3D Printed Gun, Robots, and the future of food pricing

Recently there's been a company based here in Austin Texas called Defense Distributed, which has been garnering a lot of attention. This is due to the fact that first, they developed a 3D printed magazine for an AR15. Then the decided to develop 3D printed versions of portions of the gun itself. These parts are being printed in plastic, so it seems unlikely that a plastic gun would work right? Well, the lower receiver for the AR15 can survive shooting 600 rounds. That's a big deal. The first version was able to shoot one, the second only 7. As of yesterday they released a fully printable handgun. Due to restrictions in the US gun code a gun must have a certain minimum weight of metal to be detectable by metal detectors (125g). I think that this will have major ramifications - I'm not even talking about gun rights, or gun ownership or gun whatever. I'll discuss those in a later post. Below is a video of the "Liberator" in action.

How is this a big deal in other ways than just Gun rights? Well, several months ago a book came out called "Race Against the Machine" which argues that we need to figure out how to work with robots and computers in an effective way to maximize the returns for both workers and for the owners of the computer/robots. One of these robots they discuss is a $25k robot called Baxter. This robot is extremely easy to program and control. It offers a lot of the capabilities that a low skill employee could offer and more than many expensive robots. In fact we're seeing this in re-shoring efforts from companies like Tesla and Apple. They won't be bringing back the old school manufacturing jobs. There will only be technician jobs related to fixing broken equipment, which will be significantly fewer jobs. Even if Baxter only lasts 3 years, it more than paid for itself in being able to operate for 24/7 for 25k in total rather than paying four people more than that each year.

Add in the capability for people to download  designs for guns and many other things from Thingiverse which can be printed from home and how cheap it is to send designs to companies like Shapeways - where you can print in metal, these changes are going to radically change our current manufacturing infrastructure and distribution system. We aren't prepared for this and it's going to reduce the number of low end jobs in existence.

Which brings me to the next point. Food prices are high. When people can't feed themselves there are riots and revolts. We've seen this twice already in the past 5 years and we're poised for more violence by August of this year. According to a study published two years ago food prices are near the threshold level of the Arab Spring. If these prices are still as high as predicted then we could see some serious issues in the next few years unless we radically begin rethinking our economic models.

We'll be seeing massive disruption and opportunities in the manufacturing space. This will likely have massive ramifications on our supply chain, which has huge numbers of employees. The ability to print your own cheap plastic products could impact toy sales and the retail industry.

Is this bound to happen, no, certainly not. However, 3D Printers are now available for sale at Staples for $1,300 prebuilt, they've come pretty close to mainstream. The next step are going to be more advanced printers that are able to print faster, cool faster, print more complex designs with less structure, and eventually we might be able to print metal products on a printer that costs $1300. A lot of people won't want to do this, but there will be enough where it could have a serious impact on the economy.

What do you think? Am I overreacting?

Looming battle: Content providers vs. service providers

In my last post about the PS4, I discussed how the PS4 is a long term play and that over time the product will move away from playing directly on the PS4 towards utilizing servers to stream the game to the user. This was an argument to counter many PC gamer's disdain for the specs for the system. Sure, the specs aren't great, but they are a huge advancement over the PS3, which is still able to play, rather well, new games.

Most of the feedback I got on the article basically went "well that's great and all, but the infrastructure isn't there for this in the US." This is extremely valid feedback. AOL still records $500 Million in revenue from dial up connections. The US rates among the worst in developed world for internet speeds and penetration. Of course there's the argument that our country is so much larger, well, the EU as a whole tops us, it's not uniform across the EU, but that still makes it a valid comparison. The other thing to remember, the console won't just come out in the US. Many of these features will work better in Korea and Japan than in the US. Typically Sony has released different features by region and will likely experiment with the sharing features in Japan before rolling it out to the US, where Sony knows it will have infrastructure difficulties.

This discussion raises additional concerns though, infrastructure isn't just about the lines in the ground, but also the structure of the service providers that allow access. In the case of the US, not only does quality and speed of the connection vary wildly but we also have more restrictions on the amount of data we can download than other countries. For a typical family you end up buying the internet 2 or 3 times at the minimum (smart phone access per family member and then the main house connection). Each of these connections likely has a different maximum for downloading or uploading with fees for going over this.

