks held by governments may be relatively huge, but they will be dominated by the value of government owned real-estate.)
jmlvu
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2013
I need to submit a patent for a replicator as seen on Star Trek before iRobot does. This is a example where all future technology development will stop because companies have patented ideas without developing anything.
HTK
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 26, 2013
In the end capitalism will not work.

Robots will be more intelligent, faster, virtually free, work forever, without the emotional attitude and defective behavior in the end.

Robots will make all jobs redundant so what do humans do?

We will become in fact, academics, artists, and explorers, like star trekkies... where human time and energy is spent mostly on thought...
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2013
This thread has been great reading I see it has pushed a lot of "buttons". But back to the article...
IRobot may be able to patent the machine, but does that mean they are patenting the process, as well?
If so, they are attempting to own the process that creates ants, microbes, plants, horses and yes - people...
How's THAT for a circle of life...:-)
Code_Warrior
5 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2013
Further there will be no need for a police system to protect against theft since there will be no motivation for theft.

Perhaps not specifically for theft, but there will still be motivation for other crimes like murder, so you can't eliminate the need for laws and their enforcement, so you still need police.

Ownership will not be any more required than you require ownership of a taxi today.

As a consequence you also give up any right to privacy and any rights against unreasonable search and seizure. After all, if you own nothing then you can't claim that the police have no right to search your home and take whatever they like as evidence against you. In fact, you don't even have anything you can call a home because anyone can just move in to anyone else's abode any time they like.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2013
After all, if you own nothing then you can't claim that the police have no right to search your home

Huh? That logic you have got to explain.

Seizure makes no sense when you can make whatever you wish, but you do have privacy issues (e.g. your private data).
Property rights may be supplanted by rights to a private space.

Perhaps not specifically for theft, but there will still be motivation for other crimes like murder, so you can't eliminate the need for laws and their enforcement, so you still need police.

That's a valid point. However, that no one NEEDS to work doesn't mean that no one WANTS to. And I could imagine some people would want to work at keeping the peace (or settling disputes) in a part time capacity.

Crimes of passion will still be an issue. But any other type of crime (the types that are for wealth or power-through-wealth) would be pointless.
Code_Warrior
1 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2013
Huh? That logic you have got to explain.

The longer something takes to make and/or the more of a limited resource is needed to make it, the greater the likelihood that someone will choose to take it rather than make it. This is especially true of something like a house. Some land is better than other land. Why wouldn't someone simply choose to take your house if it's location is better for them than one that could be built new, but at an undesirable location? After all, you don't own it and can easily build another one for free. What crime has been committed? Since taking things is not a crime, there is nothing stopping the police from taking your home for themselves and using whatever they find there against you in a criminal proceeding. Even if you banned that, they could easily ask someone else to take your home and throw all your stuff out for them to pick up.

While you could create some notion of a right to a private space how is that any different than ownership?
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2013
The longer something takes to make and/or the more of a limited resource is needed to make it

That's why I posited construction AND deconstruction. The amount of a material that you need at any one time is limited. So even if we're talking gold or somesuch the amount you actually need to have (total) is rather small.

Why wouldn't someone simply choose to take your house if it's location is better for them than

Why would one location be better than another? And people can compromise. There is such a thing as "talking to each other" (and - even though that may sound totally crazy to someone from the US: "refraining from violence")
Since taking things is not a crime

Where did you get that? It's still your alottment of resources that made a thing. There's no point in taking resources from someone else if you have enough, is there?
Noumenon
2 / 5 (48) Jan 27, 2013
Why would one location be better than another? And people can compromise. There is such a thing as "talking to each other" ....


If your fantasy world hinges upon the non-existence of disagreements, why on earth propose it ?

...(and - even though that may sound totally crazy to someone from the US: "refraining from violence")


I thought you were from Germany? And you have the nerve to make such insulting generalizations about an entire country?!!

