What you do is call the taxi commission, the number of which is prominently displayed (by law), including in braille and raised letters, in the cab. Who do you call when Uber 'accidentaly' charges the wrong rate?
The problem with that thinking is that nothing happens in a vacuum. You make it sound like Uber and the people who chose it have no impact on everyone else. When Uber comes in and gets to cherry-pick only profitable rides, and otherwise lower their price (by not doing all the things that regular cabs must do) that means the traditional cabs are not getting that business. They can't survive with their regulated rates and must-carry rules, time required on the road, etc. if they only get the unprofitable trips. That impacts not only the cab companies, but everyone who uses them, which is a whole lot more people than use Uber (236 million people per year in NYC).
If someone owns a factory they don't get to say 'yeah, everybody else has to obey EPA rules, etc, but those rules are really just to protect the existing factories, and my customers live somewhere else and don't care anyway, so we declare ourselves exempt from the law and will just dump waste into the rivers and air'. This is the same thing.
Yes, for prototyping printing makes sense. However, the article talks about this printer replacing injection molding (the example given was for toothbrushes). I am pretty sure nobody today is injection molding a prototype toothbrush, they probably use regular old milling for that. Therefore, the only way the comment makes sense is if they plan on replacing injection molding with printing in production.
Do you actually have any idea at all what the regulations are for taxis? Here are some of the rules that 'only represent one tiny class':
Cars must be inspected 3 times a year. This includes safety and cleanliness, and accessibility. Must have a rate card with FIXED (regulated) fares (none of this surge pricing nonsense) that the fares can see All drivers must have valid Taxicab Drivers Licenses Must have minimum $200,000 insurance per person Must provide workers compensation coverage for drivers Must operate each cab a minimum of 18 hours a day (again, none of this 'I'll only drive if the rates are high enough' crap) Drivers must be trained for wheelchair passenger assistance (owner of the cab must pay for the training) Must have braille and raised lettering plaques with the same info as the rate card (fares, complaint line, taxi ID) Drivers license must be displayed in a lighted frame Must have accurate taximeter Must have operable air conditioning
The average age of a NYC taxi is 3.3 years. They MUST be replaced after 6 years.
You can not call a yellow cab in NYC. Since you can't call one, your BS about one not showing up is false. You CAN call for a town car, which WILL show up, and has the same age limits as a regular cab, and WILL be a Lincoln Town Car or equivalent.
I don't know where you get your 'facts' from about Uber, but you sure as hell don't normally get a higher-end car or SUV. You usually get a Prius or Camry or something of that ilk.
How much did the printer cost compared to an injection molder? How much is the maintenance on a complicated printer compared to a simple injection molder?
If 3D printing is so damn cheap, then use the printer to make the mold.
According to the WHO, what you are describing is 'heavy episodic drinking', which is defiined as '60 or more grams of pure alcohol consumed on one occasion in the last 30 days'.
In France (by your accounting nobody there does heavy episodic drinking), 43.7% of male drinkers (or 42.2% of the entire male population) engage in heavy episodic drinking. France has the lowest (worst) score for years life shortened by alcohol.
In the US (by your account, all drinkers are heavy episodic drinkers), 30.9% of male drinkers (or 23.2% of the entire male population) engage in heavy episodic drinking.
My father-in-law died of alcoholism. He was never passed out, he was never falling-down drunk, he was never in bar fights. He had built up such a tolerance to alcohol that it seemed to have no effect on him. Nevertheless, that is NOT 'drinking in moderation'.
Maybe it is time to adjust your ever-so-wrong stereotypes and definition of what 'moderation' means.
Well now I am very confused. Above I thought you were doing good old America bashing about how we were 'more restricted' than Germany, but here you are admitting that other people also have rights which may be in conflict with yours. So which is it? Is America really 'more restricted', or are we in fact freer? Frankly, I do not see any way that a country which has no actual laws against free speech, but which does respect the rights that others may have is 'more restricted' than a country which has actual laws against certain speech, unless you consider free speech to be the ONLY right worth having.
Yes, that is exactly my point. I was responding to the idiot complaining that 'politicians do not understand clear language'. There can be no such thing as 'absolutes', as I demonstrated. You DO have property rights, and you CAN use them to stop me from using your property to make a speech, even though that may APPEAR to be a violation of free speech. Similarly, Facebook DOES have freedom of the press, and CAN decide what to publish, even if that removes a venue for you to make a speech.