This creates a lot of difficulties as we don't always know how much bits a specific file will use as we access it. In many cases, it likely drives consistent under utilization of the service do to excessive fees and user dissatisfaction for those hitting the cap. Americans are starting to cut the cord in record numbers, my wife and I don't have TV, just cable internet; I have a lot of options without Cable. This is going to start increasing the rate of frustration users have with caps. I typically watch live streaming video in 720p while my wife surfs the net and watches a show on Hulu.

I have absolutely no idea how much bandwidth is being consumed on a typical night. There is no easy way for me to measure this or plan for getting close to a cap. Furthermore, both my wife and I use our phones to access the internet, listen to music, watch videos, and play games on our phones. Again, all of these use bandwidth and likely push us against our cellular plan. Sure there's meters for these, but they are notoriously inaccurate.

This issue with be further exacerbated by the proliferation of cloud services like Drop Box, video sharing on YouTube, streaming new services all the time, and the eventual goal of offloading computing power to the cloud. The measurement of these services will be extremely difficult and planning for how much data these services will require will be absurdly difficult at best for the average user. It is likely that these services will push users over the usage caps on a monthly bases.

I think that we need to start looking for another solution. I think that Google Fiber is a start, it would make sense for Netflix, Amazon, Dishnetwork, Microsoft, Intel, and other content providers to join a consortium that will introduce a new service provider to attack the incumbents. I have heard that Dish is currently working on creating their own system with Google or some other company, I think that this could potentially shake up the industry and allow users more options. There are going to be a wealth of new services that require more and more bandwidth and higher speeds. If these content providers want users to be able to access and enjoy their services they need to challenge the status quo to enable their customers.

PS4 may not be as bad as everyone thinks

The PS4 was announced yesterday, 2/20/2013, it was immediately pummeled by the media and on social networks. I think that this might be a touch premature. Why? I'll list out a few different reasons and let the reader decide if I'm off my rocker.

First, streaming to the PS Vita. Commentators have already compared this to the Nvidia shield, while I think this is accurate, I think that misses part of the point behind this capability. The true purpose is to get people used to the idea of streaming a video game from one system onto another system. We are used to doing this with video already, but we aren't used to truly playing something that is entirely run on a different system than the one we're interacting with.

Second, play while downloading. This feature is again to help us get used to the idea of streaming a game from a server. Sony acquired Gaikai a while back which enables playing a game on the server. Initially offering only server side play while downloading is a very safe way for Sony to test system requirements on the server side, manage capacity needs by limiting the amount of concurrent users, and developing an understanding how game play feels when thousands of people are playing the same game over an internet connection.

Third, console gaming systems have always had lower specs than the bleeding edge PC games. However, the platform is stable and encourages developers to figure out new ways of exploiting the technology. They don't have to worry about continually changing systems. On top of that, the developers will eventually begin to exploit the combination of the CPU and GPU using OpenCL and figure out new ways to eek more out of less using that technology.

Fourth, in 5 years it won't matter what is underneath the hood of the PS4. Not because no one will be playing it, but because Sony will have acclimated users to streaming over the Vita. Sony will have acclimated users to streaming from a server through downloads. Sony will have determined server requirements to host all games and stream the game to the PS4. It's likely that there will be some experimental games that will allow playing both client side or server side, but eventually there will be a game that will only be server side. It will be a big game and it will begin to push all other games to the server. At this point Sony will have optimized the hardware for the PS4 to display higher quality game play coming over the internet.

The PS4 is not the next console for Sony, it likely could be the "last" console for Sony as it develops new ways for users to access games and continually "upgrade" their console as the server side technology for game streaming continually matures. This of course eliminates the need to sync a disc to a specific system and even removes the need to download any content. You buy a short cut and you can play immediately.

So, is the PS4's hardware going to be kill the PS4? No, the hardware on this system isn't the point. The goal is to allow access to games that will be streamed from the cloud.

Some thoughts on gun issues

I posted the following as a comment to my brother's comment about gun control. He's a boarder patrol agent. Basically he commented about how allowing guns (in the right hands) can save lives. He also argued that if you take guns away from most people only criminals will have them. As most of you know I love to shoot guns. I've shot all sorts of guns from pistols to an AR15. I think it's fun and a good way to enjoy some time with your friends. That being said, here's my comment to him.


