Hasta La Ideas

Light, a part of the visible spectrum of waves, apparently is much faster and more efficient in transferring signals than radio waves are. For starters, light has a wider frequency range, and also is essential for human visibility… so compare the millions of radio towers installed worldwide to the billions of light bulbs we already have in our house. Li-Fi technology uses these regular lights to transmit signals just the way radio towers and wi-fi routers do. In doing so, the light-bulb doesn’t remain a source of illumination… it becomes an internet connection source too, and having your device within the area that the lightbulb illuminates, allows you to harness the power of the internet at speeds that would put your cellular network or Wi-Fi to shame.

Alexandre Picciotto’s C-224 lamp is one of the first to use Li-Fi technology to transmit data through light. Designed to be installed in libraries, the light serves the purpose of making reading easy as well as acting as an internet connection source. Made with an LED ring (LEDs are best suited for Li-Fi), the library lamp casts a bright light on a table onto which you can place your phone, tablet, or laptop, effectively harnessing the power of the internet. The C-224 beams Li-Fi even when switched off, using invisible infrared technology, allowing you to be connected to the internet without having the light on.

Li-Fi isn’t just a faster means to connect to the internet, it’s incredibly eco-friendly too. A simple $3 LED bulb can act as a router to the internet, and more importantly, you wouldn’t need to build expensive radio towers… you’d be relying on the 40 billion or so lightbulbs that already exist in homes and establishments worldwide. Aside from being faster and more eco-friendly, Li-Fi is safer too, because it limits its usage to the area the light is shining at. While radio waves pass through walls and can be hacked, intercepted, or tinkered with, Li-Fi’s short range makes it difficult to hack into the connection thanks to its focused, and more importantly, visible range of usage!

Designer: Alexandre Picciotto

Americans will be able to 3D-print their own guns next month, after a court ruled that blueprints for printable firearms could be made available online again. But their creator and distributor says this won’t “break the dam” and cause mass weapon uptake.

The ruling last month will allow Texas-based Cody Wilson to distribute his instructions for printing a handgun using ABS plastic, and other weapons, from 1 August 2018, following a multi-year lawsuit.

The founder of non-profit Defense Distributed will reactivate his file-sharing site Defcad to enable users to download the tutorials for so-called “ghost guns” for free.

“The age of the downloadable gun formally begins,” said a statement on the organisation’s website.

Settlement formalises distribution of gun-production data

However, Wilson, 30, told Dezeen that the move “is not somehow going to break the dam” and result in a influx of gun users.

“Does this moment mean some sort of vast security threat? I don’t think so, I really don’t,” he said.

“It merely formalises something that was already happening,” Wilson continued. “I don’t think it’s any secret that the gun culture was already quite prolific online. Ever since there’s been an internet, there’s been large gun forums and markets of information related to making guns.”

He described the ruling as “unexpected” and “a direct formal confirmation that this data has unlimited distribution rights online now”.

“My model site Defcad, I’ll be able to run that in a way that I’ve always imagined it,” he added. “Our culture doesn’t have to propagate interstitially, secretly or underground – it’s more directly mainstreamed.”

US government avoids scrutiny of weapons regulations

The US government blocked downloads of the blueprints in 2013, citing a violation of export laws called International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), but Wilson sued the State Department two years later.

He claimed that his freedom of speech was being suppressed, and argued that he was only distributing computer code rather than actual weapons.

Wilson said the settlement ultimately came down to the government’s need to protect the ITAR regulations, which were first created around the second world war and developed during the cold war, rather than have them examined constitutionally.

“The State Department had a choice at this point,” Wilson told Dezeen. “They could fight a losing case and risk suffering a degradation of their power under ITAR, or they could just give me what I wanted and live to keep ITAR safe for another generation.”

Gun opponents fear safety risks

The settlement – announced on 29 June 2018 – has alarmed anti-gun activists, because those without background checks could soon gain easy access to ghost guns, which are not issued with serial numbers and are impossible to trace.

Among the opponents is Senator Chuck Schumer from New York, who has demanded the federal government reverse the decision made in favour of Defense Distributed.

“This online site shows you, how at your home, with a simple 3D printer, you can make a plastic AR-15, an AR-10, a very dangerous semi-automatic assault-style weapons out of plastic in your own basement,” Schumer said at a press conference on Sunday 22 July 2018, as reported by the New York Post.

“The danger that could happen can be enormous,” he added. “To have crazy people have easy access, to have terrorists have easy access to this kind of website and allow them to make plastic AR-15s undetected – so-called ghost guns – justifies the imagination.”

But Wilson believes that these concerns are unfounded, because it is not as easy as one might think to simply 3D-print a gun.

“You still have to have a pretty deep interest in manufacturing and fabrication to make use of the files,” he said. “It’s still not in the breadth of scenario of: I get a file, I download it, and instantly a gun materialises in my bedroom. It’s just not the state of the art.”

“It is a step towards an easier and fluid access to guns, mediated through the internet,” added Wilson. “I just doubt that it will be the kind of nightmarish-like scenario.”

Wilson first successfully fired his 3D-printed handgun, The Liberator, in May 2013. Once uploaded to the Defense Distributed, its blueprints were downloaded almost 100,000 before the government forced their removal, the organisation said at the time.

A version of The Liberator – which is made almost entirely of printed plastic, apart from small amount of metal – was controversially acquired by London’s V&A museum in September 2013.

The post Downloadable files for 3D-printed guns to be made publicly accessible appeared first on Dezeen.

Anyone remember Bar 89 on Mercer Street? Now shuttered, the former SoHo hotspot featured bathrooms that caused a buzz: The walls to each individual loo were transparent, allowing you to see everything inside, but once you shut the door and locked it, they turned an opaque shade of white.

That technology has existed at least since the ’90s, but now architectural glass supplier Nana Wall has figured out how to do it framelessly. Check out their recently unveiled WhiteOUT system, which can alternate between clear and opaque and can also be used as a projection screen:

Pyongyang, North Korea “stretches out beneath you as a pastel-colored panorama,” Guardian architecture critic Oliver Wainwright observed from the 70th floor of the 500-foot-high Tower of the Juche Idea. This, and many other surprising discoveries are……

Continue Reading…

In this week’s comment update, seats designed by Zaha Hadid Architects and Oksana Bondar divide readers’ opinions.

Imitation game: Zaha Hadid Architects has recreated Hans J Wegner’s 1963 CH07 lounge chair, but readers were not convinced the design was flattering.

“I think this is a well executed form of flattery for Wegner’s genius is a very difficult medium to shape,” said a complimentary Joe G. Cintron.

Mr Walnut Grey agreed, saying: “Perhaps imitation is the greatest form of flattery.”

However, some readers were unimpressed by the redesign, including Ralf: “The original is not something I particularly like, but at least it has some elegance, poise and respect for materials. This version definitely doesn’t have any of those things, it’s just a complete mess of weird proportions and clunkiness.”

Commenter Stephen Ritchings added: “Oh, dear. I wonder what it weighs. Poor use of material, and appalling misappropriation of another’s work. The question isn’t how, it’s why?”

For one reader, their disappointment was too much to handle:

What do you think of the Lapella Chair? Join the discussion ›

Hair today, gone tomorrow: readers couldn’t agree on whether Oksana Bondar’s decision to use human hair when designing her biodegrable Wiggy stool was ethical or not.

“Not sure I’m comfortable with it. We probably shouldn’t create economics that rely on human body parts, because although they may initially be freely given, what’s to stop exploitation if it becomes industrialised? pondered a cynical Chris D.

An equally unimpressed Rene wrote: “How many heads do you need to create only one disgusting stool?”

Other readers were more open to the concept, including Ndidi: “It may sound sort of yucky now, but people have been using human hair for wigs for centuries so using human hair to make furniture may be less hard to accept. Human hair weaves are huge in the black community so this product has already therefore been industrialised.”

“A hair-led recovery, I like it,” added Jb.

One reader was left feeling confused:

Is the Wiggy stool to your taste? Join the discussion ›

For the gram: readers enjoyed looking at digital artist Alexis Christodoulou’s Instagram images of imaginary spaces, but not all for the right reasons.

“A bit of Pomo, a bit of de Chirico, a bit of Magritte – nice,” commented an approving Threefloatingorbs.

Jb also praised the work, but questioned its medium: “Dreamy, but it’s not art.”

In disagreement, Patrick Sardo responded: “Why not? He clearly carefully designed the spaces and set up lighting and cameras to make certain compositions. It’s not so far off from drawing, just using more advanced digital techniques.”

Of course, not all readers were impressed, with Thomas saying: “Talk about wasted time and computing power.”

This commenter was certain about one thing:

What do you think of Christodoulou’s dream-like spaces for Instagram? Join the discussion ›

Breath of fresh air: Jun Kamei has built a garment named Amphibio that functions like gills, allowing humans to breathe under water – and readers are on board.

“I do like the concept. It’d create a shark-eat-shark world instead of a dog-eat-dog world,” joked Ndidi.

On a more serious note, Mr J commented: “This would be useful well before any future apocalypse. A developed version that supplies enough air to breathe would make hefty scuba equipment a thing of the past.”

“I’ll take one, but without the apocalyptic nonsense,” replied Ron.

Not all readers were convinced of the design however, including Guest who asked: “Why would anyone wear clothes underwater – especially flowing, easily snagged clothes that weigh down the swimmer and create a very real danger of hypothermia?

One reader painted an unusual image:

Would you wear Amphibio? Join the discussion ›

The post “My stool has been biodegradable since birth” appeared first on Dezeen.