but to claim it's DISRUPTIVE to the auto industry is silly.
Indeed. 'Disruptive' would be Tesla coming out with a hatchback EV with a 300 mile range for under $20k (just to make it wildly disruptive).
Worst case this displaces some kit car builds, and the likely result is that the prototyping departments are already buying the printers for the major manufacturers to purchase themselves.
The big exception to safety standards is the antique car.
I'll add one more: The kit car. So long as it's assembled by the owner himself(though he can subsequently sell it intact, it's a bit like selling home-made firearms), it's not considered 'manufactured' and not subject to a lot of the rules.
If they can arrange it so the buyer is 'assembling' the car(even if that means the paperwork says he's renting the machine and buying only the feedstock/parts) as a legal fiction, they can dodge a lot of rules.
Well, assuming the article saying that the consumer can "design" it really means design, and not just select from a few options to make it custom.
If the manufactured number is small enough, no crash safety testing needs to be done.
Depending on the number they're anticipating on selling and the amount of modification the individuals are doing, they could come under the line because they're just not selling enough of them or even, by legal trickery like 'renting' the machine to the customer who uses it to build his car(with help) and the amount of customization/design work the buyer does, every car each customer makes could be 'unique' enough to count separately and come under the limit.
Printed plastic isn't strong enough, but I wonder if this might find business applications? Vehicles with customized shells to accommodate specialized equipment? I'm thinking of everything from a slot for a generator on vans/trucks used on construction sites to a custom shell designed for a pizza oven to be inserted into a delivery vehicle for the ultimate in freshness.
Consider that Local Motors themselves said the cars are not street legal.
'Street Legal' can mean many different things. In many cases this would effectively be a 'hobby car' - IE built by the owner, one-off, etc... In many states making one street legal is around a 10 item checklist - does it have brakes? Does it have functional brake lights? Can it turn? Functional turn signals? Windscreen, headlights?
Safety of the occupants of said vehicle is not really addressed, just that they aren't a rampant danger to the other people on the road.
Emissions can be tougher.
It ends up on the definition of 'manufactured', they may be utilizing a loophole which even auto makers exploit for things like their concept cars - one off cars are crafted, not manufactured. Ergo exempt from everything, but they have to actually be 'crafted', IE hand built in a one-off fashion.
With the 3D printer system they could be leasing the equipment and assistance to the buyer, who actually triggers the machine. Since his modifications make the vehicle one-off, built by him(technically), it's not 'manufactured' under the definitions.
Much like how you can buy a complete kit car that's also exempt. You just have to put it together.
Instead what happens is you create drug resistant virus that are 50-60 more likely to infect, so cutting it down by 30-40 percent is still higher than it was before you started. Net Loss.
...So much wrong with your statement.
1. Vaccines are technically not a drug. 2. The vaccine is, ideally, not present by the time you're exposed to a disease. 3. Vaccines are really 'training' for your immune system. It's like having soldiers shoot at silhouettes as part of their training, doing reaction drills, showing them example IEDs, etc... That way they'll be more effective in the field. 4. Viruses mutate quite naturally. By giving them fewer hosts you can actually slow the mutation rate. 5. Infection rate doesn't change much.
Considering recent studies show that cancer is more likely to be caused by genetics than smoking...
Do you have a link to one of these studies? Does it take into account reduced smoking rates? Is it looking at the chances of an individual getting cancer, or how many get cancer from X source in the USA?
Another thought I had was this: The types of cancer are different. Survive long enough you'll get cancer. Most types at that late of a stage are unlikely to kill you before you die of something else. You're far more likely to get lung cancer from smoking. Odd fact: ALL of my grandparents have had cancer. The only death was my grandmother, the smoker. Anecdotal, but I've heard that lung cancer tends to be particularly lethal.
As a rule of thumb, with a flu shot you are immune to 80% of the current flu viruses going around. This number may change if a previously unimportant strain mutates to be more virulent.
Also, getting the flu shot every year helps as well. Because then you're generally immune to not only this year's strains, but those of the 2-3 previous years as well, which may still be lingering.
They should not even KNOW if I take vaccinations or not.
As a very libertarian leaning individual, I 'somewhat' disagree with this because disease is freaking scary and vaccination is a simple method to ensure that you're not a carrier that can potentially infect others(an offense against them).
