The math may be easy, but you didn't do any. The OP said 'competitive'. That means efficiency, or more simply, cost. What is the COST of each of those printers, the energy to run them, the manpower, the space, etc? How does that COST compare to a simple metal-stamping plant, producing the same number of items?
For very low production runs, the printer will probably be cheaper. For anything remotely mass-produced the traditional plant will be orders of magnitude cheaper.
The hundreds of dollars is usually mostly made up of the cost of making it look good - sanding, painting, etc. Unless these cars are going to be just raw material, with no finish (not even UV protection), they will have the same issues. And if they are going to be just raw materials with no finish, yuck.
How many parts do you suppose an average AutoZone sells in a day? Now, imagine that instead of having those parts stocked (either in the store or within a day), they have all the materials, space, and tooling to MANUFACTURE those parts. How much manufacturing space do they need in order to meet the same turn-around time as today? How much is all that space, materials, and time going to cost? You are just plain crazy if you think that model will EVER be more effective than high-speed manufacturing using stamping, injection molding, and vacuum forming.
Do you really think you stopped getting tools made at your local blacksmith because they were MORE efficient than factories?
Yeah, I'll bet the auto manufacturers are really losing sleep over this 'disruption'. Gee, they can print out a body in only 44 hours - what's it take a real manufacturer, 2 seconds? And how does a car that 'anybody' can design even begin to meet safety standards? Or are safety standards just another 'regulatory capture'?
What does the last line of that article say? I'll copy it here for you: THE BILL DID NOT BECOME LAW. So where is the citation that there was ever a law. For that matter, where is the citation that the legislature actually made such a bill? And no, wikipedia does not count.
How do you explain the studies done by the NHTSA that show hybrids and electrics, at speeds under 35MPH, are 37% more likely to hit walkers and 66% more likely to hit cyclists than ICE cars?
Uh, no. You can't provide a citation of something that never was. You can, however, provide a citation to something that supposedly exists. So, where exactly is the citation for this 'law'? Let me guess: wikipedia. Oops, even that (again providing no citations) specifically says it never became law.
Fun fact: studies have shown that hybrid and electric cars are 37% more likely to hit pedestrians and 66% more likely to hit cyclists than ICE cars at under 35MPH.
You may not THINK you are hearing engine noise, but you are, and it makes a difference.
Just because something was not designed specifically to be a safety feature does not, in fact, mean it is not a safety feature. Noise IS used as a safety feature.
Let me guess, you are one of those people who are so superior to everyone else that you can rely solely on vision to determine when it is safe to cross a road. Even at night with a moron driver who 'forgot' to put on his lights. Even when your vision is momentarily distracted by something. Even if you are blind.
The noise that carmakers add is completely different from the mandated engine noise that the GP is complaining about. That mandated noise IS entirely a safety issue. Unless, of course, you think that the sense of hearing evolved entirely accidentally and has nothing to do with increasing you chances of staying alive.
What, exactly, was 'ridiculous' about the law that there had to be a person ahead of the car? The reason for that 'ridiculous' law was that a nosiy car could, in fact, scare a horse and cause it to bolt, and a bolting horse is a dangerous thing. The person had to be in front of the car to warn others that it was approaching so they could be prepared, nothing ridiculous about that at all. Once cars became commonplace they were no longer scary as people and animals got used to them. When that happened there was no further need for a person in front or a law requiring such.
Like it or not, people have been trained for over a century that cars make noise. We even instruct children to 'stop, look, and listen'. The world is not going to suddenly adapt to silent cars. People (and service animals) will need to get used to silent cars - that is not going to happen until silent cars are ubiquitous, which is certainly not true now. There is nothing ridiculous about mandating some amount of noise in the meantime.
Dixonpete said it seemed pretty clear to him, indicating that he is smoking dope. See what happens when you put an unsubstantiated editorial comment in with a quote? Now go back and read that stupid '... upgrades will be free for one year, indicating a move to a subscription...; line and tell us which is a quote and which is editorial comment. Here is a hint: Microsoft said not one word about subscriptions.
Sorry, but you are the one with the cognitive dissonance. A restaurant filming me does not bother me at all. Why? Because they don't do anything with it other than in the case of a crime. Show me a restaurant or bar that posts images and videos to the internet, and I will show you a business that is not long for this world.
If you can't tell the difference between someone taking a selfie and someone taking a picture of others that is your problem, don't assume everyone else has the same difficulty.
