×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Printable AR-15 Mag Gets More Reliable; YouTube Pulls Video of Demo

timothy posted about a year ago | from the but-when-is-general-release? dept.

Your Rights Online 450

Wired reports that the 3-D printed AR-15 magazine from Defense Distributed we mentioned a few weeks back has been improved through design, and is now robust enough to last through firing (at least) several hundred rounds, rather than fewer than a hundred as in the previous iteration. CNET says the video demonstration on YouTube was first yanked, then restored, but as of now seems to have been yanked again.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

450 comments

Yanked? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42843723)

The message says it violates Youtubes police against "spams, scams and commercially deceptive" videos..

How, exactly? Is google jumping into this dumbshit political dickwaving contest now?

Re:Yanked? (5, Insightful)

scottbomb (1290580) | about a year ago | (#42843745)

They've been in the political dickwaving contest for a long time now. Guess who's side they're on?

Re:Yanked? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42844251)

They've been in the political dickwaving contest for a long time now. Guess who's side they're on?

Their own? No, wait. That would make your question redundant. Lets hope no one mods it that way.

Re:Yanked? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42844667)

They've been in the political dickwaving contest for a long time now. Guess who's side they're on?

Their own? Just like any entity?
If you think otherwise, you are a fool.

Re:Yanked? (5, Informative)

derGoldstein (1494129) | about a year ago | (#42843853)

Also, I don't see how taking this particular one down is effective, considering you can see all their other videos here [youtube.com].

First strike (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#42844099)

As I understand YouTube's TOS, a first strike means two things: 1. loss of "good standing", which means loss of ability to post unlisted videos, and 2. two more slip-ups and all other videos associated with that account get yanked.

Re:First strike (1)

huckamania (533052) | about a year ago | (#42844581)

Oh Noes! Where will they ever find another place to put their videos?

YouTube is convenient, but not necessary. Anyways, as long as they don't yank the German making crossbows out of plywood, I think I'll survive.

Re:Yanked? (2)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | about a year ago | (#42843985)

Flagging a video for spam is unfortunately the easiest way to give a strike, because it covers so many ambiguous things like keywords and it's also hard to appeal them.


I've had one falsely marked as spam/scam/deceptive for being nothing more than a simple video about an obscure bad shareware platformer. My simple, polite appeal explaining that it's a gameplay video was rejected.

Deceptive provenance (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#42844115)

Just a guess: Perhaps "deceptive" or "scam" is a way of saying "this video may infringe the copyright in the shareware platformer, but we can't say it was pulled for copyright infringement if the complainant is someone other than the copyright owner, so we'll say it's deceptive as to the ownership of copyright in the video".

Re:Deceptive provenance (1)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | about a year ago | (#42844435)

Or maybe it's due to the single frame of shareware registration information that has to make its presence obvious. The whole "send $10 to some address in canada" thing. Either way, covering any shareware game that nags for registration for gameplay is vulnerable to the 'scam/fraud' flagging.

Re:Deceptive provenance (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year ago | (#42844665)

Or maybe they're saying they've had complaints that the producers of the video are full of shit and the magazine won't hold up to an acceptable level.

Facepalm. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42843735)

If anyone deserves rendition to some out-of-country cubbyhole, it's these dweebs. They're eroding America's security from the inside out. Even the muslims aren't this insidious.

Re:Facepalm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42843945)

An apt comment subject if ever one there was.

Good one Youtube (4, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | about a year ago | (#42843785)

Streisand effect for the win.

Re:Good one Youtube (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42843827)

Good grief.

Every time I hear that term I want to vomit.

And by the way, very few people care about this shit except gun nuts like you.

Re:Good one Youtube (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42843957)

And by the way, very few people care about this shit except gun nuts like you.

Nope, nobody [politico.com] else [reason.com] cares. Not one [usatoday.com] bit [google.com].

Re:Good one Youtube (5, Interesting)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#42843991)

I care because these guys are going to get 3D printing criminalized and encourage government support of curated computing.