That is because in the real world there are no absolutes. Can I use your house to display a giant hate-filled diatribe? Why not, what gives you the right? It can't be property rights, because that would be abridging my right of free speech. The exact same is true for ever one of his supposed 'restrictions of free speech'.
Freedom of speech is not the only right there is, and it is not some sort of 'super right' that trumps all others.
FCC rules - an argument could be made that this is a restriction of speech. However, an argument could also be made that the public should have the freedom to decide how a scare public resource (airwaves) can be used. Does Germany have no such freedom for the public to influence use of public resources? If not, score one more freedom for the US.
Lawyers - I guess you mean libel/slander laws. Does Germany have no right of a person to seek redress for being lied about? If not, score one more freedom for the US
Facebook - Does Germany have no freedom of the press, that is, the right to decide what you will and will not publish using your private property? If not, score one more freedom for the US
General politeness - wtf? Is there some kind of law in Germany that says I must still associate with you and not think ill of you just because you make repugnant or just stupid speeches? If so, score another freedom for the US
School district rules - should the public have no say in the environment that is created, using its tax money, in the place where its children must attend each day by law?
Please tell me you are just trolling. Breeding is an integral part of the sport. You can't make it irrelevant and have the same sport, and you have in no way explained how that us better.
Anyway, if you think removing expensive breeding makes the sport better I have the ideal form of horse racing for you. It is so innovative it will make your head spin. It not only removes the archaic and expensive breeding, but also the archaic and expensive feeding, boarding, training, jockeys, and track. Instead, it is replaced by a highly innovative RNG called a 'die'. You roll it and then move your horsey marker until someone crosses the finish line.
There is no element of follow the money. The one and only reason to register a horse with A Q&A is to race it. There are many forms of competition that set specific rules on the competitors and this is no different.
Uh, yeah. Maybe someone should enter an F1 car in a horse race and call it 'innovation'. Breeding is part of the competition. Cloning is not 'innovation', it is cheating.
I mostly agree with you. However, I would consider it newsworthy (with an accurate headline and summary) that someone actually found a new, interesting, and useful use for 3D printing instead of the usual 3D printing bullshit articles.
The headline is not accurate at all. Is there a Toyota 22RE engine that this transmission works with? No. The entire headline is false. Would you be as quick to excuse a news website that ran a headline saying 'President of US Killed in Terrorist Attack' only to find several paragraphs in that they are talking about a TV show?
And while some of the blame falls on the website, more falls on the submitter of the story. This reads like yet another attempt by 3D printing zealots to make it appear 3D printing can do something it can't. Which is too bad, because as you said, this is really cool. A story about making a working model of a transmission actually shows a good and interesting use for 3D printing, beyond the usual 'battery covers!' and 'will eliminate all manufacturing!' nonsense.
To be honest, I did not read the article. Why? Because as I said, it appeared to be just another bullshit 3D printing article. Had the headline and summary been even a little bit accurate I would have read it.
Exactly. I remember when I was about 8 years old I built a Revell Visible V8. It was a plastic model of a V8 engine. You could see the pistons moving, the valves opening, spark plugs firing, etc. A very valuable learning experience.
I wish that these articles and headlines were a little more honest. 'Man builds working model of transmission with 3D printing' is interesting enough. No need to add the 'could replace the real thing' hype.
Uh, no. They require actual data relating to the emissions control system. Obviously, your car does not have an emissions control system. Such is not the case for the vast majority of cars on the road.
The key difference is that in those other cases someone (the person suing) was actually hurt. In this case, nobody has been hurt, but somebody thinks that theoretically somebody could maybe possibly be hurt somehow under some condition.
The examples you give are not 'consumer protection' things, they are manufacturer liability prevention. Yes, you should be smart enough to know this on your own, but even if you don't we warned you. An actual consumer protection example would be where a stroller was recalled because, in normal use, a child could get his finger caught in something.
In addition, the only proposed way that this supposed 'defect' would cause injury is if a CRIME has been committed. Ever hear of a glass manufacturer being sued (successfully) because it is possible a burglar could break one to rob a house? Or, to use your stroller example, let's sue Graco because, theoretically, someone could use one to kidnap a child, so clearly they are ingnoring this serious security problem with their product.
Slashdot Mirror
What you do is call the taxi commission, the number of which is prominently displayed (by law), including in braille and raised letters, in the cab. Who do you call when Uber 'accidentaly' charges the wrong rate?
