Talk:Self-replicating machine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Self-replicating machine article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Self-replicating machine is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, an attempt to standardise coverage of Robotics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.


Archive
Archives
1, 2


testing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.25.253 (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


I have a question and sincere concern. The "RepRap" project is a rapid prototyping project that admittedly does not self-replicate its own small parts. Should it not be in the rapid prototyping article instead of in here? I am planning on moving it. Rapid prototyping devices alone, inherently have no means of self-replicating small parts unless some hitherto invented accessory is employed. Germs self-replicate all their smallest parts, so do birds. Even with the parts it so-called "self-replicates" it needs a human to supply it with plasic and thereafter to even assemble it. This is far removed from any form of "self-replication". It just needs to be in the rapid prototyping section. RepRap may be important work, it just should not be clasified as "self-replication". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.48.23 (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I am very concerned about that last paragraph in "F-Units". I have taken much time to read the entire book cited of reference "35" named "Kinematic Self-replicating machines" and find no such references in the book. Further, if you know your patent law the book only cites material in the description and nothing in the claims which are not too broad. Description requires broad descriptions, unlike the claims and does not make the patent "overly broad". Seeing how many unorthodox style blocks have occurred here of late I am posting it here for discussion prior to any possible alterations.

Rattler2 (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Mr. Collins refers to the following excerpt of KSRM:
"Replicating systems engineers who, upon reading the above, might become concerned that their existing or future inventions could infringe the Collins patents, should take note that the disclosures of prior art attested in both patent filings [650, 651] include not a single reference to von Neumann’s substantially identical prior work (beginning in 1948; Section 2.1.2). Astonishingly, von Neumann’s name appears nowhere in any of Collins’ documents, nor is there a single mention of any of the many hundreds of items of previously published relevant literature that are cited elsewhere in this book. These fatal omissions should have significant implications for the future viability and enforceability of the Collins patents."
Now, it is clearly the case that the statement from KSRM is summarised by the phrase *overly broad* and so Mr. Collins complaint is reasonable. KSRM clearly conveys a notion that the Collins Patents are overly broad, owing at minimum to the lack of references to *von Neumann's substantially identical prior* art. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The authors of KSRM, clearly sedulous competitors of the prolific Collins patents would have one and all confuse the prolific innovations set forth in the patents with only broad description. Also, again if one would know one's patent law any one or two claims that a judge or jury may find "overly broad" would not weaken in the least any and all other remaining claims. This makes the very general comments in KSRM, which are more general than not because it refers to no specific claims, not only self serving but contains insufficient reference to such. Therefore, weak at best and useless at worst.
Further, I find no references to the alleged "prior art", and I've searched far and wide for anything that approaches the following list of new art in the Collins patents, including the John von Neumann extensive written works that are admitted by the author himself to be not rigorous:
1. "Trolley car" means of any kind, used in self-replicators, replicators or programmable matter,
3. Discrete, self-replicating actuators of that type or otherwise, anywhere,
4. Discrete "programmable matter", as it is referred to today, used in any self-replications,
5. Colorized tile indexing used in self-replicating devices and software of any kind anywhere, prior to the Collins patent disclosures now being extensively used over the net,
6. Systems capable of self-replicating all necessary "small parts" without exceptions,
7. Systems for placing conductive traces to utilize conductivity of high load electrical power, discrete or otherwise,
8, Use of "electromagnetics" in complete self-replications in any enabling disclosures of any kind, discrete or otherwise,
9. Any self-replicating data storage means, like the "data track", discrete or otherwise practical to be used in any known self-replicating plan to date nor one that is portable and interchangeable,
10. An overall, well planned, practical system of wide distribution and control, discrete or otherwise.
Further, John von Neumann bestows no fully "enabling" descriptions nor clear enabling drawings on any self-replicator and neither does KSRM and it refers to none which would be very necessary to be classified as legal "prior art", short of actual constructions and there are no photos as in the Collins site.
Further, since Collins has clearly stated that work commences under "trade secrecy" the comment "To date, no working examples of such devices have been constructed" is pure speculation and opinion by the Wikipedia author in question and this is not at all stated in KSRM. KSRM only states that the Collins patents only "appear" not to present a workable self-replicating device but fails to offer up any enabling comment in the least as to why not. In short, very general commentary, useless as source. The use of the word "appear", a very general term renders it completely useless as source.
Further, the personal attacks on Collins in KSRM are highly irregular, bestowing personal political bias, not to mention not becoming a formal writing and therefore casting serious doubt on the whole KSRM works.