Re:Good one Youtube (4, Interesting)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#42844069)

Now this is a very good point. Will people have to register 3D printes with Homeland Security now?

Re:Good one Youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42844331)

All of the goo and glue and powders and such will have to have some form of identification showing which printer printed it. You'll have to get a NICS background check. Etc.

It's not criminals that will lose it's you who will be the criminal. Criminals work for the state how else can they keep order and charge you for it if there are no criminals? So they make them.

Re:Good one Youtube (4, Insightful)

Sipper (462582) | about a year ago | (#42843889)

Streisand effect for the win.

Basically that's where this is headed. "The more you tighten your grip, the more this is going to slip through your fingers." We're basically headed down the path of building our own weapons from scratch, just like what has happened in warzones elsewhere.

Re:Good one Youtube (2)

J'raxis (248192) | about a year ago | (#42844441)

Yup. Trying to censor content like this is the best thing gun-grabbers could possibly do to ensure its publicity. So, keep it up, guys! All you're doing is helping us.

Can of worms (2)

huckamania (533052) | about a year ago | (#42844605)

Being able to print gun parts is a much bigger issue then YouTube yanking a video. The current push for gun control doesn't address this issue at all. It would be funny if it didn't have so many implications for society at large. Printable guns are going to happen. Printable guns will be disposable and untraceable. Why keep a gun when you can print another.

NOT ROCKET SCIENCE (4, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#42843793)

Why is this at all important? You can make a magazine 'the old way" with a spring, some sheet metal, a spot welder and a metal brake (something that bends sheet metal). Yes, it takes some skill, but you're saying that a 3D printer is at the level of an iPhone?

The canonical 'assault rife', the AK-47, is pounded out in factories that look more like garbage dumps than anything else. If you look at pictures of the magazines you see a bunch that look, well, rather primitive. But they work.

This is not rocket science, folks. It's machine shop 101.

Re:NOT ROCKET SCIENCE (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year ago | (#42843847)

but 3d printing makes it easier for the masses to make it!

never mind bubba could probably bang one of these out using a car door and JB Weld in half the time, think of the children

Re:NOT ROCKET SCIENCE (5, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#42843861)

"The Children" do not want an AR-15. They want an EMP gun.

As a matter of fact, so do I. Ammo is getting hard to get.

Re:NOT ROCKET SCIENCE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42843925)

Yeah but Zombie Strippers ha shown that Zombies are immune to EMP. You will need real guns for the coming zombie apocalypse!

Re:NOT ROCKET SCIENCE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42844151)

Considering most gun nuts are afraid of the government, an EMP gun, would be a great idea. Nowadays, soldiers, have all kinds of technology to aid them, including drones. It won't be long until it will be cheaper to buy gadgets than properly train the solders that use them.

Re:NOT ROCKET SCIENCE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42843863)

I suspect the answer is that:
1) You don't need any amount of skill, assuming you have access to a 3D printer and the files necessary to print the 3D model. You don't even need a metal brake.
2) This would bypass anything the government would introduce banning the sale of large capacity magazines.

Re:NOT ROCKET SCIENCE (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42843931)

This is not rocket science, folks. It's machine shop 101.

Notice they don't have machine shop in high schools any more. Hell, when I was a kid we has metal shop in the 7th grade, that has LONG since been done away with, along with chemistry clubs, rifle clubs, and pretty much anything geared towards giving people knowledge and skills to do things themselves. Chemistry isn't even a requirement in high school any more, and if you want to try buying something as simple as a beaker or test tube, or the equipment to blow your own glass, you'll end up on a DEA/ATF watchlist almost instantly and suddenly discover difficulty when traveling via airplane or crossing the border.

At one point in time almost anybody with a little time could cobble something like this together, but these days we've managed to make people dumb enough and removed enough basic manufacturing skills from our society that it's really not a common skill set. But if these 3D printers get cheap enough, you won't need any skills, equipment, or know-how.... just a credit card and an electrical outlet.

Re:NOT ROCKET SCIENCE (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42844017)

Then what makes you think 3D printers won't become similarly restricted?