Your cartoonishly naive social utopia would require the control of human behavior, and could only come about at the threat of violence to the masses.
VendicarE
2 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2013
NumenTard is opposed to the control of human behaviour.

That is why he supports the legalization of Child Molestation.

Real Libertarians always do.

"Your cartoonishly naive social utopia would require the control of human behavior" - NumenTard
Noumenon
2 / 5 (47) Jan 27, 2013
NumenTard is opposed to the control of human behaviour.

That is why he supports the legalization of Child Molestation.

Real Libertarians always do.

"Your cartoonishly naive social utopia would require the control of human behavior" - NumenTard


What? This is why I skip over most of your posts. The water-surface guy makes more sense then you.
FrankHerbert2
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2013
What? This is why I skip over most of your posts. The water-surface guy makes more sense then you.

The irony here is suffocating.
Code_Warrior
1 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2013
Why would one location be better than another?
Dry land is better than swamp land, regions with water are better than arid regions, some people prefer to be close to the center of a town or city and would consider a home near the center to be better than one far from the center... There are many reasons that people will think some land is better than other land and I don't have the space to list them all, nor can I possibly think of all of the reasons.
Where did you get that? It's still your alottment of resources that made a thing. There's no point in taking resources from someone else if you have enough, is there?
If I take something that nobody owns, what crime have I committed? I may take it because I wish to use it as evidence of a crime. I may take it because I've used up my allotment of resources and can't make one. Maybe the thing I want to build requires more resources than I have and nobody will give me any of their resources so I take items that have what I need.
Whydening Gyre
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2013
What? This is why I skip over most of your posts. The water-surface guy makes more sense then you.

The irony here is suffocating.

Suffocating? I find it incredibly hilarious, simply because it is diversionary nonsense...
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2013
If your fantasy world hinges upon the non-existence of disagreements, why on earth propose it ?

Ask yourself: what do disagreements hinge upon? Those that actually result in something that requires intervention of the law?
Mostly posessions.

I thought you were from Germany? And you have the nerve to make such insulting generalizations about an entire country?

The list of wars the US has fough (an is fighting) in recent history is pretty long. The list of wars germany has fought in recent history? Not so much (to the point where almost no one that fought in the last one is even alive today)

So yeah: I make those generalizations (also not only in the light of wars but also in the light of US citizens' attitude towards guns, the crime statistics, etc. ). Everything about the US, from literature, to movies, to games, to foreign policy, to people's attitude screams "violence is the best and only option".
Noumenon
2 / 5 (48) Jan 28, 2013
Except Germany didn't just "fight in a war" did they,... they systematically and outright murdered six million people, not as a matter of self defense either, just murdered them to purge them as in genecide,...and started a war that ultimately left fifty million dead,...and yes that occurred in modern times.

Is it appropriate to generalize about a people that would go along with that? Is there something intrinsically violent and murderously racist about Germans in particular? The USA has no comparable history.

The wars that the USA have been in are generally justified, and the violence is way over blown. It occurs not wide spread but in certain areas, mostly by supporters of your far leftist mentality.

Your last sentence demonstrates that you're victim to anti-USA propaganda. I live in the USA for two decades and have never witnessed violence nor do I even know anyone who was the victim of violence.
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 28, 2013
Noumenon lumbered on this gem
The USA has no comparable history.
Two nuclear drops killed how many ? Mostly innocent and not directly involved with war - the last one on Nagasaki to appease Stalin who suggested Hiroshima was a fluke !
Japanese were in process of surrender, Nagasaki was a bad vengeful show of power to warn - no useful humanitarian purpose, rather ugly !

Vietnam, attempt to protect French colonialism, fail !

