MrSeb writes “In its continuing mission to build a ‘Wiki Weapon,’ Defense Distributed has 3D printed the lower receiver of an AR-15 and tested it to failure. The printed part only survives the firing of six shots, but for a first attempt that’s quite impressive. And hey, it’s a plastic gun. Slashdot first covered 3D-printed guns back in July. The Defense Distributed group sprung up soon after, with the purpose of creating an open-source gun — a Wiki Weapon — that can be downloaded from the internet and printed out. The Defense Distributed manifesto mainly quotes a bunch of historical figures who supported the right to bear arms. DefDist (its nickname) is seeking a gun manufacturing license from the ATF, but so far the feds haven’t responded. Unperturbed, DefDist started down the road by renting an advanced 3D printing machine from Stratasys — but when the company found out what its machine was being used for, it was repossessed. DefDist has now obtained a 3D printer from Objet, which seemingly has a more libertarian mindset. The group then downloaded HaveBlue’s original AR-15 lower receiver from Thingiverse, printed it out on the Objet printer using ABS-like Digital Material, screwed it into an AR-57 upper receiver, loaded up some FN 5.7x28mm ammo, and headed to the range. The DefDist team will now make various modifications to HaveBlue’s design, such as making it more rugged and improving the trigger guard, and then upload the new design to Thingiverse.” Sensible ammo choice; 5.7x28mm produces less recoil than the AR-15’s conventional 5.56mm. I wonder how many of the upper’s components, too, can one day be readily replaced with home-printable parts — for AR-15 style rifles, the upper assembly is where the gun’s barrel lives, while the lower assembly (the part printed and tested here) is the legally controlled part of the firearm. Read more of this story at Slashdot.
View the original here:
Wiki Weapon Project Test-Fires a (Partly) 3D-Printed Rifle
derekmead writes “College students’ voracious appetite for study drugs like Adderall is widespread enough that it was one of the main topics of a marquee lecture on neuroethics at Society for Neuroscience’s 2012 conference called ‘The Impact of Neuroscience on Society: The Neuroethics of “Smart Drugs.”‘ It was excellent stuff by Barbara Sahakian, faculty at Department of Psychicatry at the University of Cambridge. Her focus is on prescription drugs for diseases and conditions like Alzheimer’s, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and depression, with the fundamental goal of understanding the neural basis of dysfunction to develop better drugs. Specifically, she wants to create drugs with no risk for substance abuse which means drugs that have no effect on dopamine. The true goal then of her research, fundamentally and briefly, is to repair the impaired. But doing so brings us to the discussion of how much repair is ethical when the repair can be disseminated to people who don’t actually need it. Divisions abound on what is to be done. Some experts say that if people can boost their abilities to make up for what mother nature didn’t give them, what’s wrong with that? Others say that people shouldn’t be using these drugs because they’re designed for people with serious problems who really need help. So another question for the ethicists is whether cognitive enhancers will ultimately level the playing field or juice the opposing team.” Read more of this story at Slashdot.