Perhaps a doctor's note saying that you've been verified to have a low chance of being a carrier against XYZ diseases? IE you're either naturally immune or vaccinated.
And those are mainly directed towards the safety of the individual, not of the company.
Sleeping time for drivers isn't about safety for the driver so much as everybody else on the road. Vaccination doubles for both the safety of the individual AND the public. A vaccinated individual is less likely to get sick(self-harm), get other employees sick(lots of lost work hours), or customers/public sick.
Note: The exact ratios of protection depends on the job. A park ranger in a remote area isn't as much of a concern as somebody who works in a restaurant.
I think that Lucas's plots aren't bad. I think the problem became one of what many extremely successful writers and directors suffer from - lack of effective editorial control.
Robert Jordan's books declined when he switched to having his wife be his primary editor - she just wasn't mean enough, if that makes sense. During the prequels Lucas ended up with a bunch of yes-men that agreed with every inane idea he had. Without that he'd have a better product.
vaccaination lowers the probability of infection, but not to 0 as you might encounter a new strain of whatever. In return, being in a largely vaccacinated group, reduces the infection risk of unvaccacinated subjects, too.
Doesn't take a new strain. Vaccines aren't 100% effective at 'training' people's immune systems. The chicken pox vaccine and one of my aunts, for example. Completely ineffective. Of course, for her getting chickenpox is about as effective as a flue shot(IE it'll be about a year before she catches it again). Consider it a narrow case of immunodeficiency.
Immunization also tends to decrease with time, especially if you've eliminated the vast majority of the natural virus loads. IE if I went back in time(or to some hellhole) and was routinely exposed to hepatitis, small pox, anthrax, measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, and all the other stuff I've been vaccinated against over the years, my immunity wouldn't decline until my immune system as a whole did due to age or whatever. But located in the USA, I'm not 'likely' to be exposed, thus the revaccination schedule varies between 3-30 years. Note: 'Annual' Flu shots are more because there's so many strains of the stuff that even though a flue vaccine will generally provide multiple years of protection against the strains it contains, there's so many strains that you'll rarely hit all of them. Each year the flue shot gives you vaccination against 2-4 strains of it.
Back on declining immunization - it varies with the individual and the disease/vaccination in question. It's an optimization problem. How often do we need to revaccinate in order to keep immune percentages high enough to maintain herd immunity? Do you schedule the booster when 10% of the population has lost immunity? 20%? 30%? 50% with the idea that 99% of those who's immunity has 'lapsed' would still get a mild case due to lingering antibodies?
Disney's just as likely to get sued by employees who get infectious diseases because they didn't take well know, very safe, measures to help prevent their spread.
Not sure if you just mis-typed, but I'd rate the chances of being sued by customers as far higher. All it would take is somebody remembering that the employee 'didn't look well'.
Heck, see if any employees reported in sick shortly before them, and accuse them of being unknowing carriers, but it's the company's fault because they could have required vaccination...
So I can say that "it just broke" is certainly a possibility from 1st hand experience.
Thanks, didn't think of this one either, which is why I said my list wasn't all-inclusive. Though I suppose you could shove it into 'natural forces'. Perhaps the line had been 'tweaked' some time before, stressing the wire at that particular point, so it was never repaired and experienced relatively rapid degradation, which could still mean 'years', of course, before failing.
I've seen wires with completely underground entrances, but yeah, they're fairly rare.
The notion that a human antibody can intercept (and neutralize) a foreign substance that quickly is highly questionable. (If not silly).
Matter of fact, that's one of the 'problems' with developing the vaccine - ensuring the response is fast enough.
Still, think of nicotine like a bunch of runners on a football field. Unopposed most should be crossing the 100 yard field in just over 10 seconds. If that's not fast enough, we can put them at the 50.
Think of a vaccinated person as the football field is no longer empty, but has the defensive line on it. How many are going to be crossing the finish line?
Plus, the body will tend to take the antibodies(tacklers) all being 'busy' tackling as a sign it needs more tacklers, so next thing you know somebody who has been vaccinated but tries to keep smoking will have TWO defensive lines on it.
The fact that it moves fast doesn't mean that the antibodies, located in the bloodstream and brain themselves, wouldn't be busily reducing the amount of active chemical, and you need a certain amount to get the buzz.
