Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sci-Fi Technology Science

Envisioning the Desktop Fabricator 436

Posted by michael from the just-slightly-ahead-of-its-time dept.
mkl writes "Yesterday I fantasized about a generator of matter. Not a laser plotter for carving 3d objects, but a device that will assemble any given object from its base, out of atoms. I was thinking about a device that can find its place under the roofs of all the people working on PCs all over the world. So I fantasize about it at work and what do I see in the Wired News newsletter? 'Any product, any shape, any size -- manufactured on your desktop! The future is the fabricator.' Heh."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Envisioning the Desktop Fabricator More

Envisioning the Desktop Fabricator

Comments Filter:

  • That's where we differ. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lostie ( 772712 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:36AM (#10925268)
    Yesterday I fantasized about a generator of matter ... a device that will assemble any given object from its base, out of atoms.

    I also fantasized about a generator of matter, one that was able to generate Natalie Portman right in front of me complete with a handbag full of a strange gritty substance. Ooooh yeah.
    • Care to explain the strange gritty substance?

      Also, who's to say your fabricated goddess would be alive? (eeeeww!)

    • Don't laugh (or do, I don't care) (Score:5, Interesting)

      by skids ( 119237 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:20PM (#10925712) Homepage
      It strikes me that although we may have mass consumer 3-d plotter type stuff that can create objects out of certain substances, or maybe a combination of a few materials, atom-by-atom assembly is going to be a long way off, if ever. At the very least it will require very advanced nanobots.

      But what is more likely is biological printers that grow stuff out of cells. It will be much easier to let the cells do the work of reproducing and just induce specialization into a lattice of pre-grown tissue through chemical infusion.

      This wouldn't be home genetic engineering, just creation of specialized tissue from a batch of pre-cooked cells of a fixed genome. It could be some other organism's genome, plant or animal or something specially designed for object replication, or even, your own...

      So in 50 years or so, you or a doctor may be "printing" out a new patch of skin for your tatoo removal or a new seed for a lost tooth, or high follical count skin for your balding head. Or a tentacle to help you type faster. Or, well, I don't really want to even get into where elective plastic surgery is likely to go in the next decade with reguard to certain less seemly "self-enhancements" people might be inclined to make, nevermind the concept of "home bio-generation kits."

      It's truly scary stuff -- let's just say tomorrow's anime conventions may not require costumes for the truly devoted fans.


    • > fantasized about a generator of matter,
      > one that was able to generate [image of beauty]
      > right in front of me complete with a handbag
      > full of a strange gritty substance...

      this fantasizing of procuring women from stone has persisted
      thousands of years in the greek legend of 'pygmalion galatea [google.com]'

      Pygmalion and Galatea in Greek Mythology [loggia.com]

      Pygmalion saw so much to blame in women that he came at last to abhor the sex, and resolved to live unmarried. He was a sculptor, and had made with wonderful s

  • Finally (Score:2, Funny)

    by NiTr|c ( 130325 )
    I can fabricate the perfect woman! Now, where can I get one of these things?

  • Brilliant (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:37AM (#10925272)
    Yesterday I fantasized about a generator of matter. Not a laser plotter for carving 3d objects, but a device that will assemble any given object from its base, out of atoms.
    Wow! What insight! And only 35 years after Gene Roddenberry fantasised about the exact same thing...

  • The Diamond Age (Score:5, Informative)

    by Catamaran ( 106796 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:38AM (#10925289)
    First post to mention The Diamond Age : Or, a Young Lady's Illustrated Primer (Bantam Spectra Book) by NEAL STEPHENSON [randomhouse.com]. All about nano-tech and fabricators and stuff.
    • For the most part your post was very interesting and informative, but at the end it just tailed off into inconsequence, as if you'd run out of ideas.

      Clearly, you are indeed a scholar of Mr Stephenson's work.
    • Amazing! All that, and you conveniently forgot to mention the instance of intellectual property theft outlined in the book. Said IP is the "killer issue" which will make desktop fabricators completely impossible to legally use, or that they will be so regulated and locked down that they will be almost useless to use as far as geeks are concerned (or about as interesting as running a toaster).

  • ..which begs the question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by maharg ( 182366 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:38AM (#10925293) Homepage Journal
    .. what would you make ?

