Because allowing a state to say "you're allowed to sell it, as long as you sell it this way" is effectively the same as allowing a state to say "you're not allowed to sell it", because then the state can say "you're allowed to sell it, as long as you sell it on the 29th of February, in the cellar, with the lights off, with no stairs to the cellar, with all produce hidden in a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory, with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'".
Yet that's exactly how cars have been sold in this country for decades - the government telling auto makers, "you can't sell directly to the public, you have to set up dealerships."
Obviously, it's not a legal barrier, since dozens of other car companies have followed this model for a long, long time. It seems to me the real issue at hand is that Tesla wants an exception made to the law, just for them. Now that would be unconstitutional.
In many states, it's illegal to own your own dealership. Tesla has sales and service centers with zero physical cars in them because they're not legally allowed to own a showroom.
Easy fix, one that established auto manufacturers have already dealt with: franchising.
Now, if Tesla doesn't want to franchise their dealerships, that's their choice, but in that case they really can't legitimately complain that the system is gamed against them.
Then it comes down to having to deal with dealerships. This is expensive, and of course Tesla isn't pushing enough stock to actually support independent dealerships.
Which is their own fault/problem, not a fault of the system under which cars have been sold in this country for decades, with the exception of Ohio's recent attempt to specifically outlaw the sale of Tesla automobiles (a dumb and unconstitutional move, IMO).
All of these incidental barriers come down to a situation where you can get your car into the state, get it in a dealership, and a customer can come and buy it; but, in practice, that won't actually happen.
Because Tesla chooses to eschew the standard model, and insists that they should be able to do something that no other auto manufacturer is allowed to do - sell directly to the public.
So, it's less that they can't sell the cars, it's that they won't if they have to play by the same rules as everyone else.
The courts--even the supreme court--have heard many cases on many subjects in which one side of the legal argument was, "We don't deny them the right or privilege to do what they are asserting we prohibit," and the opinion of the Court was, "You make it fucking impossible in real life, so yes you do, and you will cease this behavior or you will find yourself a long vacation in a tiny hotel room with iron bars and an in-room toilet." Such reasoning makes sense to me.
If other auto makers were allowed to do direct-to-consumer sales, this might be a valid point.
Why? Is there some law against Tesla opening dealerships?
No, really, I don't understand why that's such an impossible business model for them to adopt. Is it a logistics issue? Lack of funding? Ego problem? Help me out here.
Consider healthcare coverage (I'm sorry, but it is an easily accessible example) - by law health insurance can not be sold across state lines yet the federal government has in the last few years exerted tremendous regulatory control over this market.
Somehow it was argued that the individual that chooses not to buy health insurance coverage has as great, if not greater, impact on the healthcare market as the individual that actually participates in the healthcare market...
You think that's an unreasonable application of the Commerce Clause? Go read the Wiki page for Wickard v Filburn.
No, that doesn't make sense. Because you are saying that New Jersey cannot regulate sales of cars in their own state because of where they are made.
New Jersey should NOT have the right to restrict a citizen from purchasing a product made in another state (or even within New Jersey) in order to protect an unnecessary middleman in the transaction. That is what is happening here. The laws are not in place to protect citizens, they are in place to protect dealers and their frankly obsolete business model.
By that logic, California shouldn't have the right to restrict a citizen from purchasing a firearm made in another state.
I'd bet dollars against pesos that at least some of the people arguing for Tesla's "right" to direct sales in other states would also argue against the firearms manufacturers "right" to direct sales in CA.
Where are Teslas made? How is prohibiting direct sales NOT interfering in interstate commerce in states where they are attempting sales?
Because saying "you have to sell that this way" isn't the same as saying "you can't sell that here," or "you have to pay a special tax if you want to transport goods through our state."
Otherwise, California would not be able to, say, restrict the sale of certain firearms that are legal in other states.
It's the same deal with photo printers. It's much easier and cheaper to go down to Walmart or Costco when you need to print out your photos and get them to use their professional quality machines to do the job. I think that 3D printers will end up in the same sport. You'll go down to Walmart, and get them to print out an item for you. You'll only need it maybe 5 times a year, so there's no point in owning your own 3D printer. There's already services where you can send a 3D file and somebody will print it out and ship it to you.
I think this is accurate. I'm not ready to buy a 3D printer but I'd drive over to The UPS Store and have them print something out.
See, that's exactly why I'd like to acquire one - there's money to be made printing stuff for other people.
I wanna be the guy making that money.
There are web sites where you can find folks nearby with 3D printers and their costs. There were half a dozen within 10 or so miles. For me, though, that's not how I want to transact business.
Somebody set up a "quick fabrication shop" in a commercial center near my house... I haven't stopped by yet, but from the outside their storefront seems just as inviting as the next small retailer.