Noumenon went on with lumbered ugly justification of violence from a country that is the worlds largest arms producer by far
The wars that the USA have been in are generally justified, and the violence is way over blown.
Noumenon continued irony
I live in the USA for two decades and have never witnessed violence nor do I even know anyone who was the victim of violence.
Well yes one can be isolated & still also put your head in the sand & not notice the USA is in a widespread malaise, Isnt the US gun rate of deaths largest in the world [still]...
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (47) Jan 28, 2013
It was rationalized that many more would have died given the alternative of an invasion of a country that had little concern over its own people. The USA made the effort to get them to surrender, they refused. It was a decision of war where some 50 million where killed,.. a fight for survival.

"It was estimated that casualties would be 1 million Americans and half a million British in the first invasion alone. Some cynics say we used it to scare Stalin as well, but the fact remains that they ignored an ultimatum on 27 July 1945 after enduring the worst conventional bombs could do. A powerful argument remains that the Bomb saved allied and Japanese lives."

Isnt the US gun rate of deaths largest in the world [still]


No.

It's a fad to be anti-America around the world, yet everyone wants to live here.
Hari_Seldon
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2013
Japan was not an existential threat to the US by the time nuclear weapons where used. The US could have detonated the nuclear weapons in Tokyo Bay as a show of force. Had Japan not complied, they could have been contained. Had they attempted to rebuild their Navy, more weapons could have been produced before Japan could become an existential threat again. Truman was a war criminal. MacArthur was a war criminal.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (46) Jan 28, 2013
Japan was not an existential threat to the US by the time nuclear weapons where used. The US could have detonated the nuclear weapons in Tokyo Bay as a show of force. Had Japan not complied, they could have been contained. Had they attempted to rebuild their Navy, more weapons could have been produced before Japan could become an existential threat again. Truman was a war criminal. MacArthur was a war criminal.


Only to those who rewrite history. Your post is BS.
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2013
Hari_Seldon brought up a good point & beat me to it
The US could have detonated the nuclear weapons in Tokyo Bay as a show of force...
What pray tell would have been wrong with that Noumenon, so many innocents under the thumb of an emperor & instead of freeing them the USA slaughters them - FFS !

Hari_Seldon stated
Truman was a war criminal. MacArthur was a war criminal.
This does appear to be the case, what else is it called, 'justifiable vengeance' perhaps or 'collateral incident show of force' to 'really give it to them' ?

Noumenon got mixed up by claiming
Only to those who rewrite history. Your post is BS.
This is not rewriting history, Hari_Seldon offered an opinion, to those interested in peace, US was disingenuous and Hari_Seldon reminds us US was intent upon their goal of murder.

It is true the powers in US could have saved so many lives by a show of force, even a high altitude 'second sun' as it were !

If not ugly vengeance then clearly an experiment ?!?
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (44) Jan 28, 2013
The US could have detonated the nuclear weapons in Tokyo Bay as a show of force...
What pray tell would have been wrong with that Noumenon, so many innocents under the thumb of an emperor & instead of freeing them the USA slaughters them.


Because the military experts at that time decided that would not work, as Japan was already 'shown force' as I pointed out above, and that nuking would save more lives and end the war sooner, which was desperately required.

Why would they respond to the blowing up of sand, when they had already ignored 'the worst conventional bombs could do'.

You're not a military expert. You have not recreated the context of that war. You have not studies Japans atrocities to understand what kind of country it was at the time.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (44) Jan 28, 2013
Truman was a war criminal. MacArthur was a war criminal.
This does appear to be the case, what else is it called, 'justifiable vengeance' perhaps or 'collateral incident show of force' to 'really give it to them' ?


Only to one completely ignorant of history. Do you have any idea of the savagery in war crimes of Japan at that time?

It is rather insulting that some dimwit living in 2013 would think that a "show of force" would be useful in that war. It makes me think you have zero clue about it. Only a Real Physical Force made any difference in such a savage war.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (44) Jan 28, 2013
to those interested in peace, US was disingenuous and Hari_Seldon reminds us US was intent upon their goal of murder.