  • Fantasies ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DoktorTomoe ( 643004 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:39AM (#10925303)
    Something similar (utilizing some kind of 3-d inkjet printer with hot, liquid plastics für ink) was presented in the mid-1990s at some trade fair I went to. Matter of fact, I think I have also seen these on TV, building evolving robots (not joking, cannot remember the context, thought)

  • Had to be done... (Score:5, Funny)

    by matthew.thompson ( 44814 ) <{ku.oc.ytilautca} {ta} {ttam}> on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:41AM (#10925325) Journal
    Tea, Earl grey, Hot!
    • I've always wondered - with the technology of the future - what viruses and technological gags would be like. There are a few "holodeck" episodes about this, but it could go farther.

      I'd imagine when in 2350 the captain orders his hot tea and "Windows Starship Edition" clunks out a glass of hot pthactol blood he won't be very happy. Makes for an amusing prank possibility though. That and the "nude" holodeck patch...
    • Molecular manufacturing [foresight.org] isn't the same as the idea behind Star Trek's Replicators. A lot of people don't care to know the difference, though, because it's all Sci-Fi to them anyway, but the difference is simple: Molecular manufacturing is "easy" matter-to-matter conversion (like how nature does it), but StarTrek Replicators do far-out energy-to-matter transmutation.

      Another major difference is that desktop nanotech will be within our grasp within a few decades at most [kurzweilai.net], but not Star-Trek-style Replication.

      • If of all the foods available, people start replicating McDonald's burgers, then there are larger problems in the world.

        As for the whole world hunger thing... the problem isn't one of the volume or mass of food, it's a matter of money to purchase it or to ship it in a timely manner to where it's needed. If the people can't afford food, they sure can't afford a molecular manufacturing machine to "build" the food. Not to mention the energy to run the things.

  • Heh, (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Jucius Maximus ( 229128 )
    If you think that music and movie piracy make industries nervous, wait until something like this comes about!

    Yeah, you use a hack to capture the instructions for atomically building the latest gadget or toy and then everyone shares it over bittorrent.

    How is this idea different from replicators on Star Trek anyway?

    • Re:Heh, (Score:2)

      by mikael ( 484 )
      Such data formats already exist - have a look at CATIA [3ds.com] to name but one. Fortunately, most of the time such information remains safe. Although, there was the time when customers discovered that a set of plastic multicolored toy keys would actually open the doors of certain makes of car.

    • Re:Heh, (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ElBorba ( 221626 )
      And someone inserts a few strings in the instructions that generate a bubble of Cyanide gas around the object...

  • Lexmark is gonna love this. (Score:5, Funny)

    by brad3378 ( 155304 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:42AM (#10925339)
    .... and you thought Lexmark ink was expensive!!
  • It's not called the fabricator, it's called The Feed. Nell can show you how to use one.
    • no, it's called a matter compiler. the feed supplies the base elements - so it's sort of like the difference between a telephone and a telephone line!

  • Limited applications (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tezza ( 539307 )
    It only makes invisible clothing.

    Not to troll, but vaporware it too concrete a term for this technology. Emperors may be impressed, as well as Marketing people.

  • Wouldn't such a thing... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <slashdot@nOSpam.keirstead.org> on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:46AM (#10925383)
    ...once created, throw the entire world economy into chaos? Of course I am referring to not a simple fab as the article is talking about, but what it is insinuating at, a device capable of assemling things at the atomic level.

    Think about it.. once you buy such a device, no matter *what* the initial cost, you could use it to make almost anything... including, other devices!

    Such a device would make physical goods value-less. The only things of value any longer would be services and artistic creations.

    Then again, this all sounds way too good to be true. We're not evolved enough as a sepcies to have that kind of tech - think also - everyone instantly has access to unlimited weapons. Great.

    We would kill ourselves off as a species within days.

    Then again maybe that's not a bad thing.

    • Re:Wouldn't such a thing... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Viol8 ( 599362 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:49AM (#10925414) Homepage
      1750 somewhere in northern england:

      Peasent 1: "These new fangled factories , they can be made to produce anything! They'll make our hand made goods valueless! They could even use it to build parts for other factories!"

      Peasent 2: "You're right Mr Ludd. Lets burn em all down!"
      • In fact, I would *embrace* this kind of change - if society was ready for it. Unfortunatly, I don't think we as a species have evolved to the point where we can exist without primal competition among one another for resources.

        These kinds of things need to be treade don lightly, or we will bring about our own destruction.

    • Economics.. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by digital.prion ( 808852 )
      Doesn;t that signify a flaw in the concept of economics rather than material science?