Rattler2 (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Contents

"Contentious" paragraph

To date, no working examples of such devices have been constructed, and the only published information about F-units is in the patents themselves and a critical mention by Freitas and Merkle in their text Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines[1] There have been complaints that the granted patent was overly broad and did not give mention to most existing prior art.[1] Collins strongly contests these assessments.

Rattler2 removed the above paragraph, and I reverted, so I'll be explaining myself. The above paragraph is the result of a lot of work myself and other editors put into expressing a neutral point of view. I think it's fair and balanced: no editor has demonstrated any of the facts to be false, and Collins' contesting of the claims are noted. The complaints that the patent is overly broad and fails to mention prior art is also cited. I do not believe there is a consensus to delete this paragraph, though I'm open to a discussion to re-assess that consensus. Before anyone removes the paragraph again, I'd like to discuss specifically what's wrong with the paragraph, so we can address these issues rather than remove it completely. Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No matter how much work you and others put into the article note that you may not protect it which is a violation of Wikipedia rules. You state in your userpage that you advocate "open source" software and seeing how you and other open source Wikipedians are ignoring the facts here that were carefully drafted and agreed amongst the experts there is nothing left to conclude excepting that you are in contempt of patents which is another form of intellectual property rights.
There is no "prior art". This is a lie. Sir, find the prior art and show me or cease reverting my hard work or change what you have written to what is factual. Better yet for a real article expose KSRM for the lie it is which is a major scandal. A scandal that you do not understand or have chosen to ignore. Would you have Wikipedia to publish lies? The fact that you and your open source lobby has called the work of Adrian Bowyer a "self-replicator" clearly bestows your bias, as well. Does the rapid prototype device he discloses self-replicate its motors, its slide bars, its circuit boards? No. Adrian Bowyer even admits it. So, move it to the Rapid prototyping section where it belongs because it cannot and will not self-replicate.
You are trying to argue again which was clearly settled above with no new logical facts which is pure equivocation. You said, as well that you did not spend much time on the article before you blocked Mr. Collins and all his friendly editors with your cabal. Blocking Collins for in good faith reporting a perceived hack which is a wrongful block and you and your cabal well know it firing off a vicious flame war. So there is no fair "consensus" of what you speak. At the very least the "hard work" you speak of is not finished.
Further, Collins started the first self-replicating article. Remember "independent operability"? This, which you editors have continually hi-jacked and filled with crack pots such as Adrian Bowyer, Toth-Fejel, and KSRM all that attack intellectual property rights. Should not Collins, an expert at the least be having a say so on other players in the game? Or advising you of the facts about his technology without being accused of and blocked for "self promotion". You even deleted his userpage which makes sense because he was commenting on some bad practices of open source advocates. You and many others here who advocate this open source movement appear to be only quietly attacking all intellectual property rights as well known nefarious members of the group are well noted at doing. What is your point on this "open source" activity anyway? Do you wish to "open source" patents? That is clearly what the KSRM authors are doing, inviting the world to infringe the Collins well drafted patents. Rattler2 (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Rattler2, your response does not address my concerns. We must come to a consensus to delete this content from the article, and I believe that a consensus does not exist. Please succinctly describe what you find contentious about the paragraph you have deleted, so that it can be addressed. Also please note that it doesn't need to be truthful to be on Wikipedia, it must only be verifiable. Thank you. -FrankTobia (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
There was no consensus when the paragraph was added because you and your cabal strategically deleted Mr. Collins's work before consensus could occur. You are gaming the system. Consensus does not mean simply a vote count after a flame war or the like, it means good faith communications to arrive at "consensus". This you seem not to understand. Further but not least you and your cabal, just like you have tried to do here to me blocked Mr. Collins at an undue time. You have no right to block Mr. Collins for reporting a hack as you did when a hack occured from your cabal and you have no right to block me for taking up Mr. Collin's cause which I try to do as perfectly as I can. If you want "succinct" I'll give you that: The first sentence of that paragraph stating that no device was constructed is not sourced. It is a lie by you, not source. KSR speaks only of his patent, not the device itself. Rattler2 (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
RHaworth, what objection do you have of what you deleted and why? You delete in mass and don't talk, yet force all others to talk under threat of blocks. Your character is really showing thereby.Rattler2 (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Example Self-replicators for von Neumann cellular automata.

