On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 06:19:35 -0500 Karl wrote:

Punk, this link helps technophiles make unlimited unregulated firearms; should I think about that at all?

1) I ignore most of the spam coming from professor turd 2) Oh I see he linked a cloudflare surveillance-scam site. 3) plastic guns are mostly a stupid toy 4) let me know when they start 'printing' ammunition 5) the US cesspool has more guns than people. It is of course the most insane fascist cesspool on the planet and has the highest incarceration rate on the planet. And there are almost 1.2 guns per every man, woman, child and infant. There are more guns than people. Something doesn't add up. Or it does. 6) there's this US nazi meme that US subjects are especially 'free' because they have lots of guns, and that their guns 'protect' them from...something. It is of course rambling nonsense.

To met it looks like a way to make 3d printers more commonplace, so that people don't have to buy stuff from corporations to repair their cars.

now they just have to buy 3d printers and plastic from corporations. And cars. And retardphones. And retardfridges. And all the rest of "arpanet networked appliances". Et cetera.

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 11:46 PM professor turd vomited:

...

COME and get it

https://ghostgunner.net

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 21:13:55 -0500 Karl wrote:

Of course, the idea of 3D printers isn't to purchase from corporations. You can get plans to make your own,

to make your own 3d printer you need to first make your own computer(s). In other words, if you don't want to buy your 3d printer from govcorp you need your own IC manufacturing plant. Once you have the printer you need plastics as feedstock. That in turn requires a chemical plant. I think it's pretty important to underscore how 'industrial civilization' works so that the bullshit that professor turd constantly spams is revealed as pretty stupid propaganda.

and recycle materials.

except, recycled materials have to be manufactured before they can be recycled.

But yes, they're an advancement of industrialization, and they take exotic skill to use well.

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 21:32:40 -0500 Karl wrote:

Well, to expand this common dialog a little,

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 9:24 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:

...

Karl wrote:

...

Of course, the idea of 3D printers isn't to purchase from corporations. You can get plans to make your own,

to make your own 3d printer you need to first make your own computer(s). In other words, if you don't want to buy your 3d printer from govcorp you need your own IC manufacturing plant. Once you have the printer you need plastics as feedstock. That in turn requires a chemical plant.

These things are both 'natural' resources for a while now. We have landfills and dumpsters that are full of computers and plastics, all over the globe. People are paying money to get rid of them, in my country.

the landfills are filled with broken computers and the plastics need reprocessing. Sure you may be able to get a microcontroller, motors, drivers for the motors etc from a 'landfill', but it's not too practical. (yes, I do get components for my electronics projects from the landfill)

...

except, recycled materials have to be manufactured before they can be recycled.

To push back more, now that we are covered in piles of manufactured materials, we have responsibility with regard to figuring out what to do with them.

it's mostly garbage because that's how it was designed in the first place. The stuff that jim bell's industrial 'civilization' produces is meant to be used 6 months and thrown away. My point stands I think. 3D printing is a specialized process and it fully relies on supplies that come either directly or indirectly from govcorp. Last but not least you don't need a 3d printer to build weapons.

...

...

But yes, they're an advancement of industrialization, and they take exotic skill to use well.

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 22:00:40 -0500 Karl wrote:

...

(yes, I do get components for my electronics projects from the landfill)

I used to desolder boards, and I've visited electronics recycling places.

There are no recycling places here, so I do the recycling myself =)

I haven't gone into a literal landfill myself ;p Once I found a dumpster full of desktop computers.

I picked most of my stuff off the street. Some came from dumpsters. Last thing I picked was a couple of 40kg digital scales. And oh, I have a bunch of retardphones, some from the 90s, some newer, and guess what? The newer the phone the more useless as far as recycling goes. The newest ones don't have any discrete components at all. Some of the chips don't even packages. They are uniform blocks of silicon. Same thing with printers : the old ones have many parts that can be remade into a '3d printer', but the new ones have a small board with some kind of SoC which is completely useless, unless you have their 'propietary' manuals. And even then the chip is likely to be locked.