The problem with that thinking is that nothing happens in a vacuum. You make it sound like Uber and the people who chose it have no impact on everyone else. When Uber comes in and gets to cherry-pick only profitable rides, and otherwise lower their price (by not doing all the things that regular cabs must do) that means the traditional cabs are not getting that business. They can't survive with their regulated rates and must-carry rules, time required on the road, etc. if they only get the unprofitable trips. That impacts not only the cab companies, but everyone who uses them, which is a whole lot more people than use Uber (236 million people per year in NYC).
If someone owns a factory they don't get to say 'yeah, everybody else has to obey EPA rules, etc, but those rules are really just to protect the existing factories, and my customers live somewhere else and don't care anyway, so we declare ourselves exempt from the law and will just dump waste into the rivers and air'. This is the same thing.
Yes, for prototyping printing makes sense. However, the article talks about this printer replacing injection molding (the example given was for toothbrushes). I am pretty sure nobody today is injection molding a prototype toothbrush, they probably use regular old milling for that. Therefore, the only way the comment makes sense is if they plan on replacing injection molding with printing in production.
The article was comparing yellow cabs to UberX.
Do you actually have any idea at all what the regulations are for taxis? Here are some of the rules that 'only represent one tiny class':
Cars must be inspected 3 times a year. This includes safety and cleanliness, and accessibility.
Must have a rate card with FIXED (regulated) fares (none of this surge pricing nonsense) that the fares can see
All drivers must have valid Taxicab Drivers Licenses
Must have minimum $200,000 insurance per person
Must provide workers compensation coverage for drivers
Must operate each cab a minimum of 18 hours a day (again, none of this 'I'll only drive if the rates are high enough' crap)
Drivers must be trained for wheelchair passenger assistance (owner of the cab must pay for the training)
Must have braille and raised lettering plaques with the same info as the rate card (fares, complaint line, taxi ID)
Drivers license must be displayed in a lighted frame
Must have accurate taximeter
Must have operable air conditioning
What a complete and total pile of crap.
The average age of a NYC taxi is 3.3 years. They MUST be replaced after 6 years.
You can not call a yellow cab in NYC. Since you can't call one, your BS about one not showing up is false. You CAN call for a town car, which WILL show up, and has the same age limits as a regular cab, and WILL be a Lincoln Town Car or equivalent.
I don't know where you get your 'facts' from about Uber, but you sure as hell don't normally get a higher-end car or SUV. You usually get a Prius or Camry or something of that ilk.
How much did the printer cost compared to an injection molder? How much is the maintenance on a complicated printer compared to a simple injection molder?
If 3D printing is so damn cheap, then use the printer to make the mold.
According to the WHO, what you are describing is 'heavy episodic drinking', which is defiined as '60 or more grams of pure alcohol consumed on one occasion in the last 30 days'.
In France (by your accounting nobody there does heavy episodic drinking), 43.7% of male drinkers (or 42.2% of the entire male population) engage in heavy episodic drinking. France has the lowest (worst) score for years life shortened by alcohol.
In the US (by your account, all drinkers are heavy episodic drinkers), 30.9% of male drinkers (or 23.2% of the entire male population) engage in heavy episodic drinking.
My father-in-law died of alcoholism. He was never passed out, he was never falling-down drunk, he was never in bar fights. He had built up such a tolerance to alcohol that it seemed to have no effect on him. Nevertheless, that is NOT 'drinking in moderation'.
Maybe it is time to adjust your ever-so-wrong stereotypes and definition of what 'moderation' means.
OK, I'll bite. Which of those shows a lack of freedom?
Well now I am very confused. Above I thought you were doing good old America bashing about how we were 'more restricted' than Germany, but here you are admitting that other people also have rights which may be in conflict with yours. So which is it? Is America really 'more restricted', or are we in fact freer? Frankly, I do not see any way that a country which has no actual laws against free speech, but which does respect the rights that others may have is 'more restricted' than a country which has actual laws against certain speech, unless you consider free speech to be the ONLY right worth having.
Yes, that is exactly my point. I was responding to the idiot complaining that 'politicians do not understand clear language'. There can be no such thing as 'absolutes', as I demonstrated. You DO have property rights, and you CAN use them to stop me from using your property to make a speech, even though that may APPEAR to be a violation of free speech. Similarly, Facebook DOES have freedom of the press, and CAN decide what to publish, even if that removes a venue for you to make a speech.