Mr. Collins:

You want example configurations that do engage the act of self-replication? See the URL

http://uncomp.uwe.ac.uk/automata2008/buckley/buckley.pdf

What will be downloaded is a catalog of such self-replicating automatons. This catalog is part of the paper Signal Crossing Solutions ... which is part of the proceedings of the conference Automata 2008.

William R. Buckley (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This is software output from a software program. No one has any doubt that software can reproduce more software, even in huge quantities but there is no actual useful self-replicating physical "machine" here that can be held up against the Collins patents as prior art in the least.AvantVenger (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


Mr. Collins:

Though I have complaints regarding his work, it is clearly the case that Umberto Pesavento produced images quite similar to mine in 1995, which is fully two years before your patent; see the journal Artificial Life.

The images presented for Automata2008 were produced since 2004. This work was in consequence to certain inadequacies of the Pesavento design. As published, it is not a self-replicator, though with some extremely minor modification (the increase in length, and hence delay, of a single signal line), it becomes a self-replicator. There are philosophical issues surrounding my rejection of the Pesavento design. For instance, though as given the configuration is not able to construct one of its cells, it is clearly the case that his configuration can construct a separate little configuration which is then able to construct this one otherwise non-constructible cell. I hold to a strict definition (self-replicators do not use external configuration), while Pesavento may hold to the contrary position.

Clearly, the configurations I give are for the abstract mathematical environment known as von Neumann 29-state cellular automata, and the variant 32-state model developed by Renato Nobili, which I term Nobili cellular automata. In your parlance, they are software self-replicators. And, such have I been building since early 1981, and publishing since March of 1985; see the column Computer Recreations in the magazine Scientific American.

You, like everyone else, are welcome to a copy of the catalog, so long as the copyright is obliged.

I have spent no time reviewing your documents, nor shall I devote such time.

William R. Buckley (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, this that you pose here is software output from a software program. No one has any doubt that software can reproduce more software or even pictures of self-replicating devices even in huge quantities but there is no actual useful self-replicating physical "machine" here that can be held up against the Collins patents as prior art in the least. Further, what you have described here is nothing like the description in the Collins patent. Your unwillingness to review the Collins materials bestows your bias against it.AvantVenger (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Partial construction

Partial construction may not be appropriate to the section in which I placed the discussion. As the work is the product of my research, discussion within the article is best left to other editors. My addition is little more than an introduction. The impending publication of my paper Computational Ontogeny within the journal Biological Theory prompts me to disclose the topic to other editors. I have also created an article called *Partial construction* within which to give more detail. William R. Buckley (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Proper citations

Is this analysis "This is to say, means exist by which automatons may develop via the mechanism of a zygote." included within the published document cited for the rest of the paragraph? If not such a conclusion is original research and not allowed in Wikipedia. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it. It didn't make sense. Zygotes still require tending/nutrients/warmth/hormones/education/whatever from the mother to complete development. Linking the automaton & biological concepts is unnecessary & uninformative. Ripe (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo and text additions

I am concerned about the over representation of Adrian Bowyer in this article. Although rapid prototyping may be useful research upon future self-replicating technology it cannot reproduce all of its components as admitted by Bowyer himself. Present day automobile plants are more autonomous than his device and so are many other existing projects in many places. He as well has not produced conductive traces that can be implemented in his device. The "steel rods, nuts and bolts, motors and discrete electronic components" will never be devised by the device. I am concerned with the fact that complete self-replicators are blurred with replicators that do not completely self-replicate and those may be confused with "partial self-replicators" as Buckley describes. Clarity is lacking and Bower's device does not present significant enough input to the subject to have dates and times presented as if it were some sort of historical milestone. The article seems very much like promotion copy. AvantVenger (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