It's usually designed to break in some stupid way where most of the components still last for years and years. I never figured out how to glitch microcontrollers to reprogram them with the fuses blown,

I've found a few microcontrollers but they are useless without manuals, even if the fuses were not blown.

but I understand that there is much better material available on how, nowadays 7 years later.

Actually as times goes by stuff gets more and more miniaturized and integrated...and becomes un-recyclable. but HEY, this is SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS and the FREE MARKET, and SCIENCE WILL EXPLAIN EVERYTHING and <insert more technofascist slogans here>

You could make a puppet to continue my side of the argument, saying something like 'home 3d printing is way better than industrial factories' over and over again.

Yeah, I don't disagree with the concept, but it's easier said than done.

...

Last but not least you don't need a 3d printer to build weapons.

You had a good point there. Eventually 3d printers will make intelligent things that think on their own, and if we still have weapons at that point they would be a lot more powerful than the alternative.

3d pew puters aren't going to save those who can't hammer shovel heat raise share tend and grow, but they're fun to think about after basics.

Your reply to my message seems good for showing different areas where we agree and disagree. On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 3:50 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 05:54:13 -0500 Karl wrote:

...

I haven't seen that, and it sounds a little strange to me. Do you have a photo?

better description : they are BGA chips, but instead of being packaged in plastic, the top of the chip is a mirror-like crystal. There are absolutely no markings on them.

Sounds frustrating. It's pleasant to feel like I have this shared experience with you, of opening devices and working with their chips.

...

I usually plan to use phones by installing apps on them using their existing operating system. With Kivy you can write python that runs the same on iOS and android.

Ah I was thinking about trying python on retardphones. Still, that means using a fully compromised 'platform' at all levels from hardware to OS.

Yeah. Eventually it seems it's easier just to stop things from easily communicating and use them anyway (even atomic nuclei are compromised!). Depends how urgent the situation is, I suppose.

...

Here in new england we say 'dumbphone' for the phones that have a black and white display and don't kidnap your eyeballs and social connections with advertisements, to counter 'smartphone'.

Funny because the 'dumbphones' are marginally better than the 'smart' kind and calling them 'dumbphones' is just govcorp 'marketing'.

True.

...

'smartphone' i think usually gets some descriptor around how it is watching you all the time without your consent. 'retardphone' is more appropriate but nobody in my communities understands that the danger warrants and causes the name, yet.

that's how it is...

Yeah ...

...

...

Same thing with printers : the old ones have many parts that can be remade into a '3d printer', but the new ones have a small board with some kind of SoC which is completely useless, unless you have their 'propietary' manuals. And even then the chip is likely to be locked.

The manuals or at least some information used to be findable on the internet if one learned the meaning of the numbers on the chip package.

Yeah, in this case I didn't bother trying to find the manual because I assumed it woudn't be there. Because I know from experience that the manuals for newer, bigger, more integrated chips are kept secret using NDAs and similar 'IP' garbage (HEY JIM BELL)

I could be half a decade out of date.

...

Sometimes they were in chinese, though. I've never pulled a microcontroller from a printer, though; I've only looked at smaller chips in that kind of space. I found an article once on reverse engineering chip circuitry using a confocal microscope and some analysis software. My friend had a confocal microscope, but I only learned he had it around 2013 when my life stopped.

You probably could get a working device and reverse engineer it while running, but that's a lot of work.

I feel like this point you make is a good example of a way we tend to move towards disagreement. I was a software developer and inventor as a child. I suspect many others on this list were too. So, when I think of something complicated, I don't think of it as a lot of work. I think of how it could be automated with code and robots (simply because that used to be my skill), to make it easy for everyone. When you make new things, you do the work once, and then people can benefit from that work for a long time. So, if somebody was struggling with an issue, when I was a teenager, I would make a new tool, to solve the issue. That became really normal for me. Because of my personal history, which I suspect to be common on this list, I wouldn't consider it being a lot of work to reverse engineer a chip, if I knew a way to do it, to be a problem. I know there are many people who would desire to do it for fun, and once the problem is solved, everybody benefits. That philosophy is really core. For free communities, it's pretty reasonable to plan on doing a bunch of wild new, really hard things. I looked briefly for the article where hackers imaged the layers of chips and mapped all the semiconductors inside them, but I didn't find it. It provided for extraction of private keys.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/06/hackers-farmers-and-doctors-unite-su...

notice that the de facto and legal situation is that technofascists have almost completely control. And the proposed way to 'fix' the problem is to try to patch the technofascist legal system.

