DESKTOP FABRICATION:

It’s called Fab@Home, and it’s an open-source, desktop size fabrication rig; essentially a 3-dimesional printer. What the system allows you to do is fabricate complex parts with a simple, low cost rig. All you need are the materials and the geometric information, and you’re on your way to making that fancy AutoBlog belt buckle.

The practice of building up a part drip-by-drip is known in the industry as rapid prototyping. It allows one group of people to essentially send a part as an email. You could be working on a doorhandle in Detroit and email it to your OEM in China, where they “print” the design and evaluate it. Pretty slick. The Fab@Home project is an undertaking of Cornell University, with the goal of democratizing innovation. Just as the desktop computer revolution was driven by innovation from all quarters, the Fab@Home system is a low-cost system that should be easily customized as it gets used for different materials and functions.

I’ve written about this before, and of course Neal Gershenfeld has a whole book about it, but it’s still quite cool to see it progressing. (Thanks to Mickey Kaus for the tip.)

“MOSQUES DESTROYED:” The AP “Reign of Error” continues.

SO DOES THIS REPRESENT ANOTHER ESCALATION in the bumper-sticker wars over evolution? . . . Heh.

UPDATE: Yes, I know where it’s really from. I just thought that was funny.

BUT IT’S NOT A CIVIL WAR:

Fatah and Hamas clashed at Cabinet ministries, universities and security headquarters Saturday in defiance of a truce that was to have calmed the seething Gaza Strip.

Twelve people were wounded by late morning, hospital officials said, and Fatah said Hamas had kidnapped 40 of its security officials at roadblocks.

All of this, shockingly, in violation of a cease fire agreement. It seems that Palestinians are as prone to cheat on these agreements when they’re with other Palestinians as when they’re with Israelis. I suppose the Israelis can take an obscure comfort in that.

PATERNALIST SLOPES: ” A growing literature in law and public policy harnesses research in behavioral economics to justify a new form of paternalism. Contributors to this literature typically emphasize the modest, non-intrusive character of their proposals. . . . We argue that the new paternalism exhibits many characteristics identified by the slopes literature as conducive to slippery slopes. Specifically, the new paternalism exhibits considerable theoretical and empirical vagueness, making it vulnerable to slopes resulting from altered economic incentives, enforcement needs, deference to perceived authority, bias toward simple principles, and reframing of the status quo. These slope processes are especially likely when decisionmakers are subject to cognitive biases — as the new paternalists insist they are. Consequently, soft paternalism can pave the way for harder paternalism. We conclude that policymaking based on new paternalist reasoning should be considered with greater trepidation than its advocates have suggested.” (Via Larry Solum).

MARY KATHARINE HAM explains how to win in Al-Anbar.

JASON VAN STEENWYK looks at efforts to erase history.

UPDATE: In the comments, a reference to Bob Greene’s The Homecoming, which is described this way by Library Journal:

“Were you ever spat upon when you returned home to the United States?” asked syndicated columnist Greene of the Vietnam veterans among his readership. He received over 1000 letters in reply, many recounting specific details of just such a painfully remembered incident. Evidently this recollection of “hippies” (as they are often called in the letters) spitting on combat veterans has become one of the war’s most unpleasant, enduring images.

This would seem to pose problems for the new crowd of spitting-denialists, though they will no doubt manage to maintain their unbelief.

UPDATE: Read this post from Jim Lindgren, too.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Much more on the troop-spitting debate.

MORE: The final word?

Yeah, and although this post doesn’t mention people like me, I was a red-hot leftist (marxist) revolutionary back then, and I did spit on a couple of returning vets. From the safety of a crowd, behind a barricade and a police line.

I was an America-hating asshole and a coward. I’ve learned better, and I’ve learned to feel regret for my shameful actions then.

Proof that people can change for the better. Read the whole thing.

DAN RIEHL: “It appears you’d better be able to read Chinese if you want to read any of the positive stories out of Iraq these days.”

THIS WEEK’S Blog Week in Review is up.

IS THE IPHONE a futurebomb?

WHEN LIBERTARIANS GOVERN: They get pushback:

The Cape Coral utilities manager was impressive and forceful. At one point he said, “Citizens don’t protect themselves so we have to.” He concluded, “You may as well keep this program because if you don’t we will find a way to continue, and the taxpayers won’t save a dime.” . . .

turned my attention to both our employees and said, “I feel sad that I am about to vote to end your jobs but I am going to do what I believe is right, not what I think is nice.”

I now know how uncomfortable and awkward it feels to look government workers in the eye and tell them “You’re fired.” I felt sad for the two men whose income was lost and at the same time I felt exhilarated thinking of the thousands of taxpayers who will keep more of their own money.

Read the whole thing.

RIDING THE PORK TRAIN WITH JOHN THUNE: PorkBusters is on the case.

THE TENNESSEE BLOG BILL IS ONLY MOSTLY DEAD: And as we know, there’s a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive.

UPDATE: Comments from Jack Balkin. I agree that this bill wouldn’t pass muster.

JEFF JARVIS: “Perhaps the most important ‘ding’ moment I had at Davos was that the powerful are, no surprise, one step behind in their understanding of the true significance of the internet: They think it is all about individual action when, in truth, it’s about collective action. And so they don’t yet see that the internet will shift power even more than they realize.”

Gee, it sounds like they need some educating.

HEH: “McDonald’s beats Starbucks in coffee smackdown.”

I GUESS IT’S GOOD WE ELECTED THE DEMOCRATS:

If on the day after the 2006 election someone had told you that a few months into 2007 we would be increasing troop levels in Iraq and committing to a somewhat more aggressive strategy with a somewhat more aggressive commander, and would be set to enact a 2007 budget that largely stuck to 06 spending levels with a few adjustments and no earmarks, wouldn’t you have thought he was crazy?

Thanks, Nancy!

THOSE IRANIANS sure do get around.

THE SEA LAUNCH ROCKET EXPLOSION: A report, with video.

NUMBER PROBLEMS for Tim Lambert? Color me unsurprised.

UPDATE: Lambert says the Blair criticism above is wrong. It’s 79 that’s similar to 88, not 59, he says.

In a related matter, rumors that Lambert once asked a date for “96” on the ground that it’s “similar to” 69 are probably false.

MORE: I don’t think Lambert actually meant to accuse me of sock puppetry, but for the record I haven’t posted on his site. He must have me confused with a different Glenn.

“WHERE ARKIN SCREWED UP:”

I don’t want to write about this again, but here is where military/homeland security blogger Bill Arkin of the Washington Post went wrong: He picked on a kid.

Ernie Pyle never did. The American reporter takes on the brass, never the troops.

Arkin’s woes began when Spec. Tyler Johnson, 21, was asked by NBC News what he thought of the war protesters. . . . The kid was asked a question. He answered it honestly. Arkin should back off.

Arkin has dug himself deeper and deeper on this one, and I started out as someone who liked him okay.

UPDATE: More on the Arkin story, from StrategyPage.

More here.

WORKER ANGST? NOT SO MUCH:

While there’s been plenty of talk about growing income inequality and worker angst–often by me–Americans have been getting more optimistic. Here are the key takeaways from today’s University of Michigan consumer confidence survey, via the good folks at Global Insight:

1) The survey catapulted to a two-year high of 96.9 in January, up from 91.7 in December.

2) Sentiment for current economic conditions scaled up by 3.2 points to 111.3.

3) The bellwether expectations index exploded upward by 6.4 points to 87.6.

None of this should really be too surprising, with the economy climbing at a 3.4 percent clip last year (including 3.5 percent in the fourth quarter), jobs growing by nearly 200,000 a month, wages increasing more than 4 percent, and real disposable personal income rising more than twice as fast as in 2005. Even better, the Federal Reserve looks as if it’s stuck on pause in fiddling with interest rates. In a conference call today, Bruce Kasman, the chief economist at JPMorgan Chase, described the current climate as “Goldilocks walking in.” Remember, income inequality supposedly surged in the late 1990s, but you didn’t hear much about it then because everyone’s wages and incomes were growing, as was the broader economy.

It’s all because the Democrats are back. Thanks Nancy!

UH OH.

UPDATE: An Airbrush Award for Amanda Marcotte: “Let’s see if there is a final word from the Edwards campaign as well. And when will people learn that Google cache means, ‘Forever.'”

ANOTHER UPDATE: More here and here.

A LOOK AT Europe and the death penalty.

THOUGHTS ON THE BUDGET, from The Economist:

The historical average for tax revenues as a percentage of GDP for the last 45 years—roughly, the span of the modern taxation era—is 18.2%; in 2006, the government collected 18.4% of GDP as tax revenues. Even if you throw out the Bush budgets of 2002-2006, the average rises only a tenth of a percent, meaning that America is still above its historical average. The same holds true for budget deficits. The historical average is 1.6% with the Bush years, 1.5% without, making last year’s 1.8% budget deficit look less than outlandishly out of line.

The interesting thing is that no one knows these happy facts. Democrats are still harping on budget deficits as if (a cynic would say “because”) they were a gigantic mess, rather than a shrinking problem. This is not an excuse for running deficits, of course; there is no reason that a prosperous nation should be borrowing money to run its government when the economy is booming. But America’s budget deficit is small enough that it is now unlikely to be having any sort of measurable effect on the economy, and inflation and economic growth will quickly erode the value of recently accumulated debt. Mr Bush may leave a large number of problematic legacies for future generations, but the revenue shortfalls of recent years will not be noticed among them.

Read the whole thing. It’s no reason to lighten up on pork, though.

OKAY, WE’RE NOT NUMBER ONE, but we’re number four!