Obviously the RepRap isn't yet self-replicating in any sense of the term - but it is probably the closest actual working system to what is described in the article and it is steadily working towards self-replication. As such it is surely notable. Everything else the article talks about is pretty much just theory. I took trouble to explain the machine's obvious limitations - that (so far) it only replicates the plastic parts and that a lot of non-replicated parts are still required. But the project goal is to gradually increase the range of parts the machine can make (eg by extruding metal as well as plastic) and to simplify the design to increase the percentage of parts it can self-replicate (eg by eliminating nut & bolt fastenings). I feel it's important to mention the current "state of the art" in self-replication - if for no other reason that to make sure that our readers understand just how far away we realistically are. SteveBaker (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


Citing the Collins patent:
Collins patent 5,659,477 August 19, 1997:
"...pictures, statues, ornaments, fixtures, etc. all by prearranged programming to homeowner design by verbal or keyboard. Different programs of different types can be implemented per name or number or different mixtures of each. On-line programs can be selected to create very many commodities right in the house."
Collins patent 5,764,518 June 9, 1998 (continuation of August 19, 1997's description):
"Orders can simply as well be made on-line by computer after, a customer draws, in three-D CAD, on a home PC a three dimensional picture of the object, regardless of size and shape, that is ordered. Within the three dimensions of said 3-D drawing a customer can simply pick a color from a large menu in a paint program that will also tell the customer what substance the color represents. By drawing, the objects with the pen and filling in the different strata, sections etc. with the colors corresponding to the materials in the menu a customer can custom create his own objects products etc. This is done by the computer noting the location of each pixel in the three-D program and the material corresponding to the color and simply directing the F-Units 10 to place a puzzle piece 20, 22 or block as seen in FIG. 13A of that material in the same place in the three-D object it is building per the program. Each pixel can be numbered per coordinate and as well that same number can be assigned to its corresponding puzzle piece. This will make it possible to build small objects and machines pixel by pixel while keeping close track by mathematical means if desired among other uses of mathematical coordinating. The computer can with programming with the help of this mathematical coordinating make decisions, if customer desires, as to the size most optimum of varied interlockable puzzle pieces 20, 22 or blocks as seen in FIG. 13A used in areas of the object where it would be better to use larger- puzzle pieces 20, 22 or blocks as seen in FIG. 13A as opposed to many of the same type material puzzle pieces 20, 22 or blocks as seen in FIG. 13A in the smaller sizes greatly minimizing the number of puzzle pieces 20, 22 or blocks as seen in FIG. 13A to be cut and placed. After the customer finishes the design the computer will send the program, on-line if desired, to the puzzle cutting plant and upon receiving it the plant computer can decide what resolution of cutting and best type of cutting per type of material per size requested in the program and as well make decisions as to whether or not cutting thick puzzle pieces 20, 22 is optimum or whether many thin puzzle pieces 20, 22 stacked and glued together into one puzzle piece is optimum given the fact that lasers and other high resolution cutting methods only cut well and with that accuracy when cutting thin sheet material or can cut some materials thicker than others accurately etc. Decisions as to the size of puzzle pieces 20, 22 or blocks as seen in FIG. 13A relative to the size of the F-Unit 10 to carry them can be made by the computer."
It is clearly the case that the Collins patents and the working device presented to the examiner is far and away further along than Ardian Bowers' who did not invent any of what he is doing. Adrian Bower is involved with scientific misconduct by not crediting the Collins work because the Collins patent discusses the work being done in the home and discusses a device that does lay conductive traces and can place steel to a one micron resolution. What you have with Adrian Bowers is the politics of open source. That is all.
Can you tell me what new innovation Adrian Bower has brought to the table? None. Neither has Hod Lipson and Freitas and Merkle have made only generalized comments on the Collins patents while Freitas has infringed at NIAC using the book for cover. This is clear. There is already an article on Adrian Bower's work, what is wrong with what was there already? What you have added is superfluous with no new source as well. The deletion was simply functional, not meant to be personal, I apologize if you were somehow affended but that is my vantage on the situation which seems obvious to me. What is your take on the Collins patents comparatively? Why do you think more is needed? AvantVenger (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Use of the word "discrete" in the article is as well in question (the computer related use of it) because there are no unitized or modularized indexed parts of an kind whatsoever in Adrian Bowyer's device which is another reason it is quite basic in intrinsic functional nature and not much for note. In Collins' device all units of build are indexed down to the last tile allowing the whole of the device to be animated within software and reproduced with 100% accuracy after software manipulations and allowing for error corrections. Light years ahead of Bowyer's. Why does he leave this out? He does not understand it yet. AvantVenger (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
In the 1994 edition of IBM's Dictionary of Computing exists the definition of "discrete" as applied above, it states:
discrete (1) Pertaining to data that consists of distinct elements such as characters, or to physical quantities having a finite number of distinctly recognizable values. (2) Contrasting with Analog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AvantVenger (talk • contribs) 09:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I have jest spent a great deal of time researching this including a failing video of one of Bowyer's devices that looked like an unbalanced washing machine (incompetent work). Rapid prototyping has existed for many, many years. There is nothing even slightly new about Bowyer's work. It should be in the "Rapid Prototyping section, not here or in the write up on Bowyer's himself which is already more generous than fair, in my opinion. AvantVenger (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what personal axe you have to grind with Bower et'al - but this is inappropriate. Bower doesn't claim to have invented 3D printing - and indeed there are dozens of commercial 3D printers on the market (they cost tens of thousands of dollars - but they exist). Collins' patent is well known within the business to be invalid due to prior art - and indeed the makers of many 3D print systems do not license it and are not being sued for infringement. RepRap's claim to fame is not that it's a particularly good 3D printer - but that it is the only one to be made of parts that are either (a) 'off the shelf' things you could buy in a good hardware store or online parts store...or...(b) parts that can be made using an existing RepRap machine. I've seen RepRap working at the Maker Faire event in Austin, TX last year - and it was quite smooth in operation - certainly not "an unbalanced washing machine". To call Bower's work "incompetent" is beneath contempt - the guy is a perfectly capable practical engineer and designer who has built a machine that can be assembled by any reasonably able person for around $400. The other 3D printers do much the same job but cost about what a decent italian sports car would run to. SteveBaker (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no prior art to Charles Collins' patents. Period. It's been asked for and not produced here and many other places hundreds of times all over the net (look in the archive here for source on that). Very extensive and expensive prior art searches made on the Collins patents before patenting by the most top patent firms on earth who filed them and found nothing that was legal prior art (see that cited within the Collins patents linked in this article). I trust the professional, trained search teams. Not a bunch of crack pot university professor who are bias to the gills. Freitas and Merkle are not patent lawyers and von Neumann would have made a device and patented it like he patented many other innovations he had if he enabled such a device but he didn't.
What's going on, as usual is slimy thieving politics of a particularly nutty nature, the global intramural kind. What's going on is liars and thieves as is Frietas, Merkle, Hod Lipson and you and the rest of you "open sourcer" thieves who steal intellectual property rights from United States citizens as political attacks. That aside, what you have to say means nothing to me at this editing job anyway when you speak in broad generalities like "well known within the business". It doesn't mean zilch to Wikipedia either. Where is the source? Is there a video of this device? All you have is more original research from Bowyers which is unencyclopidic per the rules here in spades. If you think I have an axe to grind, I could care less. I politely waited for you to source it with non-original links for two days and you didn't respond. Why not? Don't comment on my ethics. Do your job or quit bellyaching.
Why don't you videotape it and post it as source? You know the rules. What you see or your opinion means nothing as source as an editor. The only video of Bowyers' political "capitalism killer" I saw was a silly contraption that he quickly pulled back down after he had built it up that did look like an off balanced washing machine. I was told of this video from another scientist. The only ones he shows in the videos that I've seen are the expensive kind that work, using the precision needed for such a device to function. Look at the fine machined gear mechanisms at 00:50 and 01:00 here:[1]. You don't get those parts for cheap. I tried to order one and the fast talk on the other end was very interesting. It's a side show to self-replicating devices.
Most of the parts are human made and always will be. The Creepy Crawlers and Thingmaker sets in the sixties did the same thing with vacume moldings for next to nothing with much better accuracy without question and was much simpler to construct in the home than those other complex devices. Didn't sell to parents. Hey! Communism failed years ago in all countries tried so far in practice. Get a life. It doesn't work. His gadget won't obviate capitalism. A complete replicator does. That's why Charles Collins was stopped by the government (see # N004860 United States District Court case at Quantico FBI headquarters where he was kidnapped then dragged onto the MCB Base for hard interrogations and accused of crimes later thrown out with prejudice in the high court, accused of "paranoia" just for talking about having a self-replicator). This is where Freitas and Merkle's role in the stealing becomes clear. Freitas is a shrink and lawyer and Merkle is well known doing stealthy government work such as encryption and who else knows what, it's all secret. Special detective Garrity told Collins that if he talks to another politician that theye'd "show up next time with a strait jacket". It's all a matter of public record now.
I'll give you source. Source of that fraud Hod Lipson ranting about foreigners having to do all the work here:[2] Where the first politically bias words out of his American hating, improper English speaking, rude and stupid mouth are "So, ah... where are the robots? We've been ah... told for forty years already that they're coming soon. Very soon they will ah... be doing everything for us. They'll be cooking, cleaning, ah... buying things, shopping, building but ah... they aren't here. Meanwhile we have ah... legal immigrants doing all the work but we don't have any robots." I encountered my own stealing affirmative action programs that stole my grants at CIT, Roco's NSF, Freitas' NASA etc. Where's your source links instead of stupid general libel about Collins' patents? You must have been born yesterday or think I was. Go talk to your stupid quire. And if you think Wikipedia isn't bias go talk to the Conservapedia [3] crowd. It is.