The idea of making repairing stuff illegal is as ludicrous as the ownership of land. There are going to be people who just aren't going to respect it, because it's a basic survival thing for them.

...

...

I've found a few microcontrollers but they are useless without manuals, even if the fuses were not blown.

I found manuals on the website of the chip manufacturer. I was able to order more chips from them, to experiment with, too, for cents-per-chip.

All the mictrocontrollers I use were bought first hand. At least here there's no 'natural', dumpster-located source for them.

I think we were discussing the idea of pulling them from or using them in discarded devices, which I think is hard now because the tooling isn't common.

...

...

...

but I understand that there is much better material available on how, nowadays 7 years later.

This quote you left was about glitching blown fuses to repurpose microcontrollers from other devices.

...

...

...

Actually as times goes by stuff gets more and more miniaturized and integrated...and becomes un-recyclable.

I didn't realise your reply wasn't really related to the quote.

...

Very precise tools needed eventually.

the kind of tools that you won't find on a dumpster - the kind on tools that only govcorp has.

This goes back to being a hobby inventor as a child. We can build these tools, if we want to. Govcorp makes them incredibly inefficiently, wasting resources in order to try to make set-and-forget-profit-factories. All these tools started as prototypes made by researchers and hobbyists, in small spaces, designed for the task at hand. I don't know what kind of makerspace experience you have. Here in the USA, you can find a metal mill that can cut metal precisely down to thousandths of an inch, for free, because they are left over from old wars.

...

Of course, the scientific community/ies are thinking about all this stuff with a lot of potential wise deliberation. Their power is just filtered by the journals, funders, institutions, and communities they work with.

I don't think that's the case. The vast majority of members of the 'scientific community' are evil to the core assholes who know pretty well what they are doing.

Having spoken and worked with these people, what you say seems _mostly_ false to me, here, and it's surprising to me if you believe it. Very few people seem to believe what you say here, to me. I'm curious why you believe it.

...

...

Yeah, I don't disagree with the concept, but it's easier said than done.

The concept of the puppet or of the printer?

The concept/idea of recycling electronic devices.

Puppet says: learning to recycle electronics is better than throwing them out and playing video games.

...

Maybe I see where you're coming from better. 3d printers are used by people who don't need them, for fun. So it's hard to use them where the concept would be needed; the concept isn't reasonably designed for a real-world community. They're more like a daydream that is discovering the value of helpfulness but hasn't found it yet.

What I was objecting to is the original claim

"this link helps technophiles make unlimited unregulated firearms"

because while that's more or less technically true, it doesn't imply any kind of increased political freedom (which is ultimately what I care about).

I'm not sure what you mean by "political freedom" here. For technophiles or others?

...

Makerspaces started making medical supplies in the usa for this coronavirus thing, but they weren't on top of it. The makerspace model could have expanded medical capacity instantly by spreading the norm of helping and learning to help, rather than the help itself, but instead corporations and governments want to be in control and the makerspaces and mutual aid efforts are still kept relegated to hobby-types who happen to be interested, rather than recognised as a solution that can be far faster and more effective than centralised aid.

Yes, there's a political side to it. But there's also a technical side. So called 3d printig is better suited for slow and small scale production. Mass production is likely to be more 'efficient'. Of course, decentralized and less 'efficient' producion is a trade off that allows people to gain more political freedom, but cnsumerist fucktards don't care about freedom.

You'd probably have to be a childhood inventor (geek) to see that using a 3d printer, you could make an automatic 3d printer that makes more 3d printers on its own, and then disassembles them when it's done. It could make millions of something in a week.

...

You probably could get a working device and reverse engineer it while running, but that's a lot of work.

I feel like this point you make is a good example of a way we tend to move towards disagreement.

