Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

blog.adafruit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 861 posts

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#161

Post by [deleted] »

kube-system wrote: post #159
Retric wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually things that are new after the constitution was written is regularly brought up before the court it’s a very common argument. The thing was written a long time ago, everyone involved in the process acknowledges that fact. The degree to which papers applies to electronic data should be familiar to you. Supreme court rulings are arbitrary as they regularly reverse or update standards, sometimes multiple times.

Yes, if your argument is found to be right in the future, then it will be right. Currently it is not, and it is unlikely to be any different until the composition of the court changes. Until then, the only other path to change it is an amendment.

[deleted]

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#162

Post by viccis »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #79
crazygringo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's more charitable. Alt is still short for Alternate though, not Alter.

I thought "Alt" in the title is meant in the sense of "stop", as in "halt", but on second thoughts maybe that only works in French (where h is always silent)?

It's clearly meant to be part of the Ctrl-Alt-Del key sequence that interrupts Windows computers to bring up the task manager.

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#163

Post by Retric »

kube-system wrote: post #159
Retric wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually things that are new after the constitution was written is regularly brought up before the court it’s a very common argument. The thing was written a long time ago, everyone involved in the process acknowledges that fact. The degree to which papers applies to electronic data should be familiar to you. Supreme court rulings are arbitrary as they regularly reverse or update standards, sometimes multiple times.

Yes, if your argument is found to be right in the future, then it will be right. Currently it is not, and it is unlikely to be any different until the composition of the court changes. Until then, the only other path to change it is an amendment.

I agree it’s the composition of the Supreme Court that’s at issue not the constitution.

Saying what arguments are right doesn’t make sense in these contexts only what is the current precedent.

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#164

Post by viccis »

crazygringo wrote: post #7

I don't think they know what Ctrl+Alt+Delete means. They want to restart it? They want to go to the screen where you can switch users or sign out? Do they think it's just a fancier way of saying delete?

It has been used as an idiom to mean stopping or restarting something (the former in this case) for decades: https://wordspy.com/words/ctrl-alt-delete/

I think it's because most people associate Ctrl-Alt-Del with the process of terminating a process, so they use the key sequence itself to refer to the act of terminating something.

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#165

Post by ndriscoll »

Retric wrote: post #157
kube-system wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an argument that people make today . Where was that part of the decision making process in 1789?

Firearms (ops Arms) was used rather than weapons suggesting some level of consideration here. They had cannons and warships back then. That bit about a well regulated militia suggests limits on what exactly was permissible. But obviously we don’t have direct knowledge of every conversation.

The point about cannons and warships actually makes it very clear about what the authors' intent was re: balance of risk; at the time, private ownership of artillery was completely legal and unregulated. Private citizens owned warships with dozens of live cannons that could bombard coastal cities, and didn't even need to file paperwork to do so! A warship can cause quite a bit more mayhem than a glock.

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#166

Post by tastyfreeze »

dangus wrote: post #141
tastyfreeze wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A normal country? Like Iran that just slaughters or imprisons anybody that speaks or acts against the government. 2A is to stop that situation from ever happening. Is the government starts shooting we will shoot back. Before then we would prefer to resolve our grievances peacefully in court.

Most countries aren’t Iran. Are the French unable to protest without the 2nd amendment? Did the 2nd amendment save Mark Pretti from that exact situation happening to him?

No, most countries are not like Iran. There are enough examples of governments deciding to slaughter unarmed people within their boarders that the majority in the US sees giving up private guns as a folly of the greatest order.

If a populace gives up their weapons they become ultimately powerless against armed aggressors. 2A first purpose is to make citizens the first line of defense against invasion. This is supposed to be in place of a standing army from a time that a town could be wiped off the map by invading forces before any military force could be dispatched.

Yes, a permanent standing army is unconstitutional (Article 1 Section 8).

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#167

Post by kube-system »

Retric wrote: post #157
kube-system wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an argument that people make today . Where was that part of the decision making process in 1789?

Firearms (ops Arms) was used rather than weapons suggesting some level of consideration here. They had cannons and warships back then. That bit about a well regulated militia suggests limits on what exactly was permissible. But obviously we don’t have direct knowledge of every conversation.

> Firearms was used rather than weapons

Where? The constitution says neither. It says "Arms"

Regardless, the constitution specifically makes reference to the private ownership of cannons and warships.

> To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#168

Post by hazmazlaz »

The most insane thing about this is that it is not illegal to manufacture firearms in the United States. Providing that you do not sell or distribute the firearm, it is entirely legal to manufacture a firearm in the USA for personal use only. Laws vary state by state, of course, and it may be different in the state of New York, but assuming that this federal law has not been overridden by some state law in New York, then this proposed regulation is 100% nonsensical.

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#169

Post by Retric »

kube-system wrote: post #167
Retric wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firearms (ops Arms) was used rather than weapons suggesting some level of consideration here. They had cannons and warships back then. That bit about a well regulated militia suggests limits on what exactly was permissible. But obviously we don’t have direct knowledge of every conversation.

> Firearms was used rather than weapons Where? The constitution says neither. It says "Arms" Regardless, the constitution specifically makes reference to the private ownership of cannons and warships. > To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

Arms at the time meant man portable weapons as distinct from cannons or trebuchet etc.

Just posted about firearms so many times used the wrong word here.

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#170

Post by Retric »

ndriscoll wrote: post #165
Retric wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firearms (ops Arms) was used rather than weapons suggesting some level of consideration here. They had cannons and warships back then. That bit about a well regulated militia suggests limits on what exactly was permissible. But obviously we don’t have direct knowledge of every conversation.

The point about cannons and warships actually makes it very clear about what the authors' intent was re: balance of risk; at the time, private ownership of artillery was completely legal and unregulated. Private citizens owned warships with dozens of live cannons that could bombard coastal cities, and didn't even need to file paperwork to do so! A warship can cause quite a bit more mayhem than a glock.

Legal yes, protected by the constitution without constraint no.

Both the use of Arms being man portable weapons and militia makes a very clear distinction.

Post reply on HN