Just like every other new industry throughout human history, it's going to take some time before 3D printing, either self-done or outsourced, is ready for mass adoption.
See, that's exactly why I'd like to acquire one - there's money to be made printing stuff for other people. I wanna be the guy making that money.
Do you think you stand a change against established commercial locations like copy shops, which have already secured real estate in prime locations and built up a customer base?
Yes. People do it every day.
For example, my in-laws opened up a gun shop 2 years ago, and they just opened a second location late last year; their sales volumes increase monthly, despite the fact that the same customers they service could just as easily go 2 blocks down the road and buy the same guns from Wal-Marx.
When digital photo printing became a thing, you started to see digital photo printers in drugstores and pre-existing photo stores, not new, specialized shops just for that.
10 - 20 years from now that may be an accurate representation of 3D printing, but considering the complexity of creating precise, repeatable 3D prints, I'd say today's environment in that field is more equivalent to regular photo printing in its infancy - back in those days, you either set up your own dark room, or took your film to one of the boutique stores that specialized in photo development.
The way this technology was presented to "The Public" a few years ago, it sounded like we would soon be buying stuff online and printing it at home.
Which, IMO, is exactly why normals aren't exactly chomping at the bit to buy themselves a 3D printer - the media tried to sell them a magic anything-duplicator, and the reality of the situation is that they're anything but.
Plus the steep learning curve; I doubt most people would even own a personal computer if there was no such thing as a GUI.
It's the same deal with photo printers. It's much easier and cheaper to go down to Walmart or Costco when you need to print out your photos and get them to use their professional quality machines to do the job. I think that 3D printers will end up in the same sport. You'll go down to Walmart, and get them to print out an item for you. You'll only need it maybe 5 times a year, so there's no point in owning your own 3D printer. There's already services where you can send a 3D file and somebody will print it out and ship it to you.
I think this is accurate. I'm not ready to buy a 3D printer but I'd drive over to The UPS Store and have them print something out.
See, that's exactly why I'd like to acquire one - there's money to be made printing stuff for other people.
Lets not forget that while most of the orders will be simple extra-cheap toys or minor repair parts, there will be dicks. I mean that both in the sense of 'person who drops off an order and never picks it up/pays for it' and '3D printed sculptures of male sexual organs.' Often, the two will overlap.
The first problem is easily solved, just make them pay when they drop off the file to be printed.
As for the second issue... well, as any of us who ever tried to have racy photos developed at Wal-Marx know, they'll probably refuse to print those. Or at least, refuse to give it to the customer (phrasing!)
FYI, I received your message on my homepage, just thought I'd let you know that spamming Slashdot then "anonymously" accusing me of being the spammer probably won't work, since, you know, your UID is different than mine.
Of course, assuming you're as clever as you think yourself, you already knew that, huh?
Whenever I read accounts like this, I always, ALWAYS assume that there is much more to the story than the clean and simple explanation given. Obviously there is much more to this story than you are telling, because there are so many incongruous aspects to it (not the least of which is, how could the judge's decision possibly have stood on appeal if your acquaintance was so clearly wronged here?).
Not that I necessarily disagree with the likelihood that there's more to this story than we're being told, but most of the single mothers I've known throughout my life don't have the financial resources to hire a lawyer for the initial charge, let alone be able to afford an expensive appeal. Hell, most people I know.
What pay phone? The only 3 that still exist in the US are also covered by cameras I'm sure.
Substitute payphone for VoIP gateway and you are left with the same problem. We routinely get anonymous whackos calling us from all over the world appearing to come from local numbers. It gets easier every day to make a practically untraceable call using IP as POTS overlay.
Which just goes to show the problem with letting dinosaurs whose understanding of technology is, shall we say, "limited," to make laws and decide how the scope of said laws are affected by technology.
Maybe we should be demanding our "representatives" impeach one or two SCOTUS "justices," and replace them with some younger people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Because allowing a state to say "you're allowed to sell it, as long as you sell it this way" is effectively the same as allowing a state to say "you're not allowed to sell it", because then the state can say "you're allowed to sell it, as long as you sell it on the 29th of February, in the cellar, with the lights off, with no stairs to the cellar, with all produce hidden in a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory, with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'".
Yet that's exactly how cars have been sold in this country for decades - the government telling auto makers, "you can't sell directly to the public, you have to set up dealerships."
Obviously, it's not a legal barrier, since dozens of other car companies have followed this model for a long, long time. It seems to me the real issue at hand is that Tesla wants an exception made to the law, just for them. Now that would be unconstitutional.
In many states, it's illegal to own your own dealership. Tesla has sales and service centers with zero physical cars in them because they're not legally allowed to own a showroom.
Easy fix, one that established auto manufacturers have already dealt with: franchising.
Now, if Tesla doesn't want to franchise their dealerships, that's their choice, but in that case they really can't legitimately complain that the system is gamed against them.