I was a software developer and inventor as a child. I suspect many others on this list were too. So, when I think of something complicated, I don't think of it as a lot of work. I think of how it could be automated with code and robots (simply because that used to be my skill), to make it easy for everyone. When you make new things, you do the work once, and then people can benefit from that work for a long time.

Yes that is true, but there's a practical side to it. I bet the 'supply' of microcontrollers coming from dumpsters is pretty variable. You might be able to get a sizable amount of some particular model if you manage to get it from some particular mass produced item and so make the reverse engineering effort worthwhile, but that's different from randomly picking something out of the trash and being able to use it.

So, if somebody was struggling with an issue, when I was a teenager, I would make a new tool, to solve the issue. That became really normal for me.

Because of my personal history, which I suspect to be common on this list, I wouldn't consider it being a lot of work to reverse engineer a chip, if I knew a way to do it, to be a problem. I know there are many people who would desire to do it for fun, and once the problem is solved, everybody benefits.

Fact remains, it is a lot of work, so it's less likely to be done. It requires specialized knowledge and equipment so the number of people who could do it is small.

That philosophy is really core. For free communities, it's pretty reasonable to plan on doing a bunch of wild new, really hard things.

That is true, but it's different from "yeah 3d printers! yeah 'printed' guns! yeah...now what?"

I looked briefly for the article where hackers imaged the layers of chips and mapped all the semiconductors inside them, but I didn't find it. It provided for extraction of private keys.

Oh I've seen old articles about code being extracted from read protected pic microcontrollers. I bet it's a lot harder or impossible to do with 'modern' chips. (unless of course you are intel)

...

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/06/hackers-farmers-and-doctors-unite-su...

notice that the de facto and legal situation is that technofascists have almost completely control. And the proposed way to 'fix' the problem is to try to patch the technofascist legal system.

The idea of making repairing stuff illegal is as ludicrous as the ownership of land.

Ownership of land is (a lot) less ludicrous than so called 'intelectual property' (HEY JIM BELL). At any rate, 'intellectual property' makes it hard for stuff to be repaired and it makes it outright 'illegal' in some cases. My point here is that the problem is a political problem and that technical workarounds don't really solve the underlying political problem.

There are going to be people who just aren't going to respect it, because it's a basic survival thing for them.

...

...

...

I've found a few microcontrollers but they are useless without manuals, even if the fuses were not blown.

I found manuals on the website of the chip manufacturer. I was able to order more chips from them, to experiment with, too, for cents-per-chip.

All the mictrocontrollers I use were bought first hand. At least here there's no 'natural', dumpster-located source for them.

I think we were discussing the idea of pulling them from or using them in discarded devices, which I think is hard now because the tooling isn't common.

The problem for me isn't tooling but actually getting a few pieces of any particular micro. I guess in the 'developed' world there's a lot more electronic garbage so it may be easier to find a 'supply' of a particular product that has a particular, documented micro. But still, if you want sizeable amounts of a particular component, it may not be easy to 'source' it from random trash.

...

...

...

...

but I understand that there is much better material available on how, nowadays 7 years later.

This quote you left was about glitching blown fuses to repurpose microcontrollers from other devices.

...

...

...

...

Actually as times goes by stuff gets more and more miniaturized and integrated...and becomes un-recyclable.

I didn't realise your reply wasn't really related to the quote.

....not sure if you misread something ?

...

...

Very precise tools needed eventually.

the kind of tools that you won't find on a dumpster - the kind on tools that only govcorp has.

This goes back to being a hobby inventor as a child. We can build these tools, if we want to. Govcorp makes them incredibly inefficiently, wasting resources in order to try to make set-and-forget-profit-factories. All these tools started as prototypes made by researchers and hobbyists, in small spaces, designed for the task at hand.

True to some degree but you're not going to easily build (if at all) something like a high frequency oscillocope in your garage.

I don't know what kind of makerspace experience you have. Here in the USA, you can find a metal mill that can cut metal precisely down to thousandths of an inch, for free, because they are left over from old wars.

Well that pretty much proves my point? High precision equipment comes from govcorp, in this case, the worst of govcorp, the US MIC. You get the 'cheap' mill ONLY because 'they' feel like throwing it away. And wait, the most likely reason they throw it away is so that the govt can buy new mills that are 10x more expensive than they should be. In a word, corruption.