Yes, some idiot writer interpreted their 'free upgrade for one year' as 'indicating subscriptions'. That does not, in fact, mean that Windows will be by subscription. Nowhere does Microsoft say (or indicate) it will be by subscription.
Note that the 'free upgrade for one year' is the same thing they did with Windows 8, which is NOT subscription.
Huh? They use their own accelerometers to measure acceleration, so your 'hills' scenario makes no sense.
Do you know what the insurance companies care about? Risk. All they want to know is how likely you are to be in an accident. Therefore, contrary to your suggestion, they ARE taking into account things like the road surface. If you are 'weaving around pot-holes' and driving on poorly maintained roads you ARE more likely to be in an accident.
The link in the post above yours provides a good discussion. What you say is correct, it appears as 2 processors. However it does not provide the performance of 2 processors, but has about a 40% increase over 1 processor. This means that neither thread is running at full speed. Much mainframe workload depends on fast uniprocessing, so slowing down a thread by using SMT is not desirable in those situations. Therefore, zOS would have to specifically allow certain jobs to use SMT.
You think idle cores take the same power as active cores? You think software costs the same when running on one machine as it does on a machine with the 446 times the performance? You think a finance guy wants to pay for the development costs of a 141 processor machine running at 5GHz when all he needs is a 5 processor machine running at 3GHz? Or maybe you think that if IBM wants to be able to offer machines of different capacities the actual hardware should be different, and by some unfathomable miracle that would make the prices lower. And maybe somehow you think that customers would prefer that when they need more capacity they should have to order, wait for, and install new hardware. Or maybe you just don't think.
Why do you need 'a dozen'? You need 2 for redundancy. And they don't even need to be the same. The largest machine has 446 times the capacity of the smallest. Your primary datacenter is configured for your main workload. Your backup datacenter can be the smallest capacity machine with enough CBU engines to cover the workload of the larger machine. CBU engines cost a fraction of a regular engine. When a disaster happens, you activate the CBU engines and the workload is transferred to the backup datacenter, often with no application interuption at all.
Slashdot Mirror
The math may be easy, but you didn't do any. The OP said 'competitive'. That means efficiency, or more simply, cost. What is the COST of each of those printers, the energy to run them, the manpower, the space, etc? How does that COST compare to a simple metal-stamping plant, producing the same number of items?
For very low production runs, the printer will probably be cheaper. For anything remotely mass-produced the traditional plant will be orders of magnitude cheaper.
You don't really think that the dealer is the only place to buy replacement parts, do you?
The hundreds of dollars is usually mostly made up of the cost of making it look good - sanding, painting, etc. Unless these cars are going to be just raw material, with no finish (not even UV protection), they will have the same issues. And if they are going to be just raw materials with no finish, yuck.
How many parts do you suppose an average AutoZone sells in a day? Now, imagine that instead of having those parts stocked (either in the store or within a day), they have all the materials, space, and tooling to MANUFACTURE those parts. How much manufacturing space do they need in order to meet the same turn-around time as today? How much is all that space, materials, and time going to cost? You are just plain crazy if you think that model will EVER be more effective than high-speed manufacturing using stamping, injection molding, and vacuum forming.
Do you really think you stopped getting tools made at your local blacksmith because they were MORE efficient than factories?
Why would they need a new rule? I am pretty sure the existing ones will do just fine.
I was wondering how long it would be before some idiot started complaining about regulatory capture. Certainly didn't take long.
Yeah, I'll bet the auto manufacturers are really losing sleep over this 'disruption'. Gee, they can print out a body in only 44 hours - what's it take a real manufacturer, 2 seconds? And how does a car that 'anybody' can design even begin to meet safety standards? Or are safety standards just another 'regulatory capture'?
By law (at least in many states in the US), they do. You did know that, right?
What does the last line of that article say? I'll copy it here for you: THE BILL DID NOT BECOME LAW. So where is the citation that there was ever a law. For that matter, where is the citation that the legislature actually made such a bill? And no, wikipedia does not count.
In NY, bicycles by law must have a bell and it must be used.
Well at least you will have the comfort of knowing, with your dying breath, that it was the other guys responsibility.
How do you explain the studies done by the NHTSA that show hybrids and electrics, at speeds under 35MPH, are 37% more likely to hit walkers and 66% more likely to hit cyclists than ICE cars?
Uh, no. You can't provide a citation of something that never was. You can, however, provide a citation to something that supposedly exists. So, where exactly is the citation for this 'law'? Let me guess: wikipedia. Oops, even that (again providing no citations) specifically says it never became law.
