Comments on: Open source self-replication https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/open-source-self-replication/2008/12/24 Researching, documenting and promoting peer to peer practices Thu, 25 Dec 2008 21:08:54 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.5.15 By: Agroblogger https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/open-source-self-replication/2008/12/24/comment-page-1#comment-354362 Thu, 25 Dec 2008 21:08:54 +0000 http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=2245#comment-354362 Sepp makes a good point. But, of course, a writer will always use terminology to attract attention and create buzz. An important point to keep in mind though…let’s not get too caught up in semantics. Part of my 3 points is about moving things forward as quickly as possible, and we’re trying to develop a road map and a movement for doing so.

]]> By: Sepp Hasslberger https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/open-source-self-replication/2008/12/24/comment-page-1#comment-354147 Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:50:56 +0000 http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=2245#comment-354147 This doesn’t quite make sense.

We are talking here about a machine that can replicate certain not-too-complicated parts of itself, like the raw physical frame of the machine and some of the mechanical moving parts. There are parts that can’t be replicated as yet, and that’s acknowledged in the following:

“this technology already exists, but the cheapest commercial machine would cost you about €30,000. And it isn’t even designed so that it can make itself.”

Perhaps we shouldn’t call it a “self replicating” machine just yet, but find a name that describes what the machine can do, for instance a “parts replicator” or some such designation.

]]>