seems like a good time to invest in basic materials.

Apperently the only components that still need a little work are the artificial intelligence and the small fusion reactor.

So we walk uo to a niche in the wall, say, "Computer, Tea, Earl Grey, hot!" and the cup of tea costs about $2.4B, or we just make the damn tea on the stove for a half a buck--I wonder which will be more popular.

My guess is generic manufacturing technology
will put deflationary pressue relatively soon.

Essentially the manufacturing process becomes
more like the software model where a manufacturing
device is whatever you program it to be.

This could move us further away from high volume
capitalism.

There are already modeling systems that will
create models of parts and machines based upon
3D CAD input.

Manufacturing finished products will require a bit more refinement.

Screw that, I want a Holodeck.

7 of 9

Just think of the scope this will provide for bad taste.

Uh, could this thing duplicate people?

Matt;

No. It doesn't really "duplicate" anything, that's just the author being stupid. Gershenfeld's book title is far more accurate, assuming you know that in geek speak "fab" is short for "fabricator" not "fabulous". It's really just a very sophisticated factory, small enough to fit in your house or even on your desk. You feed it blueprints and it makes what the blueprints describe.

Personally, I think what a boon this will be for modelers and that they're likely to be the first adopters. Want a perfect replica of a 1934 San Francisco street car in H scale? Download the plans and "print it" on your fabricator. The biggest hurdle for which no solution is known is working with arbitrary materials rather than what is used now, highly specialized "ink". For instance, one could not print gold coins even if one had the gold available. I suspect that's the aspect Gershenfeld is working on.

There are still many things that would not have their value compromised by a replicator system. For example, how would you replicate the original Mona Lisa? The can be only one original, and that scarcity would mean that its price would still be high. Personal services also cannot be replicated. Examples: a live concert from your favourite band, medical services, painting. Intangibles continue to be valuable, such as patents and stocks and bonds.

It would be interesting to speculate how the transition period would occur for introduction of a replicator tech into society. Would you see cartels trying to control the tech and the distribution of the devices and their products? Would there be huge attempts to make items "copy protected" in the smae way the music industry tries to fight music downloads/cd copying?

Why would the original Mona Lisa be worth more than an exact duplicate and how would you tell?

OJ: Before you ask for 7 of 9, you might want to talk to ex, whose political career she trashed.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced the govt. will never allow it.

They would lose control over people.

How easy would it be to make a gun without any papers.
explosives?
Drugs?

One coul blame that on the courts making the divorce records public.

First of all, if it really duplicates things "exactly", then, yes, it could duplicate a person.

Secondly, there are some valuable things it could not make more of, the obvious one being time. Another is matter/energy, although that stuff is in such large supply it hardly seems like a binding constraint.

Other things it could not help you to do are travel faster than light, increase your intelligence, or make you more creative.

A lot of this stuff has already been mulled over in nanotech sci-fi.

And now a comment from Butthead: "Seven of Nine. I like her Borg implants. Hey, baby, my warp coil is straightening out, huh huh."

He's not talking about transmutation here, so desktop fabs would be bound by the relative scarcity of the elements. 3-D printers are actually a pretty robust technology now and I wouldn't be surprise to see them start appearing in desktop models soon.

Not quite speak of the Devil, but extremely cool.

"One coul blame that on the courts making the divorce records public."

Damn things are not maintenance free. "If you want to be happy the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife."

Tom:

To duplicate a person, you'ld need an accurate blueprint; it's not all all clear that you could produce such without destroying the original... (of course, now you've got a transporter!).

Earl - Certainly, but that also applies to anything else you'd want to duplicate. I guess your point is not about what we could do, but what we'd be willing to do - that we wouldn't mind destriying, e.g., a cup of tea to get the blueprint, but we would mind destroying a person.