When is the correction of an article not a correction? Leaving an article stand with error intact and merely footnoting it counts in my book. As I understand it 3D printer technology is relatively new. I can't imagine it being used prior to 2004 to create banned rifle parts as originally asserted. I can only question the motivation of the author Will Oremus and the Slate. What do you think? Am I just being hyper sensative?
"This isn’t the only way that 3-D printing can come in handy for criminals. Gangs have used the technology in the past to build better skimmers for ATM machines, and gun enthusiasts have printed rifle parts that would normally require a permit to buy.*
Reactionary security types will probably interpret these anecdotes as reason to regulate 3-D printers, but that would be premature. New technologies don’t create the arms race between criminals and authorities—they just change the rules.
*Correction: This article originally stated that 3-D printing allowed gun enthusiasts to circumvent the federal assault weapons ban. That ban expired in 2004
3-D printed handcuff keys: Hacker highlights security problem for police
Bull Hockey and dogwallering panty twisters. Absolutely not. Stupidest thing I've heard yet. Stupid as a bag of rocks. You are correct.
Those printers are way cool!!! I built me a working Sherman tank..... God bless technology....... :danceban:
As we approach this debacle of an election cycle, get ready to disbelieve most of everything you read.