Then it comes down to having to deal with dealerships. This is expensive, and of course Tesla isn't pushing enough stock to actually support independent dealerships.
Which is their own fault/problem, not a fault of the system under which cars have been sold in this country for decades, with the exception of Ohio's recent attempt to specifically outlaw the sale of Tesla automobiles (a dumb and unconstitutional move, IMO).
All of these incidental barriers come down to a situation where you can get your car into the state, get it in a dealership, and a customer can come and buy it; but, in practice, that won't actually happen.
Because Tesla chooses to eschew the standard model, and insists that they should be able to do something that no other auto manufacturer is allowed to do - sell directly to the public.
So, it's less that they can't sell the cars, it's that they won't if they have to play by the same rules as everyone else.
The courts--even the supreme court--have heard many cases on many subjects in which one side of the legal argument was, "We don't deny them the right or privilege to do what they are asserting we prohibit," and the opinion of the Court was, "You make it fucking impossible in real life, so yes you do, and you will cease this behavior or you will find yourself a long vacation in a tiny hotel room with iron bars and an in-room toilet." Such reasoning makes sense to me.
If other auto makers were allowed to do direct-to-consumer sales, this might be a valid point.
Further, I see a lot of pessimism on Slashdot regarding super-longevity. I don't get it.
I can think of a few reasons:
- living a long time is one thing; living a long time old and infirm is another.
- if significant numbers of people stop dying, and more people are being born everyday, on a planet with finite resources.. you see the problem.
- wealth envy
- other reasons that do not immediately spring to mind
... and Wickard v Filburn happened almost 100 years ago.
Shit's only gotten worse since then.
That depends on if firearms are contraband in California or if you're simply not allowed to purchase out-of-state firearms.
Oh, you can buy out-of-state firearms in CA, but you have to buy them from a registered dealer - all private sales of firearms are illegal in CA.
Which parallels this situation quite well.
Effectively, they can't sell it.
Why? Is there some law against Tesla opening dealerships?
No, really, I don't understand why that's such an impossible business model for them to adopt. Is it a logistics issue? Lack of funding? Ego problem? Help me out here.
Yeah, Tesla should look in to building a big factory where they could build less expensive batteries or something.
Right, because massive manufacturing facilities are free to build, and nobody ever passes costs along to consumers...
It's symbolic, as has been shown with many other petitions that the president has ignored, but here goes:
https://petitions.whitehouse.g...
Yea, maybe if y'all keep whipping it, one day that dead horse will get up and ride...
When GM first developed an electric concept car, they named it the "Impact". It's hard to imagine a scarier name for a small, light-weight car.
How about the new Chevy Captiva? Sounds like a vehicle designed for snatch-and-grabs.
Stick a "KDNP-U" license plate on that bad boy, you're good to go.
Consider healthcare coverage (I'm sorry, but it is an easily accessible example) - by law health insurance can not be sold across state lines yet the federal government has in the last few years exerted tremendous regulatory control over this market.
Somehow it was argued that the individual that chooses not to buy health insurance coverage has as great, if not greater, impact on the healthcare market as the individual that actually participates in the healthcare market...
You think that's an unreasonable application of the Commerce Clause? Go read the Wiki page for Wickard v Filburn.
It'll blow your friggin' mind.
No, that doesn't make sense. Because you are saying that New Jersey cannot regulate sales of cars in their own state because of where they are made.
New Jersey should NOT have the right to restrict a citizen from purchasing a product made in another state (or even within New Jersey) in order to protect an unnecessary middleman in the transaction. That is what is happening here. The laws are not in place to protect citizens, they are in place to protect dealers and their frankly obsolete business model.
By that logic, California shouldn't have the right to restrict a citizen from purchasing a firearm made in another state.
I'd bet dollars against pesos that at least some of the people arguing for Tesla's "right" to direct sales in other states would also argue against the firearms manufacturers "right" to direct sales in CA.
Where are Teslas made? How is prohibiting direct sales NOT interfering in interstate commerce in states where they are attempting sales?
Because saying "you have to sell that this way" isn't the same as saying "you can't sell that here," or "you have to pay a special tax if you want to transport goods through our state."
Otherwise, California would not be able to, say, restrict the sale of certain firearms that are legal in other states.
Somehow I can't help but imagine you evilly twirling a handlebar mustache as you wrote that...
I've always maintained the best thing that ever happened to the American People is a do-nothing Congress.
Nope, if you insist on chess terms, that would be a stalemate.
FTFY
It's the same deal with photo printers. It's much easier and cheaper to go down to Walmart or Costco when you need to print out your photos and get them to use their professional quality machines to do the job. I think that 3D printers will end up in the same sport. You'll go down to Walmart, and get them to print out an item for you. You'll only need it maybe 5 times a year, so there's no point in owning your own 3D printer. There's already services where you can send a 3D file and somebody will print it out and ship it to you.