      Imagine the day when robots do most of the work.. Building, manufacturing, construction, planting.. Who can beat a machine specialized at a task?

      Remember the GM workers in Detriot replaced by machines on the assembly lines?

      At some point when the world is all SERVICE oriented.. because none actually produces anything.. Then all the people who HAVE money will be KINGS and QUEENS. Make sense?

      I think so.
      • Ah - but, how would such an economy work? Think about it.

        What service would you possibly sell? And what are the people paying you with, and why do you want it? You don't have to buy anything anymore, you can make it with your fab. Food, water, shelter, entertainment. all are costless. So why would you bother providing services to anyone in exchange for something?

        Such a revolution could only lead to one of two inevitable systems:

        1) The world becomes a Star-Trek like Utopia. poverty, hunger, and want are a
        • Read Karl Marx. Despite the whole "pinko" stigma, he was pretty bright, and envisioned what may come to pass when man obviates the economy.
        • I'd say 1 is somewhat likelier, and not because I'm a rose-glasses wearing optimist. I feel that we as a species (not neccesarily as individuals) will always choose the path of least resistance, and when all you want is provided, who can be bothered with a revolt? And people tend to be a lot more agreeable, when they have less to worry about.
        • Without power to gain, there is very little motivation for war. However, removing economic power still leaves other kinds of power to gain. If what you were saying were true, that is, that services were no longer necessary, then it _would_ remove most of the motivation for wars (why have slaves?).

          However, services will still be necessary since being able to build something atom-by-atom doesn't mean that you can _design_ the thing atom-by-atom yourself. You still need to get someone to figure out the layout

        • Thank you for some really good, really practical questions. Off the top of my head, here's some brainstormin':

          What service would you possibly sell?

          Sex. Live music. Any one-off art object guaranteed never to have been scanned for replication. Any human performance, like a stage play or an athletic contest. Conversation. Competition. Tutoring. Religion. Experiences. Health care expertise. Any living thing - plants, pets livestock. Any illegal thing. Insurance. Legal services. Bodyguard serv

    • Unless these fabricators can create new atomic elements via fission/fusion, there does seem to be the need for raw components. In otherwords, no gold from lead alchemy with this device...some things (gold, silver, platinum, titanium, etc.) would keep their intrinsic value.

      Construction from readily available elements (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc.) would be much easier, of course.
      • Because it costs nothing to make everything, space travel is now also costless.

        So anyone can just fab up a space shuttle and some scavenger robots and set them lose in the solar system, collecting any elements that are sufficintly rare enough on Earth to warrant such a hassle.

    • Re:Wouldn't such a thing... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bitkari ( 195639 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:11PM (#10925630) Homepage
      In a world of *magic fabricators* and the free flow of ideas, our traditional economy would be thrown in to chaos. A good chaos I suspect. Releasing the means of production to the people will be an incredibly amazing thing.

      The only problem is if these means are NOT released to the people, but controlled by companies. If we decend in to a world of DRM trousers, closed-source bicycles, patented turkey sandwiches, we are going to be an even more unhappy bunch of people.

      The development of these technologies makes the pursuit of open and free exchange of ideas ever more pressing.
    • Another poster pointed out that precious materials (gold for example) would remain valuable. Also, the energy has to come from somewhere, so energy will still cost something.

      As for throwing the world economy into chaos, I'd say it would do exactly the opposite. If everyone can make anything they want, that means everyone can now feed and clothe themselves. A world full of well fed, well clothed and shod people is not what I call "chaos".

      The uber-elite rich of the world probably won't like the fact that t

      • Nearly everyone can make a fist or pick up a rock, but not everyone does so.

        That doesn't address the nature of the problem. If we're talking about replicators that can fab atomic structures - which we almost certainly are for 99% of the blue skying in the comments here - then the problem is that the replicator can make extremely high quality explosives, fissionables, high speed switches (required for properly timed detonation of the plastic explosives surrounding a sphere of fissionable material)... yo

    • Then again, this all sounds way too good to be true.

      Probably because it is too good to be true. They're just so many flawed assumptions behind the idea of the desktop replicator that puts it on the same level as warp drive, a literary device that is good for those moments when you need the hero to create an object on the fly, but really bad when talking about future economics.