Fun fact: studies have shown that hybrid and electric cars are 37% more likely to hit pedestrians and 66% more likely to hit cyclists than ICE cars at under 35MPH.
You may not THINK you are hearing engine noise, but you are, and it makes a difference.
There was never such a law.
Just because something was not designed specifically to be a safety feature does not, in fact, mean it is not a safety feature. Noise IS used as a safety feature.
Let me guess, you are one of those people who are so superior to everyone else that you can rely solely on vision to determine when it is safe to cross a road. Even at night with a moron driver who 'forgot' to put on his lights. Even when your vision is momentarily distracted by something. Even if you are blind.
The noise that carmakers add is completely different from the mandated engine noise that the GP is complaining about. That mandated noise IS entirely a safety issue. Unless, of course, you think that the sense of hearing evolved entirely accidentally and has nothing to do with increasing you chances of staying alive.
What, exactly, was 'ridiculous' about the law that there had to be a person ahead of the car? The reason for that 'ridiculous' law was that a nosiy car could, in fact, scare a horse and cause it to bolt, and a bolting horse is a dangerous thing. The person had to be in front of the car to warn others that it was approaching so they could be prepared, nothing ridiculous about that at all. Once cars became commonplace they were no longer scary as people and animals got used to them. When that happened there was no further need for a person in front or a law requiring such.
Like it or not, people have been trained for over a century that cars make noise. We even instruct children to 'stop, look, and listen'. The world is not going to suddenly adapt to silent cars. People (and service animals) will need to get used to silent cars - that is not going to happen until silent cars are ubiquitous, which is certainly not true now. There is nothing ridiculous about mandating some amount of noise in the meantime.
Dixonpete said it seemed pretty clear to him, indicating that he is smoking dope. See what happens when you put an unsubstantiated editorial comment in with a quote? Now go back and read that stupid '... upgrades will be free for one year, indicating a move to a subscription...; line and tell us which is a quote and which is editorial comment. Here is a hint: Microsoft said not one word about subscriptions.
Sorry, but you are the one with the cognitive dissonance. A restaurant filming me does not bother me at all. Why? Because they don't do anything with it other than in the case of a crime. Show me a restaurant or bar that posts images and videos to the internet, and I will show you a business that is not long for this world.
If you can't tell the difference between someone taking a selfie and someone taking a picture of others that is your problem, don't assume everyone else has the same difficulty.
'Non-free' and 'more restrictive' have NOTHING to do with it. Unless it is truely public domain, ALL software is licensed only.
Yes, some idiot writer interpreted their 'free upgrade for one year' as 'indicating subscriptions'. That does not, in fact, mean that Windows will be by subscription. Nowhere does Microsoft say (or indicate) it will be by subscription.
Note that the 'free upgrade for one year' is the same thing they did with Windows 8, which is NOT subscription.
Huh? They use their own accelerometers to measure acceleration, so your 'hills' scenario makes no sense.
Do you know what the insurance companies care about? Risk. All they want to know is how likely you are to be in an accident. Therefore, contrary to your suggestion, they ARE taking into account things like the road surface. If you are 'weaving around pot-holes' and driving on poorly maintained roads you ARE more likely to be in an accident.
The link in the post above yours provides a good discussion. What you say is correct, it appears as 2 processors. However it does not provide the performance of 2 processors, but has about a 40% increase over 1 processor. This means that neither thread is running at full speed. Much mainframe workload depends on fast uniprocessing, so slowing down a thread by using SMT is not desirable in those situations. Therefore, zOS would have to specifically allow certain jobs to use SMT.
You think idle cores take the same power as active cores? You think software costs the same when running on one machine as it does on a machine with the 446 times the performance? You think a finance guy wants to pay for the development costs of a 141 processor machine running at 5GHz when all he needs is a 5 processor machine running at 3GHz? Or maybe you think that if IBM wants to be able to offer machines of different capacities the actual hardware should be different, and by some unfathomable miracle that would make the prices lower. And maybe somehow you think that customers would prefer that when they need more capacity they should have to order, wait for, and install new hardware. Or maybe you just don't think.
Why do you need 'a dozen'? You need 2 for redundancy. And they don't even need to be the same. The largest machine has 446 times the capacity of the smallest. Your primary datacenter is configured for your main workload. Your backup datacenter can be the smallest capacity machine with enough CBU engines to cover the workload of the larger machine. CBU engines cost a fraction of a regular engine. When a disaster happens, you activate the CBU engines and the workload is transferred to the backup datacenter, often with no application interuption at all.