Re:NOT ROCKET SCIENCE (2)

RoccamOccam (953524) | about a year ago | (#42844395)

If 3D printers become outlawed, then people will just start making them with their 3D printers. That should be obvious.

Re:NOT ROCKET SCIENCE (1)

Dekker3D (989692) | about a year ago | (#42844463)

To do that, you'd have to regulate stepper motors, plastic filament (or pellets, with some of the projects going on), materials with somewhat decent electrical resistance, or materials with high heat tolerance. Or home electronics kits, like Arduinos.

My Reprap prints at a layer height of 0.1 mm, when I'm not waiting months for -both- my failed-on-arrival Arduinos to be replaced and sent back to me... I could print this magazine and it would work, but here in the Netherlands there's just no reason to (less crime, also no way to get a gun to go with the magazine). It's made out of mostly off the shelf equipment, except for one RAMPS board that some enthusiast makes (with 3 or 4 alternatives made by other folks), and some plastic printed parts.

I don't see how it'd be at all possible to regulate this, except maybe making the software itself illegal. And in that case, we will just move to Tor or I2P. 3D printers are so simple in their design that it's practically impossible to stop them.

Re:NOT ROCKET SCIENCE (1)

derGoldstein (1494129) | about a year ago | (#42843935)

I think the main reason this is important is the ultimate goal of this project: To be able to print an entire gun using a 3D printer.

There are plenty of things that can be made manually instead of using a 3D printer, but you need *some* expertise to do so, even if it's minimal. With a 3D printer, you just need to know how to operate the printer -- and they're becoming easier to use and cheaper every day.

Re:NOT ROCKET SCIENCE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42843939)

Uh, yeah, but, like, 3D printing and stuff, granddad. It's like totally the future?

Re:NOT ROCKET SCIENCE (2)

johnny cashed (590023) | about a year ago | (#42844193)

You are right, you could hack together a magazine like you describe, but production magazines are stamped in presses using dies. All of this can be made by someone skilled in the metal arts, with the resources. I've heard that a FN FAL magazine uses something like 10 different dies to get the body metal formed to shape. And another set for the follower and bottom plate.

Magazines are simple devices, but actually producing quality, reliable magazines is out of reach for most people. With this, someone with access to the appropriate 3d printer (which is also out of reach for most people) can make one.

Re:NOT ROCKET SCIENCE (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#42844481)

Except that the magazine in question has 'just' managed a couple of hundred rounds before tanking. So we're back at the learning curve.

I guess what I'm saying is that the tech to make rifle magazines is so generally available as to be useless to try to limit. Even in my tiny little town, there are three or four guys with the requisite machine shop that could crank high quality parts out. As cheaply as the factory? No, probably more hand forming and filing.

But we are NOT anywhere near dumping a file into the a 3D printer and pulling out a magazine, popping it into the rifle and running off to stem the apocalypse. Wake me up when you can. Until then, I've got my Sherline tools and welders and whatnot. And you know what? I've not been bothered by anybody yet. I really don't think the feds care that much. They're too busy entrapping disaffected teenagers.

Intellectually Dishonest (5, Insightful)

tokencode (1952944) | about a year ago | (#42843801)

Youtube (AKA Google) is being intellectually dishonest and going back on its ideal of providing unbiased free access to information. Google has become an active filterer of this information. The video is not graphic, it is not sexual, it is relevant and political and Google has decided that is not appropriate for viewers.... Thank you Big Brother Google for protecting me from information. Maybe we should start filtering books, or speech?

offtopic... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42843857)

but isn't it sad that violence and gore is more acceptable than sex? Show a beheading in one of Tarantino's movie is ok, but show a penis on the screen and it's x-rated?

Re:offtopic... (1)

tokencode (1952944) | about a year ago | (#42843973)

I completely agree... I think the prudish culture was invented by guys with small penises... or maybe its because its easier to explain a gun to a kid than a penis.

Re:offtopic... (1)

garyoa1 (2067072) | about a year ago | (#42844181)

Actually that's pretty much only in America. Head off to Europe and you'll find billboards you can't show on tv here.