Here in Canada the Tobacco, Liquor, and Gaming (Gambling) pays for our Free, Universal Health Care. Please don't do this to Canada.
The economics become complicated, doesn't it? The taxes from the industry pay for so much, even in the USA, to the point that I've heard of state budget crises as anti-smoking campaigns made serious headway. It became a vicious circle - they raised taxes to 'discourage smoking', enjoyed and became dependent upon the money coming in, then as total cigarettes sold dropped, they increased the taxes more to maintain revenue, which dropped cigarettes sold even more...
In addition I remember reading that many tobacco smokers actually cost the government less. Because while dying from lung cancer isn't cheap, neither is most other deaths. About the cheapest is dropping from a heart attack or massive stroke, but smoking even increases that! They tend to happen at the end of a person's career, so you avoid having to pay out decades of pension benefits and healthcare expenses. It 'saves' a lot of money if the median case is you retire and drop dead a year later.
On the other hand, highly educated intellectual types tend to work even later in life, so if you're past a Bachelor's degree it might make sense for them to encourage you to not smoke...
War has ALWAYS gone on. Never have we had wars with SO FEW casualties. Certainly never have we had wars with SUCH a small percentage of the population as casualties. Historically, wars have been known to obliterate 50% of the population of a country quite easily. Same for plagues, etc.
Indeed. Well stated. As scary as ISIS is, during the 80's you could practically call it 'Africa'. 'Most' of the continent was that way, today they're much better off, and improving rapidly. More than enough to over-balance the increased violence in the middle east.
There was a point in history where violence was the 2nd leading cause of death behind disease.
I don't think it takes a whole lot of brain cells to google a person and figure out what their address is, especially if they have not made any attempt to keep this information secret.
Point. I've actually made the effort, but I'm sure it's not 100%.
Vandalism is an interesting option, but it still seems 'odd' for a target of a right-wing idiot. I'd expect egging the car, tossing a brick through the window, and such would be easier than locating and severing a buried service line.
Transcanada does not exactly have a stellar record. Their Keystone phase 1 pipeline sprung 14 leaks in its first two years of operation. Across their network, they average better than 70 spills per year [thestar.com].
You can't just look at how 'bad' they are. You have to consider the alternatives. Per barrel-mile, even their lousy pipes results in less spilled oil than trucking, rail, or even ships.
The problem is that you have an idiot who's still smart enough to find the blogger's physical address.
My non-inclusive list of possibilities: 1. Somebody cut his line in response to that specific article 2. Somebody cut his line in response to a different article 3. Somebody cut his line for a completely different reason, deliberate or not. Family strife, for example. An idiot wanting to steal cable. Botched maintenance(and the perp drove off without telling anybody). Timing was coincidence. 4. The line was severed by 'natural forces', maybe even animal, and the tech saying it was done with power tools was mistaken. 5. He cut the line himself to generate more news.
People who do things like cut lines as a 'warning' tend to do something to ensure that it's seen as a warning. Like leave a note.
Unless you're blind, or happen to be looking the other way when the drunk in a prius bears down on you. Which is why some sort of fake engine noise will eventually be mandated (if it hasn't been already).
Studies have shown that cars, even at low velocity, make enough noise just from the road(crunching over gravel and such) that fake engine noise isn't really necessary.
Besides, it's going to get harder to force the Prius and similar cars to even make the impact with all the new collision avoidance stuff.
The phrasing is wierd, but I figure the.3% that are actually 'google posts' is an accurate number, and youtube crossposts were mentioned because they're the vast majority.
Of course, I was all irked when I wanted to comment on a youtube video and youtube wanted to act like I have a 'channel' with my own videos on it. No, I don't want or need a 'channel'. I'm not posting comment that's worth anything on it's own.
Slashdot Mirror
but to claim it's DISRUPTIVE to the auto industry is silly.
Indeed. 'Disruptive' would be Tesla coming out with a hatchback EV with a 300 mile range for under $20k (just to make it wildly disruptive).
Worst case this displaces some kit car builds, and the likely result is that the prototyping departments are already buying the printers for the major manufacturers to purchase themselves.
The big exception to safety standards is the antique car.