      Such a device would make physical goods value-less. The only things of value any longer would be services and artistic creations

  • What's next (Score:4, Funny)

    by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:48AM (#10925401) Homepage Journal
    For an encore:
    • Attach it to a 3D scanner and make a 3D copier.
    • Attach it to a microscope and duplicate bacteria (good or bad)
    • Attach it to a microwave oven and make dinner
    • Get the fabricator to fabricate itself
    • Get the fabricator to fabricate itself

      universe panic: stack overflow

    • Re:What's next (Score:3, Interesting)

      by beens ( 96257 )
      A class I am working with at Brown University [brown.edu] is working with 3d scanners in conjunction with 3d fabricators, such as were discussed here (ABS plastic, wax, plaster, etc). The 3d copier idea seems funny, but as we've found out it's not nearly so simple. We have a blog [blogspot.com] about our work, if you are interested, and a general webpage [mingar.com] too.

  • It will be expensive and slow, and still large (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:48AM (#10925404) Homepage Journal
    I saw a prototyping machine at a recent trade show, that could lay down ABS plastic. For a six cubic inch toy wheel, it was an overnight job. It wasn't neceessarily a desktop unit, it was still considerably larger in footprint than an HP LaserJet 4, and is floor standing, I think.

    It also costed $25,000.

    The machine type described are good for prototyping and custom parts, but there are usually better mass production methods. Laying down atom-by-atom will be slow for a loooong time and at best be of most consequence to nanomachines for that time.
    • ..in say, 25 years, when they are advanced enough, you could tell such a fab to fab the parts for itself?!?!

      You then have a fab that can fab fabs. That's the economic singularity point - the initial cost of the fab is then irrelevant - it could be millions, or billions, it doesn't matter because one can create another, ad-infinitum.

      At that point you have an economic breakdown on a global scale, since anyone can create anything from anything else.

    • > and at best be of most consequence to nanomachines for that time.

      A fabricator that builds nanomachines that do .. what? Build your own custom Natalie Portman, as others have said?

      "Hello, is that the cloning lab? I've got this cell, here, I was wondering if you could make anything of it...".

  • Eric Drexler - Engines of Creation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dareth ( 47614 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:49AM (#10925411)
    Engines of Creation: http://www.foresight.org/EOC/ [foresight.org]

    Not everyone thinks this is only a dream. Of course, many people think these people are crazy.
    But one must reach a bit beyond the accepted if one is to achieve something greater than the norm.

  • or make art (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dominux ( 731134 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:52AM (#10925431) Homepage
    http://www.bathsheba.com To start building a model from my 3D file, the design is built up, one layer at a time, from steel powder held in place by a laser-activated binder. ... This produces a porous steel part that is about 60% dense. ... The model is heated, the stems are dipped in a crucible of molten bronze, and capillary action causes the bronze to wick throughout the piece. Counterintuitive to say the least, but apparently it works very well.

  • Depositing 1 mole of stuff atom by atom (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ballpoint ( 192660 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:53AM (#10925443)
    at a speed of 1 billion atoms per second takes about 20 million years.

    Slow, slow.

  • Piracy (Score:3, Funny)

    by accelleron ( 790268 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:53AM (#10925444)
    Piracy - it's not just for software anymore...
  • That's what it'll result in. Giant robots with backpacks full of antimatter using a nanolathe to build bases and turrets. Nobody will come out of that unharmed ;-)

    Seriously though, it'll probably be a big mess if this kind of thing is ever invented. There's enough trouble already with "intellectual property". Imagine if everything suddenly was like that. Would sure make life interesting.
  • I haven't done much research on this subject, but I'm guessing that the most potential for this technology is in electronics. As long as the "ink" is reasonably priced, imagine downloading or designing custom circuits. No hassles of tracking down that hard to find IC chip, drilling PCB boards, or soldering those tiny beads. LEDs could be designed into the board instead of merely soldered to it. NASA would love this stuff.

  • Obligatory Calvin and Hobbes quote (Score:5, Funny)

    by Zorilla ( 791636 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:03PM (#10925557)
    Calvin: "If you could have anything in the world right now, what would it be?"
    Hobbes: "Hmm..."
    Calvin: "Anything at all! Whatever you want!"
    Hobbes: "A sandwich."
    Calvin: "A SANDWICH?!? WHAT KIND OF STUPID WISH IS THAT?!"
    Calvin: "Talk about a failure of imagination! I'd ask for a trillion billion dollars, my own space shuttle, and a private continent!"
    Hobbes: (eating sandwich) "I got MY wish."

