@enoch,

It is definitely immoral as described earlier. However you raised some good points such as the varying levels or degrees of immortality. The example you gave of a woman struggling to feed her children & herself who will do anything to survive raises the age old question i.e. if a man steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, is it still stealing?. & this is a very grey issue to delve into accurately. Obviously there are multiple avenues here that any respective journalist worth their weight in salt should have considered such as to the 'why' of this, not just the 'how'. Are these disabled individuals undervalued, out-of-luck, battlers seeking restitution simply to survive in society, or is it simply greed & their 'disability' is manufactured to make a profit?. Obviously, for the payers it is simply to get an advantage that the general public are denied. However, deciphering the payees motives are far more complex & the reporters really should have focused more on the users, as they have set-up the client base for this system of dishonestly to thrive whereas the guides are merely the pawns, as one parent of the 1% 'as she described herself' commented on social networking after utilising these services commented 'This is how the 1% live' & nothing was done to confront her.

If the non-disabled can abuse this system, then why not other system advantages such as disabled parking? should these individuals be able to lease out their car-park availability to the non-disabled?. These individuals do not seem (purely by observing them) 'clearly disabled', the man did not reveal his, while the woman said she had a back & knee problems. While it may be clever, it is certainly NOT moral, as money is buying the privileged to become even more set in their ways & reinforcing bad behaviour by treating others as below them & of lesser value. Which is the definition of immoral.

1. the scale on the individual files was way off.

I suspect this has something to do with the printer it was designed for. It seemed very close to being 1 inch = 1 mm. Not a completely uncommon problem. Manually resizing got some files to look right, but I found many simply wouldn’t resize.

2. Almost every single item had errors.

If you’ve done 3d printing, you’ve found that a model can have all kinds of issues that will stop it from printing correctly. I found every single item for the gun had errors. I actually learned a lot about how to repair non-manifold items from this exercise, so it was good in the end.

Some items, like the hammer and the hammer springs simply would not print. I ran them through systems to repair them and fix errors. It would say that everything was fixed, but when I tried to “slice” them for printing, the software would crash. This means that my gun is incomplete. It has no hammer. Not really that big of a deal to me.

And what if people don't act in their own self interest? I don't see how that makes an argument at all. Are you saying that people are all going to smoke crack because we don't act in our self interest from time to time? (No, but how is legalization the answer when it's already a problem being banned?)

I don't understand the jist of this objection, perhaps you could elaborate. (glad to, personal responsibility only goes so far- do the poor have a RIGHT to starve to death because its their personal responsibility to find work or should society help the less fortunate?. the RIGHT to destroy your body with elicit drug use as a tenant of freedom of expression means that ALL drugs would have to be on the table & the crucial element that keeps these items blacklisted is 'Control' - people can smoke a cigarette and work, drive etc. Drinking alcohol is ceased when a person is reaching an intoxicated level by a duty of care, pot the way that is done now is OK with me regulated by those who need it, but to equate its accessibility along the same lines as cigarettes would be dangerous (yes cigarettes cause more deaths), but 'long-term to the INDIVIDUAL', not short-term to society as you cannot use it and be as fluid a cigarette usage (remember these are social conventions).


You also create a moral hazard by restricting freedoms. More people might die of drug abuse if it is legal, but those are people who chose to do drugs (are they choosers or addicts?, also do you want your government producing heroin like a pusher?. What about the entire countries who's populations are in fear of gun touting drug lords? (the only way to stop the cartel's is by legalizing all class A drugs, and why subject the majority of society to dangerous substances which you admit would find no use in having such things only to stop the criminal element which will always evolve to newer things?).