Now that you got me started I think I'll post a well sourced link on these guys' political bias. Maybe I do have an ax to grind, against liars, cheats and thieves who steal intellectual property, and inventions just like the Napster crowd did. That fraud went on a while until someone finally figured out how to deal with it. I think you and the open source movement are being willingly ignorant. AvantVenger (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Um...wow! You really are upset aren't you?! Please don't bring this to the level of personal attack though - that's beneath you as a Wikipedian and will get you blocked if you keep it up.
Whilst I'm only observing the RepRap project, I am without doubt a huge enthusiast of and contributor to the OpenSource movement. When you say: "What's going on is liars and thieves as is Frietas, Merkle, Hod Lipson and you and the rest of you "open sourcer" thieves who steal intellectual property rights from United States citizens as political attacks." - you are directly accusing me of being a thief and (if I parse your grammar correctly), a liar. That's an extremely hurtful (and utterly untrue) statement. I have never stolen IP in my entire life - in fact as a producer of large quantities of IP in my work - and at play for Wikipedia and SourceForge, I feel very passionately that IP rights are to be respected to the fullest extent of the law.
As for offensive asides like "ah...legal immigrants" (with the implication that all immigrants legal or otherwise should be tarred with the same brush) please consider that this is an international community - and that some people here may well be truly, genuinely, legal immigrants to the US (as it happens, I am - I'm a British citizen with a full US green-card). I was invited to be here by the US government 15 years ago to do work that no American was able to do. Bringing me here has in fact INCREASED the technological level of the US because many of the patents I have authored now belong to US companies. Indeed, nearly every fighter and helicopter pilot currently flying in the US military was trained to do his or her job on a flight simulator with a graphics system that I personally designed - and which (not entirely coincidentally) was built at vastly improved performance and hugely reduced costs (a direct saving to YOUR tax bill) because it was based on Linux (gasp!) software written by a diverse community of people from all over the world. I am proud to note that one of my OpenSource contributions has been worked on by people from every continent on Earth except Antarctica. Since I've been in the US, I've done more for your country - saved more American soldiers' lives - than most lifelong American citizens will ever do.
Oh - and on http://blog.reprap.org/ you'll find plenty of video footage of RepRap machines running very smoothly - also highres photos of items they have produced - of which the most recent are starting to look very good indeed. All of the videos that you find there are released under GFDL licenses - so feel free to post them wherever you like (with the usual Wikipedia-like GFDL restrictions on attribution and such).
So please, calm down, read WP:NPA and consider that you may be deeply offending those to whom you speak - I don't want to have to escalate this to the level of admin intervention, but if you continue to fling insults at me and others, I will do exactly that.
SteveBaker (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't scrape your stealing finger at me you useless piece of trash. You made the first attack on the honorable Charles Michael Collins with your stealing foreigner affirmative action open source speak with the rest of you stinking putrid stealing demagoging, lobbying invaders. Do we come and lobby Adrian's country? NO! I could care less if the communist Wikipedia "blocks" me. Go home. I'm also a musician and saw what Napster's "open sourcing" did to the entire world music business. If you steal and try to bust patents we don't want you here. OPEN SOURCE PIG. AvantVenger (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You are most likely one of Prince Charles' spies. Prince Charles who speaks out against nanotechnology in general like the idiot he is [4]. Stupids rule the world. The nanotechnology community does not like you brits too much on that, if you want to talk about generalized insanity which is the group opinion, your own medicine in your face. There is such a thing as real scientists and such a thing as demagogue. You sir are the latter. AvantVenger (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I have filed a complaint about User:AvantVenger's behavior at: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:AvantVenger_and_his_IP_account_User:71.114.30.158_--_Gross_incivility., meanwhile, please don't feed the troll. SteveBaker (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey you guys... If you put some more reasonable stuff about Collins in here I would not care about what you put on his rabid competitor Bowyers. No? Didn't think so.AvantVenger (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
How about the Collins' side of the story in the Freitas, Merkle fracas? It's why it all got in here, isn't it? This article would not exist if it were not for that fracas. AvantVenger (talk)
...but two articles on Bowyers? Three pics? A bit overdoing the bias, one would think. AvantVenger (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
User:AvantVenger is Collins. This is a clear conflict of interest - in violation of WP:COI. Furthermore, User:AvantVenger is a sock-puppet of the indefinitely banned User:Fraberj. Administrative action on this matter is pending. SteveBaker (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Even if your assumptions are true I was asking to have it edited not doing it. Right? AvantVenger (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Blocking of fraberj, the one who started this article was a bad block, who cares what you Adrian bowyers nut jobs think? Who are you working for? Slick Willy? AvantVenger (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I will just cut and paste the response I had to your nutty idea of "justice" that I posted in your/mine talk pages:


Did you work hard at it? GOOD! All your talk about the "evil" Charles Michael Collins. Bo hoo hoo with two shoes! Collins is in self-defense mode. Who would blame that, considering? You certainly cite what's been done to him as motive, like any railroading cop would... forgetting who transgressed first. Don't you? If all of this were true where's the "evil"? The fact that you diabolically did all that research and quite lucidly gleamed all the nuances and left all of them out that speaks for the Collins side of the story bespeaks the criminal and thief that YOU are: The thief of intellectually property rights through media manipulation amongst all the other thieves Freitas, Merkle, Adrian Bowyer, Hod Lipson. And lets remember, look at the dates, you never even heard a word from the modest Charles Michael Collins until that criminal who stole his invention at NIAC FREITAS wrote his rat's nest of lies: [5]
Who cares who carries the message, and here's what the whole business is about. These other cowards are JEALOUS of the F-Unit system, and steal it far and wide. That is all the stinking putrid liberal is, a coward and a thief like you Steve and all your affirmative action speak. So are the liberals who find their chosen "protected class" to lie and prove they invented it instead of Charles. As you do the greatest evil deed in history, steal the most important event since the dawn of time. Go back under your rock where you belong and stay there with the rest of you stinking putrid liberals.
P.S.: Why was fraberj blocked in the first place? FOR REPORTING A HACKING! It was called a "legal threat". HORSE S! That's not what your silly Wiki rules allow. Typical liberals fanatically bending the rules trying to vilify. And who STARTED the Wikipedia "Self-replicating machine" (stupid name) article in the first place? It was Charles Michael Collins, called the proper scientific name "independent operability" which was instantly deleted and restarted (idea stolen) by little pieces of liberal media trash like you who keep him blocked out of the picture.
So there Check and Mate. But you will still continue to censor and block, won't you? Nefarious cowards! Any more trash talk you nut jobs got? AvantVenger (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


You liberals just like to block when you can't make sense out of what you have to say. AvantVenger (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
A rapid prototyper is not a "self-"replicator. Does it "replicate" "its"self"? (not even a big % as well) I delete accordingly. AvantVenger (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)