You have no interest in peace at all, for otherwise you wouldn't interrupt your time praising the USA for its peace efforts around the world, with such speculative and uneducated drivel.

Neither of you two idiots have enough historical perspective to know what you're talking about, nor to assess those decisions.

I can justify calling you idiots, because you imply that the "goal" or motivation of the USA was "murder" for its own sake, rather than in ending the war.

This tells me that you're only interest is "being amti-America" and you're disinterested in historical fact.
FrankHerbert3
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2013
Because the military experts at that time decided that would not work
Appeal to authority. MacArthur thought oblitering the USSR and China were the right thing to do. He's a military expert, right? Guess we aren't allowed to challenge him on that.
nuking would save more lives and end the war sooner
Speculation.
Why would they respond to the blowing up of sand, when they had already ignored 'the worst conventional bombs could do'.
Witnessing the blast with their own eyes wouldn't have shaken them at all? Oh that's right, I should have remember I'm not allowed to argue with dead military "experts" about slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians. Heh.
You're not a military expert.
And you are? Oh that's right, you're just parroting them, totally ok.
Japans atrocities
Waterboarding?
Do you have any idea of the savagery in war crimes of Japan at that time?
Waterboarding?
FrankHerbert4
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2013
It is rather insulting that some dimwit living in 2013 would think that a "show of force" would be useful in that war.
So most of the people involved in the creation of the bomb are dimwits, or they aren't because they aren't living in 2013? Einstein? Oppenheimer? Feynman?
You have no interest in peace at all, for otherwise you wouldn't interrupt your time praising the USA for its peace efforts around the world, with such speculative and uneducated drivel.
Iran, Iraq, Iraq, Iran? South America? Africa? Yeah, keep on patting yourself on the back. The US overthrows more democratically elected governments and supports more tyrants than any other nation.
with such speculative and uneducated drivel.
You're just frothing, aren't you?
Neither of you two idiots have enough historical perspective to know what you're talking about, nor to assess those decisions.
You're a foreigner. Know your place.
FrankHerbert5
2 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2013
I can justify calling you idiots, because you imply that the "goal" or motivation of the USA was "murder" for its own sake, rather than in ending the war.
Who said that? Quote? Are you seeing things again?

This tells me that you're only interest is "being amti-America" and you're disinterested in historical fact.
You are a foreigner that is afraid of xenophobia. You feel you must be the most patriotic person on the block to avoid being labeled as an other. Disgusting behavior. The converted are always the most fervent.

[regarding his and Colonel Curtis LeMay's involvement in the bombing of Japan during World War II]
LeMay said if we lost the war that we would have all been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he's right. He... and I'd say I... were behaving as war criminals.
-Robert McNamara
I guess McNamera was an idiot-non-military-expert.

For being so wrong so often, you try awfully hard Noumenon.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (43) Jan 28, 2013
LeMay said if we lost the war that we would have all been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he's right. He... and I'd say I... were behaving as war criminals.


He was speaking about the political reality of the time, that the victors define who are the war criminals. Also, he agrees with me, not you, in that ultimately lives were saved by not having to invade.

Because the military experts at that time decided that would not work


Appeal to authority.


No, there the one's who made the decision. They were the authority for that decision.

nuking would save more lives and end the war sooner


Speculation.


It was not speculation, it was the basis of the calculated risk made by the military at the time. Speculation is second guessing motives 75 years later out of context.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (43) Jan 28, 2013
I can justify calling you idiots, because you imply that the "goal" or motivation of the USA was "murder" for its own sake, rather than in ending the war.
Who said that? Quote? Are you seeing things again?


Yes I am, lies and ignorance. How did you miss their implications? Are you blinded by your bias?