  • Here I come, naked and petrified miss Portman!

    Or are you saying it can make living things?!

    Wow, I think that's dangerously close a geek's sex fantasy.
  • Geesh, we have been using 'rapid prototype' technology in the automotive industry for some time now..

    Sure its cool, but dont get so worked up about it..
    • rtfa

      they mention the use of older style fabricators, the goal of this project is much more than trying to build a model of a prodcut. The goal of this is to produce a working product (ie electronics, moving parts) which the article claims this fabricator can do.

      Seems doubtfull to me but would be extremely cool if it works. Where are the pics and vids of this thing?

  • There will have to be some built-in limits on what can be made in a "Desktop Fabricator", however, otherwise an intelligent enough machine could end up like the maker in Warren Ellis' excellent "Transmetropolitan [transmetropolitan.com]" series; constantly manufacturing and taking its own drugs.

    ~jeff
  • Just imagine the legislation and lawsuits! Hint: there are things called "design patents' that are meant to cover physical form and function. Regardless of any real IP issues, I'm sure there will be a TON of resistance to Desktop Fabricators, even as ordinary people embrace them.

    Look at the Desktop Fabricator as a physical analog to general purpose computers and the Internet. Just like the computers and the Internet reduce the marginal cost of duplicating information, the Desktop Fabricator does the same f
    • Lawsuits? How about asking yourself: how complicated are the atoms of the usual variety of brisant explosives? Answer: not much. Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen. You can get these elements from electrolysis of water (H2, O2), from the air (O2, N2), from common household chemicals like ammonia (NH4), and finally from the messy molecules of bulk items like common sugar.

      So, with a deskfabber in hundreds of thousands of bedrooms owned by mischievious teenagers, you'll have the world's largest arms race in a

  • Software a natural and not common there (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sai Babu ( 827212 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:16PM (#10925678) Homepage


    Desktop fabrication in a specific area, say software, is still pretty uncommon. Nevermind that program generators for cobal have been around for ages. A buddy who has been in IT since the only computers around were made of vacuum tubes has coupled his cobol generators with some program conversion utilities he wrote and now generates java programs based by specifying what they are supposed to do, rather than coding in java. One would think this sort of thing would be much more common in software.

    An earlier /. article World's First Ultra-Thin Multilayer Circuit Board [slashdot.org] talked about 'printing' multi-layer circuit baords. Coupling this with a little bit of hardware and the actual circuits might be printed. Some /. respondents cought on right away. 1 [slashdot.org], 2 [slashdot.org], go read for more.

    There have also been articles on hydroforming, foam in place construction, etc.

    As for rapid prototype '3-D' printers, the articles author seems to miss two major uses of this technology. Form and fit prototypes, and most common, rapid pattern making for casting.

    Yes, it's happening within specific industries, big time, but the general purpose desktop fab is far in the future.

  • let them eat cake...and see what happens! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rhettoric ( 772376 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:18PM (#10925694) Homepage
    This would throw the world economy into chaos since any industry based on the manufacture of goods would suddenly be SOL.

    Of course, corporations would try to "fix" this situation with DRM-encoded recipes. Anyone can make a shoe (with the help of open source), but if you want the new spectacular Nike shoe recipe you have to spend money...the recipe components are downloaded to your nanofactory and boom, you have the "cool" shoe.

    What this would do would be to make branding more important that it already is. Emphasis will be placed on quality and style of the product instead of usability (which will be possible to gain for practically nothing). Stephenson thought that this would give rise to a whole new artisan class of the economy which I agree is possible.

    There will be economic restabilization, and that's going to mean a lot of death and suffering for a lot of people. Since people kill each other over resources anything that creates a massive alteration in how resources (and thus people) are controlled will result in war, whether they can produce the weapons from nanofacotries or not . But you just wait, this is only a precursor to the real suffering.

    The real danger of this, at least for me, isn't economic restabilization, but population control. With such a device food will be possible to create even more easily. No need for crops, cattle or any other "source" of food. All food can be manufactured for the simple cost of energy needed to combine the appropriate atoms.

    Any ecologist will tell you that the one thing that limits a population is food. (lots of people debate this and say humans are different. That we control our population at will, however since the "invention" of agriculture the world's human population has done nothing but go up. When the world's population starts decreasing because of self-imposed limits, then I'll listening to how we determine our own carrying capacity). World hunger is a constant issue now, but if everyone in the world can eat, I assure you that the world's next generation will be even bigger. And if all of them can eat...well you see where I'm going.