"Alright, I've been hearing a lot about how gun control won't fix the problem. You know I like shooting guns and do believe that we should be able to own guns. Now, I think that there needs to be some level of gun control/additional checking before gun purchases are made but I'm not exactly sure what that is. Secondly, simply saying criminals won't follow the law isn't a suitable answer either because there's no completion of the thought. If criminals won't follow the law, why are they criminals in the first place? What do we need to do to eliminate their supposed need for the gun to commit said dubious act?

I believe that to truly eliminate (or greatly reduce gun violence) we need to address the root cause, gun control alone won't work. We have to address the reasons for the criminality. Those include, poverty, inequality, drug addiction, sale of drugs, unemployment, being a convicted felon and so on. All of these causes have significant interaction effects. You can't separate sale of drugs from drug addiction and drug usage is higher in impoverished areas. So, this indicates to me that we need to address the root cause issue behind poverty and drugs. The extralegal crimes related to drugs include things like murder over turf wars and the sort of activities you're involved with as a boarder patrol agent, smuggling, etc... We as a society have direct control over what is a legal and illegal drug. We have control over this - it's a matter of do what we consider the right thing to do about drugs.

The other obvious area we need to address is mental health, which has a different root cause than the others. Many people can't afford the mental health they need because we as a society don't value mental health very well and many insurance companies think it's a waste of time.

In my mind I think that if we want to address the true root cause behind gun violence we need to address poverty, drugs, and mental health. Unless you or anyone else for that matter, is willing to seriously consider fixing many of these issues, then gun control is one of the few options we have to address it. It's a failed option from the start because it's a band aid. In my opinion all gun advocates need to pull together and push for reform on those social issues I outlined to keep guns ownership legal as you think it should be. Otherwise we are doomed to repeat this sort of cycle."

Yes, this is something of a rant, but I think we need to really consider what we value as a culture and how we decide to address an issue like gun control. The events at Sandy Hook and other locations in the past 2 years around the world are horrible.

Patent threatening how websites protect users

I just found this article on Ars Technica about a patent troll, TQP, that threatens the very way encrptions occur on the internet. In fact, this patent based on the single picture, is extremely dangerous. The article claims that the company has sued hundreds of companies, including 100 in the past 12 months. This type of behavior needs to stop. Effectively this patent could be used against any website that uses even the most generic encryption method. The patent is based on a pretty generic frame work and likely is significantly overly broad.

Historically, I've had serious issues with many software patents especially when it comes to web services. This one looks incredibly bad and hasn't made it to any sort of trial yet. One of my problems with this patent is the fact that it uses a very generic "encryptor/decryptor" block, which as long as there's a counter and psuedorandom number generator involved in the method to use it, could be impacted. This seems like a rather logical method for transmitting and setting the encryption key.

I personally think that anything that targets a user ability to protect their data is the worst of the worst. In the world we live in today, exploiting something that was likely given to the general community without a second thought then a method to "apply" it, is wrong, because it was given to the general public to ensure our data was protected.

That's one of the most beautiful things about the open source movement. These technologies which can benefit users in many levels, business, personal, government and the interface between the three, are developed because they solve a problem for that community. In many cases these technologies are created by businesses, but by license mandate are required to be given to the community for free. Should this be considered a waste of money by the company creating it? Should they be able to make money off of it? No and Yes. Here's how they can make money off of the technology they give to the community: use it to provide secure services to your customers. If the customers are using a platform that you don't own, ensuring that they are able to access their information they are giving to you is in your best interest.

This is one of the reasons we need to support the EFF initiative to modify software patents. Check that out here: https://defendinnovation.org/

Apple and Quality

I know I'm not always the biggest Apple fan on here. But there's one thing I have to admit, they typically come out with a really well put together product. If they don't, they are fairly quick about providing a free solution - such as the case for the iPhone with the antennae issues. However, this version doesn't seem to be along the same lines. There's the issue with iOS maps, which is pretty terrible, but there's also another problem with the sapphire lens selected for the camera causes a purple tint and light flaring. Their solution is to simply point the camera away from the light and that this is normal behavior.