...

...

Of course, the scientific community/ies are thinking about all this stuff with a lot of potential wise deliberation. Their power is just filtered by the journals, funders, institutions, and communities they work with.

I don't think that's the case. The vast majority of members of the 'scientific community' are evil to the core assholes who know pretty well what they are doing.

Having spoken and worked with these people, what you say seems _mostly_ false to me, here, and it's surprising to me if you believe it. Very few people seem to believe what you say here, to me. I'm curious why you believe it.

I believe they are evil to the core because what they do is evil to the core. The 'scientific community' are the technocrats in our lovely technocracy.

...

...

...

Yeah, I don't disagree with the concept, but it's easier said than done.

The concept of the puppet or of the printer?

The concept/idea of recycling electronic devices.

Puppet says: learning to recycle electronics is better than throwing them out and playing video games.

yeah. And don't throw away your video games. Recycle them too.

...

...

Maybe I see where you're coming from better. 3d printers are used by people who don't need them, for fun. So it's hard to use them where the concept would be needed; the concept isn't reasonably designed for a real-world community. They're more like a daydream that is discovering the value of helpfulness but hasn't found it yet.

What I was objecting to is the original claim

"this link helps technophiles make unlimited unregulated firearms"

because while that's more or less technically true, it doesn't imply any kind of increased political freedom (which is ultimately what I care about).

I'm not sure what you mean by "political freedom" here. For technophiles or others?

Political freedom for everyone. People being able to print stuff at home (wheter they are 'technophiles' or not) doesn't equate with people being more free.

...

Yes, there's a political side to it. But there's also a technical side. So called 3d printig is better suited for slow and small scale production. Mass production is likely to be more 'efficient'. Of course, decentralized and less 'efficient' producion is a trade off that allows people to gain more political freedom, but cnsumerist fucktards don't care about freedom.

You'd probably have to be a childhood inventor (geek) to see that using a 3d printer, you could make an automatic 3d printer that makes more 3d printers on its own, and then disassembles them when it's done. It could make millions of something in a week.

What I stated above is a technical fact. If anything, being a 'geek' means you have a utopian and ultimately wrong view of how production works. 3d printers are inefficient, just like blockchains are inefficient but have other desirable properties.

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 08:42:24 -0500 Karl wrote:

There's some truth to that but it seems mostly an organisation issue to me. We could run the whole world off of the discarded microcontrollers from a decade ago.

Well, I don't know about 'running the world', but I guess it would be nice to stop buying new microcontrollers because that would likely bankrupt the companies that produce them. OR, the govt would 'bail them out'...

The factories and coding communities are in a feedback loop driven by profit and marketing, where they are remaking the same devices with higher specs, throwing out the old ones, and then writing more bloated code to run on the newer fast ones, so that they will have the same degree of human satisfaction as before.

yes, that's part of the scientific 'progress' I alluded to.

So, like, once you have enough microcontrollers, which a single landfill could likely provide, you can often just keep reusing them for what you need.

----------

...

Fact remains, it is a lot of work, so it's less likely to be done. It requires specialized knowledge and equipment so the number of people who could do it is small.

Enter the makerspaces and hackerspaces, where people share these skills with the masses.

fair enough

Some of these places are entirely free. Some charge a membership fee, but may waive it if you offer trainings to the public.

-----------

...

That is true, but it's different from "yeah 3d printers! yeah 'printed' guns! yeah...now what?"

As a targeted left-wing ex-activist, I'm surrounded by anti-gun marketing and have persistent fear of escalating myself on the terrorist watchlist (which I expect I am already at a permanent, well-defined spot on). Printed guns scare me for both of those reasons.

US right wingers like to talk about guns a lot but they are just talk. They also waste tons of money on guns, but at the end of the day these fake 'libertarian' true right wingers are completely subservient to their govcorp masters. At best they will use their guns to murder poor, brown, innocent people. So guns are just a right wing meme and 'printed' guns are a techno right wing meme. The exact kind of meme an agent like professor turd uses for propaganda purposes.