Re:offtopic... (1)

Gamer_2k4 (1030634) | about a year ago | (#42844009)

but isn't it sad that violence and gore is more acceptable than sex? Show a beheading in one of Tarantino's movie is ok, but show a penis on the screen and it's x-rated?

How is it sad? We all know that no one is going to kill anyone from watching a movie, so it's okay to be desensitized to violence. However, almost everyone is going to have sex at some point, and being desensitized to that would be terrible.

I'm glad people don't walk around naked, because I want nudity to be special.

Re:offtopic... (3, Insightful)

Immostlyharmless (1311531) | about a year ago | (#42844157)

Except nudity isn't special, It's how every single person has ever come in to the world. The only reason nudity is special is because a bunch of prudish Holier than thous who weren't getting any decided it was against God to show a little T&A. T&A is not special. It's all over the internet, people give it away for everything from attention to crack to money. Anything that can be bartered for a fiver isn't special, and wishing it so isn't going to change a damned thing.

Re:offtopic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42844185)

Right...because places like Brazil and Europe are totally desensitized and TOTALLY not having sex.

Violence won't make you kill a person the next day. It contributes to a *culture* of acceptable violence. Take the dumbasses who tried to shoot each other at a Texas community college a few weeks ago...they thought they could shoot each other without consequences. Guess what? If you don't hit your target, the bullet keeps traveling, and statistically speaking, being in a crowded school campus the bullet is likely to hit someone.

I'm not arguing against guns. I'm arguing irresponsible use of it and the media makes it look easy especially for the impressionable little ones. Hell, look at youtube and all those kids who tried to do Parkour after James Bond came out and ended up hurting their dumb selves. Gun ownership shouldn't be a right but a privilege, just as some people shouldn't have kids until they're mature enough to be able to take care of oneself before taking care of another living thing. That's what annoys me about the 2nd amendment...it guarantees the individual to own a gun, even if such individual is a complete moron and doesn't even know the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Re:offtopic... (4, Insightful)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about a year ago | (#42844393)

Gun ownership shouldn't be a right but a privilege, just as some people shouldn't have kids until they're mature enough to be able to take care of oneself before taking care of another living thing. That's what annoys me about the 2nd amendment...it guarantees the individual to own a gun, even if such individual is a complete moron and doesn't even know the rest of the Bill of Rights.

One of the (many) problems with your proposal is...who gets to define the rules as to who is allowed to exercise this 'privilege'. Remember...any power you give to an administration you like, you also grant to the next administration which you may not like.

Easy. The government. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42844555)

Yes, the big scary omnipotent govt of the US of A who also have the militia present when you vote, just to make sure you vote for the *right* person.

Give me a break. I know the US is not perfect but it's not Congo either. Businesses have to get a license (more like a tax id so the IRS can keep tabs on you), there's hunting license, and the almighty driver's license. Oh, there's also marriage license, bi/annual certification to be a social worker/ hazmat handler/ etc.

Who licenses or certifies them? I bet 90% is the big bad government you fear so much.
Sure, to earn the right to procreate should be a privilege but that's a lofty goal. Gun ownership is not a life necessity.

I wasn't a fan of Bush, but I'm not going to stockpile my basement with survivalist bullshit thinking the world is going to end. Obama is just slightly better, but not by much and again, I'm not going to stockpile ammo. This doom and gloom view of future administrations is overstated. Name an administrator's policy which has directly or indirectly caused harm to you or your family, and where a gun has defused the situation?

I hate this label, but we're a first-world nation, and things are far far from stable. Even when things were bad in Greece and Spain (which I went past summer), the protests and violence were very isolated.

How about Katrina? Or LA riots? Personally, I would've chosen to leave. If I had gotten stuck, I wouldn't need a gun - just like many others in the area and are still alive today. I have insurance. No, it would not have been fun to get those claims, but escalating a conflict with a gun is sure as hell worse.