This type of quality issues in a product like this leaves a lot to be desired for some pretty obvious reasons. For a lot of people the cell phone is their only camera. I almost never take pictures, but when I do, it's on my cell phone. If the pictures are defective by "design" then this is going to be a huge problem. I'm sure that the Instagram filter won't look right when you add that to the picture as well.

I think that these two issues are starting to indicate a trend with Apple for the beginning of a decline in the perfectionism that most users associate with Apple products. To some extent it was never there the way people like to think that it was, but there was a lot of perfectionism that went into the designing and material selection for the phones.

You could argue that the tint is similar in defect type to the antennae issue, but I think this is different because the camera is such an integral part of the phone. Apple has been developing cameras for years whereas the antennae issue was related to a new skill set, an external antennae.

The next concern for Apple fans, is that the phone is their core product and they really dropped the quality in some ways. Without proper maps, the quality certainly suffers, users are used to the correct maps at a touch of a button, not seven. Will these issues prevent iPhone fans from buying this phone? No, I don't think so. I think it might push some people away if they were on the fence about getting the same phone, again. I think the larger risk is in the long term. If Apple continues to produce the same products but continues to have quality issues with some expected features on a phone then Apple will begin to lose customers in droves.

For the iPhone6 Apple needs to come out with a different feeling phone, if they do, any issues like camera or whatever will be masked by the fact that it's totally new. People will flock to it again. If Apple doesn't come out with a new feeling and has issues, I think that will give more people pause about the whole company. We're a year or two away from the iPhone6, so that may be premature. Customers and analysts aren't friendly to stagnating firms. Apple surely doesn't want to be in that group.

Apple v Samsung: iJury

As most of you are aware Apple crushed Samsung in it's suit. Every patent of Apple's was upheld and Samsung owes Apple just a touch over $1Billion. This is going to do a great deal to chill innovation. Many other people are commenting that these patents and the idea of copying isn't new and that Apple has stolen a great deal themselves. In one discussion with an author at the Urban Times, he seemed to argue that the theft of these ideas is more honest than copying and that Apple was a better company for doing so. Well, there's a major flaw in that idea, the theft of an idea is essentially copying the idea, the only difference is you act as if it was always yours and that you didn't copy someone else.

One author thinks that one billion is a small price to pay to be the second largest mobile manufacturer in the world. While I understand the thinking behind this, sure they copied a great deal from Apple and it only cost them a portion of what it could have cost. However, this is a short sighted view. The manner in which Apple has attacked Samsung isn't going to stop and will likely intensify. The ruling in San Jose wasn't the only ruling that came in yesterday. In Korea a judge ruled that both companies were infringing each other and banned both products from being imported to the country. The judge also found that Samsung didn't copy and in the UK a judge also said that Samsung didn't copy and wasn't cool enough to be confused with an i Anything - ordering them to post it on their website.

The idea that Apple's design for the phone's desktop being unique is a bit absurd. They simply changed the way the buttons looked, but there had been interfaces that were extremely similar for years. I had a Sony Cliq PDA in 2001 and 2002 and some of the way that product looked was similar to the iPhone. Apple repackaged things extremely well. Judge Koh did not allow Samsung to present all the information to the jury related to prior art, which certainly didn't help Samsung's case (Samsung released it to the public though).

The other major issue with this case is the idea that laypeople can really understand the issues with patents. They are difficult to understand, written in legalese and intended to be so broad that they can be interpreted in many different ways. I've read through several patents and they quite frankly are confusing and in many cases don't convey the information they are required to convey (how to manufacture or build whatever is patented).

For a patent to be valid it only has three conditions to meet: Novel, which means that nothing like it has been done before; Non-Obvious, which means that (originally) that an expert in the field wouldn't see this as a natural extension of previous work; now it must be non-obvious to a layperson; the final one is the possibility of industrial application, this means that the technology must be useful in some way. Many of Apple's patents do not meet the threshold for the first two, novel or non-obvious. Now of course people that disagree will argue that in hindsight these patents are obvious because Apple did such a god job at inventing them. I disagree primarily because many of the patents are reapplication of ideas from the computer to the smart phone.

I'm extremely worried about the future of innovation in light of this ruling. I think that there will be serious repercussions and whatever comes out of this will be terrible for consumers.

Finally check out this video discussing what Apple has invented: