Actually, I have always found fabber, fabricator, and even automated
fabrication to be more misleading than rapid prototyping or RP in describing
the current state of the art and I often wonder why Marshall continues to
use it. Automated Fabrication is a great goal, an application, but
certainly a lot of other technologies and equipment already do and will continue
to fill that application, albeit each with its own limitations as well.
I agree with Marshall's sentiment, in that some other term is desirable
to describe that revolutionary machine of the future, where cost-effective
automated fabrication of totally arbitrary one-off items is possible, but
the person or company that invents that machine is likely to get to name
it, like Xerox and Coke.
I like Marshall's enthusiasm, and creativity in general, and I would like
him to continue pushing the thinking in the industry, but I sometimes
wonder if he isn't beating a dead horse named Fabber.
>List and Marshall,
>I was the originator of that email to Marshall and did not send it as a
>complaint I was just wondering how long Marshall would be tagging his
>messages with such a translation. It seems to me that it would be
>just use and accept what seems to be the industry standard.
>By the way I do not agree that the current terms are misleading. They
>perfectly with what these machine do.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marshall Burns [SMTP:Marshall@Ennex.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 1:47 PM
> To: RPemail@example.com
> Subject: Terminology debate again
> Dear RP-World,
> I've received a private complaint about my use of terminology,
> thought I would share my response with the list, see below. Further
> comments, in public or private, are welcome.
> Best regards,
> Marshall Burns
> President, Ennex Corporation
> Los Angeles, USA, (310) 397-1314
> -----The complaint-----
> >>I know we have had this discussion before but... I notice that
> >>respond to an email you use your own terminology throughout the
> >>then give some form of a translation explanation at the end.
> >>easier if you used the "standard" terminology up front?
> -----My answer-----
> > Easier, yes. But the popular terminology is flawed and since we
> >the leading edge of a revolution, we have the opportunity to set
> >terminology before our language hits the mainstream. Words are
> >I like to use them thoughtfully.
> > However, also note that in the case of my last RP-ML posting,
> >notice that there is no popular term for "industrial fabber,"
> >it "an RP machine that isn't a concept modeller."
> >Best regards,
> >Marshall Burns
> For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
>For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
>Received: from bart.lpt.fi ([220.127.116.11]) by mgw-mp.sric.sri.com
> (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAA2CE
> for <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
> Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:58:05 -0800
>Received: from major by bart.lpt.fi with local (Exim 1.90 #2)
> for email@example.com
> id 12AI8w-0004od-00; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 19:48:50 +0000
>Received: from [18.104.22.168] (helo=mailsrv.williams-int.com)
> by bart.lpt.fi with esmtp (Exim 1.90 #2)
> for RPfirstname.lastname@example.org
> id 12AI8v-0004lQ-00; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:48:49 +0200
>Received: by mailsrv.williams-int.com with Internet Mail Service
> id <Z2VJRARH>; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:49:55 -0500
>To: Marshall@Ennex.com, RPemail@example.com
>Subject: RE: Terminology debate again
>Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:49:54 -0500
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 23:02:38 EEST