US was disingenuous and [...] US was intent upon their goal of murder. - Mike_Massen,


Are you going to express your objection to this statement?
FrankHerbert6
1 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2013
He was speaking about the political reality of the time, that the victors define who are the war criminals.
You don't see the irony in admitting that, do you?
No, there the one's who made the decision. They were the authority for that decision.
It was incorrect to say that was an appeal to authority. Unlike you, I'm capable of admitting I'm wrong. However, your assertion that anyone who disagrees with the military should sit down and shut up is quite authoritarian.
It was not speculation, it was the basis of the calculated risk made by the military at the time.
Fine it wasn't speculation. It was a flat out lie. Japan no longer had the ability to threaten the United States to the point of warranting the use of two nuclear weapons. An invasion was not necessary. Japan could have been contained or shown force in a more civilized way.

Are you going to express your objection to this statement?
I object to characterizing the citizenry of the US that way. Truman, no.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (41) Jan 28, 2013
However, your assertion that anyone who disagrees with the military should sit down and shut up is quite authoritarian.


Where did I say that? You just made that up. The historic debate since the war, has been 'was the nuke avoidable', 'had an invasion been used instead, would more lives been lost? Those are legitimate question,... most historians having expressed their opinions, and most sided with what I expressed above.

What has NOT been a legitimate debate is whether the USA's motivation was to murder Japanese for the sake of murdering Japanese,... in the same vain as the atrocities of the Japanese and the Germans. This implication and distortion of facts is what I objected to above.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (41) Jan 28, 2013
It was not speculation, it was the basis of the calculated risk made by the military at the time.
Fine it wasn't speculation. It was a flat out lie. Japan no longer had the ability to threaten the United States to the point of warranting the use of two nuclear weapons. An invasion was not necessary. Japan could have been contained or shown force in a more civilized way.


THAT is speculation from 2013. The decision was (rational) judgment in 1945.

If it was a lie, then there must have been an ulterior motive to nuking them, in your anti-American mind. What was it then?

Are you going to express your objection to this statement?
I object to characterizing the citizenry of the US that way. Truman, no


So, according to you Truman and the USA military wanted to murder Japanese?
FrankHerbert2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2013
Where did I say that?
It's implied.

The historic debate since the war, has been 'was the nuke avoidable', 'had an invasion been used instead, would more lives been lost?
Sure, if you were deadset on total surrender, as Truman was, the nuclear weapons were the better option. The point being made is invasion was not necessary. Japan no longer had the capability to existentially harm the US. Their Navy was decimated. They lost the war in the Pacific.

That is speculation from 2013.
You realize historians themselves disagree quite a bit. And as you admitted, history is written by the victors. History, as you are using it, is not indisputable fact. Just look at the historiography of the Civil War. The existence of historiography itself shows how silly your assertion is.
What was it then?
For Truman? Politics and xenophobia for starters. Also, questioning the motives of the governent is not anti-American. I guess you haven't been here long enough to learn that.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (41) Jan 28, 2013
He was speaking about the political reality of the time, that the victors define who are the war criminals.
You don't see the irony in admitting that, do you?


Nope. The historians determine the facts eventually and have found that Japan and Germany committed stunning atrocities as a matter of murderous policy,... light years beyond anything the allies did as a matter of the necessity of fighting war.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (41) Jan 28, 2013
The historic debate since the war, has been 'was the nuke avoidable', 'had an invasion been used instead, would more lives been lost?
Sure, if you were deadset on total surrender, as Truman was, the nuclear weapons were the better option.


An unconditional surrender was necessary. You opinion, is a minority one, especially in asserting that Truman killed a quarter million people for political reasons.

And as you admitted, history is written by the victors.


Nope never said that. The political victors define who the war criminals are,... the historians eventually figure it out.
Whydening Gyre
2 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2013
Wow, has THIS thread gotten off topic...:-)
However, in the current discussion, Noum is correct in taking a more nuetral stance. We only have the info (and therefore perspective) from after the event...
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (27) Jan 29, 2013
Since FrankHerbert is mass rating me ones today, I'll take it as capitulation on his part.