I'll add one more: The kit car. So long as it's assembled by the owner himself(though he can subsequently sell it intact, it's a bit like selling home-made firearms), it's not considered 'manufactured' and not subject to a lot of the rules.
If they can arrange it so the buyer is 'assembling' the car(even if that means the paperwork says he's renting the machine and buying only the feedstock/parts) as a legal fiction, they can dodge a lot of rules.
Yeah, but you can print an awful lot of things if you have that much power available...
Remember: Some 3d printers print in metal, concrete, tissue cultures, etc... Some of these require rather more power to run the 'print head'.
Well, assuming the article saying that the consumer can "design" it really means design, and not just select from a few options to make it custom.
If the manufactured number is small enough, no crash safety testing needs to be done.
Depending on the number they're anticipating on selling and the amount of modification the individuals are doing, they could come under the line because they're just not selling enough of them or even, by legal trickery like 'renting' the machine to the customer who uses it to build his car(with help) and the amount of customization/design work the buyer does, every car each customer makes could be 'unique' enough to count separately and come under the limit.
Printed plastic isn't strong enough, but I wonder if this might find business applications? Vehicles with customized shells to accommodate specialized equipment? I'm thinking of everything from a slot for a generator on vans/trucks used on construction sites to a custom shell designed for a pizza oven to be inserted into a delivery vehicle for the ultimate in freshness.
Consider that Local Motors themselves said the cars are not street legal.
'Street Legal' can mean many different things. In many cases this would effectively be a 'hobby car' - IE built by the owner, one-off, etc... In many states making one street legal is around a 10 item checklist - does it have brakes? Does it have functional brake lights? Can it turn? Functional turn signals? Windscreen, headlights?
Safety of the occupants of said vehicle is not really addressed, just that they aren't a rampant danger to the other people on the road.
Emissions can be tougher.
It ends up on the definition of 'manufactured', they may be utilizing a loophole which even auto makers exploit for things like their concept cars - one off cars are crafted, not manufactured. Ergo exempt from everything, but they have to actually be 'crafted', IE hand built in a one-off fashion.
With the 3D printer system they could be leasing the equipment and assistance to the buyer, who actually triggers the machine. Since his modifications make the vehicle one-off, built by him(technically), it's not 'manufactured' under the definitions.
Much like how you can buy a complete kit car that's also exempt. You just have to put it together.
Instead what happens is you create drug resistant virus that are 50-60 more likely to infect, so cutting it down by 30-40 percent is still higher than it was before you started. Net Loss.
...So much wrong with your statement.
1. Vaccines are technically not a drug.
2. The vaccine is, ideally, not present by the time you're exposed to a disease.
3. Vaccines are really 'training' for your immune system. It's like having soldiers shoot at silhouettes as part of their training, doing reaction drills, showing them example IEDs, etc... That way they'll be more effective in the field.
4. Viruses mutate quite naturally. By giving them fewer hosts you can actually slow the mutation rate.
5. Infection rate doesn't change much.
If all you have is the 'sniffles for a few days' I like to say you didn't have the flu, you had a cold.
Considering recent studies show that cancer is more likely to be caused by genetics than smoking ...
Do you have a link to one of these studies? Does it take into account reduced smoking rates? Is it looking at the chances of an individual getting cancer, or how many get cancer from X source in the USA?
Another thought I had was this: The types of cancer are different. Survive long enough you'll get cancer. Most types at that late of a stage are unlikely to kill you before you die of something else. You're far more likely to get lung cancer from smoking. Odd fact: ALL of my grandparents have had cancer. The only death was my grandmother, the smoker. Anecdotal, but I've heard that lung cancer tends to be particularly lethal.
As a rule of thumb, with a flu shot you are immune to 80% of the current flu viruses going around. This number may change if a previously unimportant strain mutates to be more virulent.
Also, getting the flu shot every year helps as well. Because then you're generally immune to not only this year's strains, but those of the 2-3 previous years as well, which may still be lingering.
They should not even KNOW if I take vaccinations or not.
As a very libertarian leaning individual, I 'somewhat' disagree with this because disease is freaking scary and vaccination is a simple method to ensure that you're not a carrier that can potentially infect others(an offense against them).
Perhaps a doctor's note saying that you've been verified to have a low chance of being a carrier against XYZ diseases? IE you're either naturally immune or vaccinated.