That is because in the real world there are no absolutes. Can I use your house to display a giant hate-filled diatribe? Why not, what gives you the right? It can't be property rights, because that would be abridging my right of free speech. The exact same is true for ever one of his supposed 'restrictions of free speech'.
Freedom of speech is not the only right there is, and it is not some sort of 'super right' that trumps all others.
FCC rules - an argument could be made that this is a restriction of speech. However, an argument could also be made that the public should have the freedom to decide how a scare public resource (airwaves) can be used. Does Germany have no such freedom for the public to influence use of public resources? If not, score one more freedom for the US.
Lawyers - I guess you mean libel/slander laws. Does Germany have no right of a person to seek redress for being lied about? If not, score one more freedom for the US
Facebook - Does Germany have no freedom of the press, that is, the right to decide what you will and will not publish using your private property? If not, score one more freedom for the US
General politeness - wtf? Is there some kind of law in Germany that says I must still associate with you and not think ill of you just because you make repugnant or just stupid speeches? If so, score another freedom for the US
School district rules - should the public have no say in the environment that is created, using its tax money, in the place where its children must attend each day by law?
Please tell me you are just trolling. Breeding is an integral part of the sport. You can't make it irrelevant and have the same sport, and you have in no way explained how that us better.
Anyway, if you think removing expensive breeding makes the sport better I have the ideal form of horse racing for you. It is so innovative it will make your head spin. It not only removes the archaic and expensive breeding, but also the archaic and expensive feeding, boarding, training, jockeys, and track. Instead, it is replaced by a highly innovative RNG called a 'die'. You roll it and then move your horsey marker until someone crosses the finish line.
There is no element of follow the money. The one and only reason to register a horse with A Q&A is to race it. There are many forms of competition that set specific rules on the competitors and this is no different.
Uh, yeah. Maybe someone should enter an F1 car in a horse race and call it 'innovation'. Breeding is part of the competition. Cloning is not 'innovation', it is cheating.
Who is they, and what monopoly do they supposedly hold? Horse breeding and racing is a competition, and like all competitions there are rules.
I mostly agree with you. However, I would consider it newsworthy (with an accurate headline and summary) that someone actually found a new, interesting, and useful use for 3D printing instead of the usual 3D printing bullshit articles.
The headline is not accurate at all. Is there a Toyota 22RE engine that this transmission works with? No. The entire headline is false. Would you be as quick to excuse a news website that ran a headline saying 'President of US Killed in Terrorist Attack' only to find several paragraphs in that they are talking about a TV show?
And while some of the blame falls on the website, more falls on the submitter of the story. This reads like yet another attempt by 3D printing zealots to make it appear 3D printing can do something it can't. Which is too bad, because as you said, this is really cool. A story about making a working model of a transmission actually shows a good and interesting use for 3D printing, beyond the usual 'battery covers!' and 'will eliminate all manufacturing!' nonsense.
To be honest, I did not read the article. Why? Because as I said, it appeared to be just another bullshit 3D printing article. Had the headline and summary been even a little bit accurate I would have read it.
The summary does not even hint that it is a scale model. In fact, it contains the laugher of a line 'could replace the real thing'.
Exactly. I remember when I was about 8 years old I built a Revell Visible V8. It was a plastic model of a V8 engine. You could see the pistons moving, the valves opening, spark plugs firing, etc. A very valuable learning experience.
I wish that these articles and headlines were a little more honest. 'Man builds working model of transmission with 3D printing' is interesting enough. No need to add the 'could replace the real thing' hype.
Exactly
Uh, no. They require actual data relating to the emissions control system. Obviously, your car does not have an emissions control system. Such is not the case for the vast majority of cars on the road.
So you say 'not true', then give an example where it is true. Or did this guy magically rifle the car without actually physically being there?
The key difference is that in those other cases someone (the person suing) was actually hurt. In this case, nobody has been hurt, but somebody thinks that theoretically somebody could maybe possibly be hurt somehow under some condition.
The examples you give are not 'consumer protection' things, they are manufacturer liability prevention. Yes, you should be smart enough to know this on your own, but even if you don't we warned you. An actual consumer protection example would be where a stroller was recalled because, in normal use, a child could get his finger caught in something.
In addition, the only proposed way that this supposed 'defect' would cause injury is if a CRIME has been committed. Ever hear of a glass manufacturer being sued (successfully) because it is possible a burglar could break one to rob a house? Or, to use your stroller example, let's sue Graco because, theoretically, someone could use one to kidnap a child, so clearly they are ingnoring this serious security problem with their product.