I think this is accurate. I'm not ready to buy a 3D printer but I'd drive over to The UPS Store and have them print something out.
See, that's exactly why I'd like to acquire one - there's money to be made printing stuff for other people.
I wanna be the guy making that money.
There are web sites where you can find folks nearby with 3D printers and their costs. There were half a dozen within 10 or so miles. For me, though, that's not how I want to transact business.
Somebody set up a "quick fabrication shop" in a commercial center near my house... I haven't stopped by yet, but from the outside their storefront seems just as inviting as the next small retailer.
Just like every other new industry throughout human history, it's going to take some time before 3D printing, either self-done or outsourced, is ready for mass adoption.
Do you think you stand a change against established commercial locations like copy shops, which have already secured real estate in prime locations and built up a customer base?
Yes. People do it every day.
For example, my in-laws opened up a gun shop 2 years ago, and they just opened a second location late last year; their sales volumes increase monthly, despite the fact that the same customers they service could just as easily go 2 blocks down the road and buy the same guns from Wal-Marx.
When digital photo printing became a thing, you started to see digital photo printers in drugstores and pre-existing photo stores, not new, specialized shops just for that.
10 - 20 years from now that may be an accurate representation of 3D printing, but considering the complexity of creating precise, repeatable 3D prints, I'd say today's environment in that field is more equivalent to regular photo printing in its infancy - back in those days, you either set up your own dark room, or took your film to one of the boutique stores that specialized in photo development.
The way this technology was presented to "The Public" a few years ago, it sounded like we would soon be buying stuff online and printing it at home.
Which, IMO, is exactly why normals aren't exactly chomping at the bit to buy themselves a 3D printer - the media tried to sell them a magic anything-duplicator, and the reality of the situation is that they're anything but.
Plus the steep learning curve; I doubt most people would even own a personal computer if there was no such thing as a GUI.
It's the same deal with photo printers. It's much easier and cheaper to go down to Walmart or Costco when you need to print out your photos and get them to use their professional quality machines to do the job. I think that 3D printers will end up in the same sport. You'll go down to Walmart, and get them to print out an item for you. You'll only need it maybe 5 times a year, so there's no point in owning your own 3D printer. There's already services where you can send a 3D file and somebody will print it out and ship it to you.
I think this is accurate. I'm not ready to buy a 3D printer but I'd drive over to The UPS Store and have them print something out.
See, that's exactly why I'd like to acquire one - there's money to be made printing stuff for other people.
I wanna be the guy making that money.
Lets not forget that while most of the orders will be simple extra-cheap toys or minor repair parts, there will be dicks. I mean that both in the sense of 'person who drops off an order and never picks it up/pays for it' and '3D printed sculptures of male sexual organs.' Often, the two will overlap.
The first problem is easily solved, just make them pay when they drop off the file to be printed.
As for the second issue... well, as any of us who ever tried to have racy photos developed at Wal-Marx know, they'll probably refuse to print those. Or at least, refuse to give it to the customer (phrasing!)
I love the idea of sending a jpeg by semaphore. Can't see it working for smoke signals, though.
Why not? Long/short pulses of smoke could correspond to 0's and 1's, respectively.
Now granted, it might take 2 weeks and a helluva lot of timber to send the file header...
FYI, I received your message on my homepage, just thought I'd let you know that spamming Slashdot then "anonymously" accusing me of being the spammer probably won't work, since, you know, your UID is different than mine.
Of course, assuming you're as clever as you think yourself, you already knew that, huh?
Seriously, dude, stop posting with this account before I'm forced to report you.
Whenever I read accounts like this, I always, ALWAYS assume that there is much more to the story than the clean and simple explanation given. Obviously there is much more to this story than you are telling, because there are so many incongruous aspects to it (not the least of which is, how could the judge's decision possibly have stood on appeal if your acquaintance was so clearly wronged here?).
Not that I necessarily disagree with the likelihood that there's more to this story than we're being told, but most of the single mothers I've known throughout my life don't have the financial resources to hire a lawyer for the initial charge, let alone be able to afford an expensive appeal. Hell, most people I know.
"Justice" is expensive.
What pay phone? The only 3 that still exist in the US are also covered by cameras I'm sure.
Substitute payphone for VoIP gateway and you are left with the same problem. We routinely get anonymous whackos calling us from all over the world appearing to come from local numbers. It gets easier every day to make a practically untraceable call using IP as POTS overlay.
Which just goes to show the problem with letting dinosaurs whose understanding of technology is, shall we say, "limited," to make laws and decide how the scope of said laws are affected by technology.
Maybe we should be demanding our "representatives" impeach one or two SCOTUS "justices," and replace them with some younger people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about.