And those are mainly directed towards the safety of the individual, not of the company.
Sleeping time for drivers isn't about safety for the driver so much as everybody else on the road. Vaccination doubles for both the safety of the individual AND the public. A vaccinated individual is less likely to get sick(self-harm), get other employees sick(lots of lost work hours), or customers/public sick.
Note: The exact ratios of protection depends on the job. A park ranger in a remote area isn't as much of a concern as somebody who works in a restaurant.
I think that Lucas's plots aren't bad. I think the problem became one of what many extremely successful writers and directors suffer from - lack of effective editorial control.
Robert Jordan's books declined when he switched to having his wife be his primary editor - she just wasn't mean enough, if that makes sense. During the prequels Lucas ended up with a bunch of yes-men that agreed with every inane idea he had. Without that he'd have a better product.
vaccaination lowers the probability of infection, but not to 0 as you might encounter a new strain of whatever. In return, being in a largely vaccacinated group, reduces the infection risk of unvaccacinated subjects, too.
Doesn't take a new strain. Vaccines aren't 100% effective at 'training' people's immune systems. The chicken pox vaccine and one of my aunts, for example. Completely ineffective. Of course, for her getting chickenpox is about as effective as a flue shot(IE it'll be about a year before she catches it again). Consider it a narrow case of immunodeficiency.
Immunization also tends to decrease with time, especially if you've eliminated the vast majority of the natural virus loads. IE if I went back in time(or to some hellhole) and was routinely exposed to hepatitis, small pox, anthrax, measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, and all the other stuff I've been vaccinated against over the years, my immunity wouldn't decline until my immune system as a whole did due to age or whatever. But located in the USA, I'm not 'likely' to be exposed, thus the revaccination schedule varies between 3-30 years. Note: 'Annual' Flu shots are more because there's so many strains of the stuff that even though a flue vaccine will generally provide multiple years of protection against the strains it contains, there's so many strains that you'll rarely hit all of them. Each year the flue shot gives you vaccination against 2-4 strains of it.
Back on declining immunization - it varies with the individual and the disease/vaccination in question. It's an optimization problem. How often do we need to revaccinate in order to keep immune percentages high enough to maintain herd immunity? Do you schedule the booster when 10% of the population has lost immunity? 20%? 30%? 50% with the idea that 99% of those who's immunity has 'lapsed' would still get a mild case due to lingering antibodies?
I'd argue that so isn't food poisoning, and we have plenty of regulations to ensure that our food is as safe as possible.
Think of vaccination a bit like food safety regulations - thoroughly studied and scientifically proven.
Disney's just as likely to get sued by employees who get infectious diseases because they didn't take well know, very safe, measures to help prevent their spread.
Not sure if you just mis-typed, but I'd rate the chances of being sued by customers as far higher. All it would take is somebody remembering that the employee 'didn't look well'.
Heck, see if any employees reported in sick shortly before them, and accuse them of being unknowing carriers, but it's the company's fault because they could have required vaccination...
I mostly agree with you. There are a few areas where I think drug testing should be.
But given the precedent that drug testing is allowed (for the safety of others!), so shouldn't mandatory vaccination where appropriate.
Like with the drug testing though, if they make it mandatory they have to pay for it.
So I can say that "it just broke" is certainly a possibility from 1st hand experience.
Thanks, didn't think of this one either, which is why I said my list wasn't all-inclusive. Though I suppose you could shove it into 'natural forces'. Perhaps the line had been 'tweaked' some time before, stressing the wire at that particular point, so it was never repaired and experienced relatively rapid degradation, which could still mean 'years', of course, before failing.
I've seen wires with completely underground entrances, but yeah, they're fairly rare.
The notion that a human antibody can intercept (and neutralize) a foreign substance that quickly is highly questionable. (If not silly).
Matter of fact, that's one of the 'problems' with developing the vaccine - ensuring the response is fast enough.
Still, think of nicotine like a bunch of runners on a football field. Unopposed most should be crossing the 100 yard field in just over 10 seconds. If that's not fast enough, we can put them at the 50.
Think of a vaccinated person as the football field is no longer empty, but has the defensive line on it. How many are going to be crossing the finish line?