    The only thing limiting (and I use that word loosely) global population is the manufacture and distribution of food. If those limitations are taking away the world is soon going to be a very cramped and unlivable place.
  • 1. Make matter creation device
    2. Create gold and diamonds
    3. Profit!

    Alternately, make a Rolex and tell those spammers to get lost!
  • I'm not sure why he thinks that objects fabricated by consumers will be flimsy and low-quality. Most likely, a process which actually placed atoms individually would default to making everything out of diamond, just because it's simple. Laser-cutters work nicely on hard plastics, and don't really work on the flimsy stuff just because you're actually carving the thing out of a solid block that has to not wobble while you cut it. It's only easier to make wimpy items than strong ones if you're using a melting
  • And so begins the new movement.

    This thing could potentially put product manufacturing as we know it out of business.

    "Hey man, download the new version of that lawnmower bot! It's really cool! I've got some patches that have yet to be accepted into the main tree, but it pulls weeds as it cuts the grass! Pretty cool eh?"

    Worse yet, EVERYTHING becomes intellectual property... not just software, patents, and the like, but EVERYTHING.
  • Great. I've always wanted my own full size Sear's Tower on my desktop. . .
  • Cool, I can fabricate hundreds of gabe newell models and due to thier weakness and "second hand" nature, STEAM them into oblivion !!

    Muuuuhahahah - Mooooohahahahha !

  • It isn't a molecular fabricator.

    But a machine that can mill 5 or 6 micron wide details does for me today what tomorrow I won't be able to do with a 'molecular fabricator'.

    Did I mention I'm a chemist?

    If you want molecular precision, is can happen. If you want to build larger structures, it can happen.

    Bridging between different size domains isn't as simple as drawing a large CAD model of something and saying make-it-so. The complexity of design of a significant item would be huge. It wouldn't lead to

  • Reminds me of a PKD story... (Score:3, Funny)

    by albamuth ( 166801 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @01:40PM (#10926340) Homepage
    ...in which short story anthology, I can't tell you (powers of recall dimming).

    Anyhow, on a post-apocalyptic Earth (as always) the saviors of humankind are these huge bloblike aliens who fabricate anything people want from them out of dust. Cars, houses, clothes, food, etc. Problem is people have been depending on these aliens for so many generations that they have no idea how make anything, and they aliens are starting to die off (and all the things the aliens conjured are falling apart)--panic ensues. Enter the hero who shows people an ugly, crude clay mug that he made himself.

  • if people take ideas from SciFi... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jeif1k ( 809151 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @06:21PM (#10927930)
    at least they should give credit. The idea of individual automated object fabrication has been around for several decades at least and was part of a series of influential science fiction stories. The stories even describe the different levels of technology: macroscopic automated manufacturing in the earlier versions, microscopic and atomic in later.

    People at MIT didn't come up with the idea. In fact, they didn't come up with the hardware either: they took a bunch of off-the-shelf components (laser cutters, 3D scanner), put them together in the obvious and known way, and apparently are saying "look how smart we are". That is more a testament to the size of their bank account than to their smarts. Most people don't build those kinds of systems yet because they don't make economic sense yet. Once laser cutters and 3D scanners come down in price to the point of printers and digital cameras, then those combinations will be widely deployed.

    When that happens, just be sure to give credit where credit is due: the original visionaries, and the people who created the technology that made it work: the engineers developing the laser cutters and the inventors coming up with organic semiconductors used in the ink jet printers used for custom electronics manufacturing.

  • Resources (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:28PM (#10929207) Homepage
    Many here are claiming that this would be the end of money, and that the economy would be throw in the crapper.

    Well, I'm sure there would be SERIOUS economic changes, but in order for this thing to function, it would need resources, which countries control.

    This would either lead to war over resources, and a desire for people to control those resources. Think about that and what it leads to.

  • Buta ctualyl fabriating anything will... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by the_womble ( 580291 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:50PM (#10929280) Homepage Journal
    ....be a breach of someone's IP rights - on investions wuch as a "wheel manufatured using fabricating process".

    You will be able to use a fabricator only after taking legal advice, that is until they are banned as "devices designed to faciliate IP theft".

Slashdot Top Deals

I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at the rate of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour ... -- F. H. Wales (1936)

Close