Re:offtopic... (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#42844509)

I'm glad people don't walk around naked, because I want nudity to be special.

I am also glad people don't walk around naked.

Because, frankly, the overwhelming majority of people look awful enough wearing clothes, much less naked.

Being able to ogle the one percent who would look pretty nice naked wouldn't make up for the 99 percent who would blast your retinae and convince your brain to shutdown rather than remember what you just saw....

Re:offtopic... (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#42844525)

I'm glad people don't walk around naked, because I want nudity to be special.

I'm glad people don't walk around naked because I have some modicum of taste and decorum. The vast majority of people really, really need to leave their clothes on.

Google is only a company (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#42843921)

You could host the video somewhere else, you know. Google deciding not to host it on their services does not in any way prevent you from hosting it somehwere else - or hosting it yourself. If it is not your video, you don't have to work too hrad to find out who posted it and contact them directly for it so you can host it somewhere for them.

Private YouTube (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#42844141)

I agree with you that one should consider alternatives to Google. So what software do you recommend to make a private alternative to YouTube whose users can upload videos, have them automatically converted to both MP4 and WebM at several resolutions, and have them displayed through both HTML5 and Flash Player?

Re:Private YouTube (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about a year ago | (#42844517)

MediaCore [mediacorecommunity.org] seems nice. No WebM support, but then again, that battles seems lost. Even Firefox has decided to support H.264 (using OS codecs).

Re:Intellectually Dishonest (3, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | about a year ago | (#42844235)

Youtube and google are in the business of selling advertising. There has never been ant deal to be 'fair' or 'honest' or 'open'. There is only a deal to make money. This is not broadcast TV where for profit corporations were given public airwaves in exchange for a level of public service. This is not cable TV where for profit firms are given monopolies in exchange for reliable programming.

No google hosts content so that it can get users to log in and allow cookies so it can mine data that can be sold to advertisers. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything that costs it money, like defending content on the basis on first amendments rights, is likely counter to that profit mission. In particular most advertisers do not want to be associated with weapons of mass murder, and it is the advertisers, not the end users, that are the customers.

Now, google at one time said it would do no evil, but doing no evil is far from doing good. I mean I can go into a school, threaten to kill everyone, and then not do it, and claim to have done no evil. Google never said it was in business to make the world a better place. It is in business to make a huge profit, while causes minmal damage to it's victims.

Re:Intellectually Dishonest (1)

Threni (635302) | about a year ago | (#42844643)

I don't see what it's got to do with you. Are you hosting this sort of video at home, as part of your business? "I'm not hosting videos, but these guys are, and they should be also hosting this sort of video!". Uh..sit down and shut up, dude. It's easy to be an expert when your just typing instead of doing stuff.

Whew. (2)

dtmancom (925636) | about a year ago | (#42843811)

I am very relieved that youtube is protecting me from dangerous information. I might hurt myself or others.

Lords Forbid us to be on equal footing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42843817)

Because that opposes their will to subjugate.

Re:Lords Forbid us to be on equal footing (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | about a year ago | (#42843911)

Equal footing with whom exactly?

Cos you're really going to be able to stop the tyrannical government with your AR-15 vs their cruise missiles and drones.

Re:Lords Forbid us to be on equal footing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42843983)

The Viet Cong and Taliban seem to have done pretty well for themselves doing just that.

Re:Lords Forbid us to be on equal footing (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | about a year ago | (#42844261)

The Viet Cong have to face drones?

Re:Lords Forbid us to be on equal footing (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#42844557)

No, the Cong had to face B-52s, F-105s, F-4s, etc.

The only thing interesting about drones is that the pilots aren't sitting in a seat onboard. Contrary to popular rumour, they are NOT more lethal than, say, an F-105 with six tons of ordnance plus cannon. Or an F-4 with nine tons of ordnance (no cannon, though).

Re:Lords Forbid us to be on equal footing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42844025)

How about equal footing to share basic ideas? Will any pro-liberty, or thought provoking video be subject to the same scrutiny?

Re:Lords Forbid us to be on equal footing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42844055)

You can't make your own cruise missiles or drones?