3D printers and other consumer prototyping devices, on the other hand, seem to be for moving industry out of the factories, similar to how CD burners made USB drives.

Not sure what you mean by "CD burners made USB drives". What I do notice is that CDs have been mostly replaced by 'high tech' flash memory that's even more dependent than CDs on 'high tech' factories.

When 2D copy machines and printers happened, so did community literature. Previously, powerful people controlled everything that was printed.

And now those same powerful people control everything through computers. In other words, this idea that copying machines, the ARPANET and the like make 'information free' is just another govt propaganda meme.

...

...

I looked briefly for the article where hackers imaged the layers of chips and mapped all the semiconductors inside them, but I didn't find it. It provided for extraction of private keys.

Oh I've seen old articles about code being extracted from read protected pic microcontrollers. I bet it's a lot harder or impossible to do with 'modern' chips. (unless of course you are intel)

It was harder then too. It was still done.

No it was not harder because it could be done with virtually no equipment. -------------

In my country all the land we "own" had people killed to make way for the "owners".

well, same here. Because the property rights of the 'natives' were not respected by the european turds who invaded america(the continent). So the problem isn't ownership, but actually NOT respecting (previous) ownership. Likewise, nation states claim ownership of the entire 'country' which is of course nuts and not compatible with actual personal property rights.

We make progress on healing that. Previously the people who lived on it, were indeed responsible for it.

Similarly, these chip manufacturers don't seem to be in the slightest taking responsibility for the impact of everyone using their chips. We need the ability to sway that.

That is certainly true. ----------------

...

The problem for me isn't tooling but actually getting a few pieces of any particular micro. I guess in the 'developed' world there's a lot more electronic garbage so it may be easier to find a 'supply' of a particular product that has a particular, documented micro. But still, if you want sizeable amounts of a particular component, it may not be easy to 'source' it from random trash.

The solving of this problem was halted. It's not easy at the moment. But you can pull these out of any electronic device. You're clearly posting with one.

I'm posting with a >10 year old desktop PC.

Does it have an FCC number? Are you able to share a photograph of its mainboard?

...but why on earth would I destroy my working (pre IME/PSP) computer? =)

NOTE: I am not "authorised" to help repurpose, devices because a computer has me associated with terrorism. But somebody else could chime in and help, too. People like these tend to be pretty excited by hacking projects.

On the other hand, what you say is totally true. There are so many chips out there that every one you recover is pretty different. You'd need to have hacking as your life pleasure, to make significant progress on that problem.

Or, taking your side of the argument, you'd need to identify a few common, mass produced products with especially high volumes so that you can easily find discarded ones. I don't know any product that fills those requiremetns tho.

...

....not sure if you misread something ?

Maybe I did. Maybe this is why we get into arguments more. It sounds like we have different beliefs and experiences about something.

Don't worry, it was just a small glitch =P

As far as I knew, absolutely everything is recyclable. We have a lot of recycling facilities here.

To varying degrees, yes. But notice there are cases where recycling takes more effort than the value of the recycled product so it's counterproductive (One of the reasons that happens is because the products are badly designed on purpose.)

I heard a story once of our how the aboriginals of my land would take the shards from broken bottles of the settlers (very dangerous things to leave on a landscape), knap them into arrowheads, and fire them back at them. Their approaches are peaceful nowadays.

Using the modern products of technofascism against their creators is harder though. ----------

...

...

This goes back to being a hobby inventor as a child. We can build these tools, if we want to. Govcorp makes them incredibly inefficiently, wasting resources in order to try to make set-and-forget-profit-factories. All these tools started as prototypes made by researchers and hobbyists, in small spaces, designed for the task at hand.

True to some degree but you're not going to easily build (if at all) something like a high frequency oscillocope in your garage.

Why not? I have an rtl2832u tv tuner chip that samples at ungodly high rates.

just re-read what you wrote. First you mentioned a prototype made by hobbyists, now you're saying you're going to use a device that comes from govcorp. I don't think that using something that indeed IS a ready made oscilloscope qualifies as 'building' one. I do have one of those usb tuners for digital tv too, I'm well aware of the free software radio for them bla bla. Fact remains the chip comes from a 'fab' that costs 1000s of millions of dollars.