Plus, the body will tend to take the antibodies(tacklers) all being 'busy' tackling as a sign it needs more tacklers, so next thing you know somebody who has been vaccinated but tries to keep smoking will have TWO defensive lines on it.
The fact that it moves fast doesn't mean that the antibodies, located in the bloodstream and brain themselves, wouldn't be busily reducing the amount of active chemical, and you need a certain amount to get the buzz.
Here in Canada the Tobacco, Liquor, and Gaming (Gambling) pays for our Free, Universal Health Care. Please don't do this to Canada.
The economics become complicated, doesn't it? The taxes from the industry pay for so much, even in the USA, to the point that I've heard of state budget crises as anti-smoking campaigns made serious headway. It became a vicious circle - they raised taxes to 'discourage smoking', enjoyed and became dependent upon the money coming in, then as total cigarettes sold dropped, they increased the taxes more to maintain revenue, which dropped cigarettes sold even more...
In addition I remember reading that many tobacco smokers actually cost the government less. Because while dying from lung cancer isn't cheap, neither is most other deaths. About the cheapest is dropping from a heart attack or massive stroke, but smoking even increases that! They tend to happen at the end of a person's career, so you avoid having to pay out decades of pension benefits and healthcare expenses. It 'saves' a lot of money if the median case is you retire and drop dead a year later.
On the other hand, highly educated intellectual types tend to work even later in life, so if you're past a Bachelor's degree it might make sense for them to encourage you to not smoke...
Is this applicable to other drugs as well?
Well, there's Naltrexone, which prevents you from getting 'high' from alcohol or opioids. But you have to go in for a monthly shot for that.
War has ALWAYS gone on. Never have we had wars with SO FEW casualties. Certainly never have we had wars with SUCH a small percentage of the population as casualties. Historically, wars have been known to obliterate 50% of the population of a country quite easily. Same for plagues, etc.
Indeed. Well stated. As scary as ISIS is, during the 80's you could practically call it 'Africa'. 'Most' of the continent was that way, today they're much better off, and improving rapidly. More than enough to over-balance the increased violence in the middle east.
There was a point in history where violence was the 2nd leading cause of death behind disease.
I don't think it takes a whole lot of brain cells to google a person and figure out what their address is, especially if they have not made any attempt to keep this information secret.
Point. I've actually made the effort, but I'm sure it's not 100%.
Vandalism is an interesting option, but it still seems 'odd' for a target of a right-wing idiot. I'd expect egging the car, tossing a brick through the window, and such would be easier than locating and severing a buried service line.
Transcanada does not exactly have a stellar record. Their Keystone phase 1 pipeline sprung 14 leaks in its first two years of operation. Across their network, they average better than 70 spills per year [thestar.com].
You can't just look at how 'bad' they are. You have to consider the alternatives. Per barrel-mile, even their lousy pipes results in less spilled oil than trucking, rail, or even ships.
The problem is that you have an idiot who's still smart enough to find the blogger's physical address.
My non-inclusive list of possibilities:
1. Somebody cut his line in response to that specific article
2. Somebody cut his line in response to a different article
3. Somebody cut his line for a completely different reason, deliberate or not. Family strife, for example. An idiot wanting to steal cable. Botched maintenance(and the perp drove off without telling anybody). Timing was coincidence.
4. The line was severed by 'natural forces', maybe even animal, and the tech saying it was done with power tools was mistaken.
5. He cut the line himself to generate more news.
People who do things like cut lines as a 'warning' tend to do something to ensure that it's seen as a warning. Like leave a note.
Unless you're blind, or happen to be looking the other way when the drunk in a prius bears down on you. Which is why some sort of fake engine noise will eventually be mandated (if it hasn't been already).
Studies have shown that cars, even at low velocity, make enough noise just from the road(crunching over gravel and such) that fake engine noise isn't really necessary.
Besides, it's going to get harder to force the Prius and similar cars to even make the impact with all the new collision avoidance stuff.
The phrasing is wierd, but I figure the .3% that are actually 'google posts' is an accurate number, and youtube crossposts were mentioned because they're the vast majority.
Of course, I was all irked when I wanted to comment on a youtube video and youtube wanted to act like I have a 'channel' with my own videos on it. No, I don't want or need a 'channel'. I'm not posting comment that's worth anything on it's own.