Spam, scams or commercially deceptive? (2)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | about a year ago | (#42843849)

Now the question, is that because someone has figured out it is the best way to get Google to react fast, or because a AR-15 magazine manufacturer is protecting his business?

Without being able to see the video, how much of a commercial sales pitch could this be anyway?

Re:Spam, scams or commercially deceptive? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#42843913)

See my earlier post. Magazines for 'assault rifles' are not high on the list of Difficult Things To Make. The order fulfillment / paperwork / advertising aspect of selling these things is likely harder. If you want one, you go to Shotgun news and order it. If they make it illegal, you go to Shotgun news and order the version that has a plastic tab glued in the bottom so it 'only' holds three or seven or whatever number of rounds is OK.

Baby killers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42843867)

Are going to go to hell. The people that work on this project are responsible for the inevitable massacres that will be perpetuated with it.

Re:Baby killers (2)

kcmastrpc (2818817) | about a year ago | (#42843899)

Does that mean the Doctors and recipients of voluntary abortions are going to hell as well?

Re:Baby killers (1)

hallkbrdz (896248) | about a year ago | (#42844045)

They should be, only they are proven effective killers, but are somehow protected as "choice". It is my choice to make, own, and use any weapon I so choose under 2A. Nothing other than a constitutional amendment will change that fact. 2A exists to protect citizens from an over-reaching Govt. Exactly what we are now seeing. They know we are right, but though local propaganda centers (schools), they make sure the Constitution is no longer taught so that (most) citizens don't know their rights. Welcome to Amerika.

Re:Baby killers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42844197)

2A exists to protect citizens from an over-reaching Govt. Exactly what we are now seeing.

Shoulder-fired weapons won't keep you around long when you are surrounded by tanks
and drones are overhead with infrared targeting which can pick you out of any camouflage you
can come up with.

Cretins like you make me laugh. If the government wants you gone you will be gone, and your silly
little rifle won't even slow them down.

captcha = depart. Which is what you are going to do if you try to go against the government with
a rifle.

Re:Baby killers (5, Insightful)

kcmastrpc (2818817) | about a year ago | (#42844237)

One man, one rifle.
Twenty men, twenty rifles.
Fifty men, fifty rifles.
One hundred men, one hundred rifles.

One man has no chance of taking a tank, twenty guys might though. They won't be taking anything though without arms. Same goes for commandeering the drone control facility. You don't seem to understand that the second amendment isn't about one mans ability to rise up against tyranny, it's about the militias. But if you take one mans weapons, you take the militias. Your arguments are tired, pathetic, and lack any depth to what the forefathers envisioned.

Re:Baby killers (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year ago | (#42844447)

I'm sorry, but no. If you sell a product, or inform others of how to make one, then you are not responsible for your users' actions. Ford isn't responsible for bank robbers using an Escort as a getaway vehicle, PC manufacturers aren't responsible for the antics of Anonymous, and Benchmade isn't responsible for stabbings.

Bring on the matter compilers. (2)

dadelbunts (1727498) | about a year ago | (#42843893)

I cant wait for the day that 3d printers will be able to print just about anything. How can you make an item illegal if anyone can print it out? How do you enforce that? Constant 24/7 surveillance of everything they print out? Even then black market printers will have someway to bypass this, as we pirate games with DRM today. I am very excited for this cyberpunkesque type of future.

Re:Bring on the matter compilers. (1)

J'raxis (248192) | about a year ago | (#42844473)

They can make it illegal, but they can enforce it as well as they currently enforce all their "intellectual property" laws against information sharing. Governments are quickly becoming irrelevant, and by fighting back like this---or getting their corporate lackeys like Google to do it for them---is only hastening that.

Fuck Defense Distributed (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42843907)

These assholes are insane gun nuts who are ruining 3D printing technology for everyone else.

It is because of their cowardly and selfish actions that 3D printing will face scrutiny. Leave it to mentally unstable individuals with small penises who have to have the largest, biggest, and strongest guns to make up for their lack of manhood.