...

...

I don't know what kind of makerspace experience you have. Here in the USA, you can find a metal mill that can cut metal precisely down to thousandths of an inch, for free, because they are left over from old wars.

Well that pretty much proves my point? High precision equipment comes from govcorp, in this case, the worst of govcorp, the US MIC. You get the 'cheap' mill ONLY because 'they' feel like throwing it away. And wait, the most likely reason they throw it away is so that the govt can buy new mills that are 10x more expensive than they should be. In a word, corruption.

Sure, but the old mill they threw out half a century ago still works fine to make tools to replace govcorp with, and there are still so many of these mills that nobody knows how to discard them.

The issue with the mills was that they were incredibly heavy. So you might even have been able to get paid to take one away. (they are still around, I am speaking in the past tense because of the channel via which I am sharing the information.)

well, let's say that's a case where the damage previously done can be mitigated somewhat by putting the mills to better use. ---------

...

I believe they are evil to the core because what they do is evil to the core. The 'scientific community' are the technocrats in our lovely technocracy.

The luddite in me hugs you closely, but then my scientist takes over ...

You mentioned being an 'anarcho primitivist'? You're not really sound like one at the moment. Also, I don't think I'm a luddite. I'm commenting on the moral choices of the assholes from the 'scientific community'. They could be honest 'scientists' but they are not.

Do you even consider evil, the people who have spent their lives studying things like appropriate humanitarian aid and ecological stewardship?

I consider all members of academia evil, for starters. Even the ones who pretend to be against the mainstream while getting hundreds of thousand of dollars in 'grants' and salaries.

I prefer pursuing knowledge via human story than science. How do you like learning new things in a society, rather than with science?

-------

...

...

Puppet says: learning to recycle electronics is better than throwing them out and playing video games.

yeah. And don't throw away your video games. Recycle them too.

Here you hilight our disagreement well. I'll have to think on this.

I was mostly agreeing tho =)

I can't stand how video games waste time without any appropriate relation. I hate them, I want them thrown out. Mostly because they are being so harmful. I was addicted to them, and didn't know how to not be.

well, video games are useful to prevent people from...thinking. Imagine if people actually thought about the nature of jim bell's technofascism. ----------

...

Political freedom for everyone. People being able to print stuff at home (wheter they are 'technophiles' or not) doesn't equate with people being more free.

Within an unfree system, where everybody is addicted to manufactured stuff, 3d printers can print the words freedom, and give us the "freedom" of guiding our own addiction.

How does that land?

hehe. To the degree that 3d printing leads people to believe that they are 'free' and so prevents them from revolting, 3d printing doesn't look like a good thing.

What kind of steps towards freedom would you like to see?

destruction of government, what else?

...

3d printers are inefficient, just like blockchains are inefficient but have other desirable properties.

Here, we agree. We're talking about the same thing, but we're in different parts of it. Now, I can briefly see how you and I are struggling to work together on this.

Well, I'm trying to look at the whole picture, including the practical results of all this 'cypherpunk' stuff. And I am not seeing any results. What I'm seeing is that half the world is under house arrest because of a laughable PSYOP and that in this fine 'cypherpunk' list we have an agent like professor turd calling for extermination of 'antivaxers' - which is exactly what governments would do if 'antivaxers' resisted.

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:31:18 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

On 2020-12-07 12:24, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:

...

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 21:13:55 -0500 to make your own 3d printer you need to first make your own computer(s). In other words, if you don't want to buy your 3d printer from govcorp you need your own IC manufacturing plant.

While Intel looks rather married to the government these days, the corporations that build 3d printers and build the computer chips for them are generally not.

on the printer's side all you need is a small microcontroller and some power transistors...if you drive the thing using a bigger computer. You do need the bigger computer to run whatever CAD program you use anyway. But if you want a 'standalone' printer that can 'print' directly from data in a sd card, then I guess you'd need a better microcotroller. so yeah on one hand you don't need the latest intel workstation 32-cores super processor for a 3d printer but on the other, even simple microcontrollers are pretty specialized devices.