zlacker

>>ptorro+(OP)
I think it's interesting to note that not only is there precedent for this type of "blocking technology that prevents the printing of certain things"[1], but it's also inconsequential and uncontroversial enough that most of the people here obviously have never even heard of it.

We lost the ability to print $50 bills with our HPs[2] and it had no noticeable negative impact on society. I'm not sure why losing the ability to print a gun with our Prusas will be any different.

[1] - https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/cant-photocopy-scan-cu...

[2] - https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Printers-Archive-Read-Only/Won...

>>slg+CN1
Uh, I'd say that something has in fact been lost in that every single printer sold watermarks every document printed regardless of if you are attempting to print a $50 bill or not.

There are plenty of people who change their behavior because that tracking is in place, regardless of if what they are doing (or would be doing) is in any way illegal.

Terrible example IMO.

>>Tostin+QO1
>regardless of if you are attempting to print a $50 bill or not.

Maybe the way this applies to everything should be an indication that it's unrelated to the point I made about blocking the printing of certain things.

>>slg+DR1
The ways that i've seen proposed for the 3d printer to determine if the thing you are printed is "gun related" was to force them to be internet connected, and to send your print files to some 3rd party (or government) server before you are allowed to print.

How is that less invasive?