I'm tired of the trash of society perverting technology. We invent Bitcoins, so drug addicts misappropriate it for drugs. We make 3D printing, so insane gun nuts use it to make parts that are illegal or would require a background check to obtain.

There's always assholes out there ruining good things for everyone else. Defense Distributed are a bunch of fucking wimps who need guns because they are too weak to use their fists and too stupid to use their brains. Fuck 'em.

Re:Fuck Defense Distributed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42843965)

Don't worry, you'll never print a gun at home. The materials and processes required will always be way more than what you want to do at home. 3D printing at home will always be at the level of trinkets and useless gadgets. At best, they will require 99% of the item to be made the good old fashioned way, like this retarded gun shit, but the 3D printing nutters will stomp in with their 3D printed boots and go on and on about 3D printing...

Re:Fuck Defense Distributed (1)

dadelbunts (1727498) | about a year ago | (#42843967)

I love guns, 3d printing, and have a fairly large penis. Sup with that! Have you ever thought some people dont feel you shouldn't be allowed to own an item because it looks scary? Especially if statistics show it kills less people than knives? It seems like the only "wimp" here is the AC that wants to regulate something which is responsible for so few homicides it doesnt even have its own category, just because of its form.

Re:Fuck Defense Distributed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42844255)

I love guns, 3d printing, and have a fairly large penis.

But a very small brain.

Your arguments wouldn't hack it on an average high school debate team.

Re:Fuck Defense Distributed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42843971)

You got permits for those strawmen, and a license for that projection?

Re:Fuck Defense Distributed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42843987)

Oh Noes! Information Is Free! We Must Stop It. For THE CHILDREN.

Go straight to hell you Fucking Statist.

Re:Fuck Defense Distributed (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#42844229)

I'm tired of the trash of society perverting technology. We invent Bitcoins, so drug addicts misappropriate it for drugs.

So, you're saying that bitcoins were NOT invented to be a form of currency? Because here I always thought that using currency to buy things was the "normal" use, as opposed to an example of "misappropriation"...

Or are you just trying to say that anyone who does something you disagree with is evil?

I wonder if they've improved on the military issue (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year ago | (#42843929)

the actual US military issue magazines are fucking terrible, and cause a weapons jam if you load more than 28 rounds in a 30 round mag.

For all the service members still in, if defense distributed could start making reliable working functioning products not by the lowest bidder, and somehow get them to the troops, it'd be a life saver.

just like miltec would give free militec-1 dry weapon lube to servicemembers
http://www.militec1.com/

Re:I wonder if they've improved on the military is (2)

pedrop357 (681672) | about a year ago | (#42844221)

I've got 30 or so magazines from different makers. Not once in thousands of rounds of shooting have I had a jam and I load all magazines to capacity.

All have magpul followers, and 12 or so are actual magpul pmags. The rest are the standard metal grey 30 round magazine.

Re:I wonder if they've improved on the military is (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#42844601)

It helps if you put the rounds in correctly (pointy end forward). Maybe that's davy's problem.

Just cause you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42843941)

There is way too much fetishization of the "just cause I can" brigade here.

Re:Just cause you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD. (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year ago | (#42844035)

Indeed, just because Google CAN play the censorship tool of the government doesn't mean it SHOULD play the censorship tool of the government.

Re:Just cause you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD. (3)

pedrop357 (681672) | about a year ago | (#42844233)

I know, people should stick to the more socially acceptable expressions of their rights and not stray towards anything controversial.

Yanked? (1)

Skiron (735617) | about a year ago | (#42843943)

I guess this means 'friendly fire'.

Re:Yanked? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42844495)

During WW II

When the Germans fired, the British ducked
When the British fired, the Germans ducked.
When the Yanks fired, everybody ducked.

On the subject of guns (1)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year ago | (#42843951)

Apropos the gun control debate, note that the media is starting to paint Christopher Dorner [google.com] with mental illness.

In particular, this quote from The Daily News [dailynews.com]:

"His chilling statements, found on his Facebook page, portray a deeply intelligent and opinionated man, one who promotes gay rights and gun control, but whose mind has unraveled, likely due to mental illness, paranoia and possibly unresolved trauma, experts said Thursday."

He wasn't mentally ill before the incident, or when he was with the LAPD, but he is now that they want to catch him.

We've seen a number of these "I've got nothing to lose, I'm going out with a bang!" cases recently. What's with that? Has there always been spree killings, but weren't reported widely until recently? Has something changed in society?

(I've often wondered what Aaron Swartz could have done, assuming he believed his life was over & had a year or so of long-term scheming to plan something.)

Re:On the subject of guns (3, Insightful)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | about a year ago | (#42844071)

Sometimes I wonder about Aaron Swartz. Given my propensity to being similar in thoughts, I often find it odd he would have simply given up without a plan. I've reached a conclusion that perhaps his suicide was part of the plan. Because he just didn't have the resources to fight the corrupt system, and he figured he would be better suited as a martyr than to go down and serve a thirty year prison sentence.

Although who knows, perhaps mental illness got in the way. One thing is for certain: copyright law killed him.

---

As for Dorner, I have many questions about that as well. I think his heavy moral conviction drove him to this, and there's more corruption in the police than just kicking some man while he's down. Why would he lie about that incident? It doesn't make any sense -- I get the feeling things are terribly, terribly wrong with the police he was working with.

Especially when I read things like this: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/dorner-manhunt-shootings-newspaper-carriers.html [latimes.com]

I don't know who's on the moral side, right now. Dorner has clearly become a vigilante, but he seems to do it out of vengeance, and his willingness to draw their families into it is excessive and completely morally obscene. On the other hand, the police are way out of line.

Ultimately I think the FBI should dispatch a very thorough investigation into the the local police as well as finding and stopping Dorner.

Re:On the subject of guns (5, Interesting)

msauve (701917) | about a year ago | (#42844089)

"We've seen a number of these "I've got nothing to lose, I'm going out with a bang!" cases recently. What's with that? Has there always been spree killings, but weren't reported widely until recently? Has something changed in society?"

The media, especially CNN, which is now driving an anti-civil rights agenda. You may notice the lack of "used a weapon for self defense" reporting. It doesn't fit with the agenda. You're right about the copycat events. Pretty much everyone, including the media, seems to accept that current restrictions on 2nd Amendment civil rights are "reasonable, common sense" ones.

Obviously, without the widespread media reporting on these violent episodes, copycat crimes would be reduced. Time for some matching "reasonable, common sense" restrictions on 1st Amendment rights. <sarcasm>No one needs a high speed printing press, or electronic media. These should be restricted to government and military use. Journalists should have to undergo background checks before being allowed to publish. Small, portable copy machines should be subject to registration. Reporting of violence should be pre-approved by the government.</sarcasm>

These suggestions are analogous to restrictions to 2nd Amendment rights which are already in place and considered acceptable. Think of the children.

Automated removal via report link? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42843977)

Did google actually do this, or did a ton of political extremists coordinate to click the report as spam button?

Just encourage hard hats for Duck hunting! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42844023)

The last time I went duck hunting the pellets were raining down everywhere, it would be a lot safer for hunting if long range weapons were allowed for bird hunting again!

Especially in residential hunting areas they should be mandated. Heck who cares if a pile of rednecks decides to blast away at the ducks in Central Park with 100 shot magazines. For that matter we shouldn't regulate which type of guns are allowed for hunting PERIOD! It is completely unconstitutional!

I shot a bullet into the air,
It fell to earth,
Why the hell should I care?

War on guns and drugs to be mooted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42844101)

If you think being able to machine anything at home is revolutionary, just wait until you can synthesize molecules. Oh, and you'll be able to synth Big Pharma's patented molecules too; but nobody will want to do that, because their shit is mostly side effects.

The machining will come first though. Generic chemistry, or even broad classes of organics is still a very tricky idea...

Ooops (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42844113)

Removing wrong moderation, please ignore...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...