You know, your reply is a bit like someone from Somalia complaining about the sorry state of their country, and then someone from Norway popping up and saying "why can't you just be like us?" Yes, we all know the Nordic countries are the nicest in the world. Not every place else can be like that.
AFAIK it's not like an Uber driver can't also work for a competitor (that's an interesting question actually)
They do. I've only taken a handful of Lyft & Uber rides, but even in that smallish sample I had several who had two phones, one for each service, and were driving for them both. There's nothing preventing a driver from working for multiple services at a time, they just can't drive paying riders from different services at the same time.
You have no clue what you're talking about. Taxis have a monopoly (really a cartel) because they have to buy a "medallion" for $1M to allow them to offer taxi service. There's a limited number of these medallions, driving prices up, and restricting competition. You can't just paint a car yellow, put a taximeter in, and start driving people around for fares.
No, it's not. Have you ever even used Uber or Lyft? A lot of drivers drive for both services, simultaneously!! Once the legal hurdles have been cleared, anyone with a little VC funding could easily put together a competitor. It's not hard, it's just a stupid smartphone app that takes advantage of existing mapping services. Some smart college kids in CS could make a clone in a week, and you can run the backend on Amazon. There's no natural monopoly here at all; if Uber raises prices too much a competitor will easily undercut them. The only real barrier to entry in this market is the legality, and that's what Uber's involved in tackling. Once they've done that, it'll be wide open to anyone who wants to start a similar service.
As for nobody wanting to use a different app, they're already using Lyft. And it's a lot easier to get set up with an account on a ride-sharing service than it is to move all your auctions to a different online auction service.
WTF are you talking about? Have you not been reading the news about Lyft? They just got $500M from GM.
Secondly, what makes you think another competitor wouldn't pop up immediately if Uber jacked up its prices to ridiculous levels? The huge capital costs of buying a fleet of cars? Oh yeah, they don't have that, because it's just a smartphone app. Anyone with a little VC funding could easily put together the service Uber has. The thing that keeps competitors out is the network effect, or chicken-and-egg effect, like for Ebay: all the drivers are there, so the passengers use it, and the drivers use it because all the passengers are there, etc. Jack up the prices too much and that'll fall apart fast. We already have a lot of drivers doing both Uber and Lyft simultaneously; it's not like you're stuck with one or the other.
I'll give you an example: according to the Belgian above, people in Belgium mostly love Uber and hate the taxi cartel. However, the government has shut down Uber and continues to back the taxi cartel. That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
It's the only solution available. That's why people like it here so much. The existing taxi services are so ridiculously horrible that we'll take anything that's noticeably better, and Uber fits the bill very, very well. It's not perfect by any means, but we can't have perfection in an imperfect world, and in a nation as corrupt as the US (see: taxi companies and their legally-granted monopolies), we have to take what we can get.
What about women being able to walk around alone in public without worrying about mobs of men sexually assaulting, robbing, and raping them? Shouldn't that be a goal of a truly civilized society too?
Or should women in your society be expected to "dress modestly"?
-1 Stupid. Europe is subsidizing its own "pipedream". No one is forcing you to buy BMWs and Mercedes and Mieles.
I think there's a lot to criticize about European policy (like the idea of the Euro, with countries as different as Germany and Greece trying to share a monetary policy), but there's just as much to criticize about the USA, where they bail out "too big to fail" banks and give their executives huge bonuses for driving the economy into the ground.
It depends on the time period, and which group of people you're talking about.
When the Irish came over during the famine, they didn't come for "greater opportunity", they came because their local economy was a disaster and they were starving (thanks to the asshole British). They were then mistreated and abused in their new home, but at least there was work for them and they could eat.
When the Puritans came over, they came because they were a bunch of wacky religious nuts who were unliked by the local populace in Europe and they wanted a place to practice their silliness without being hassled about it. At that time, there was no "America" as a nation, it was unsettled.
When Tesla came over, America was a rising industrial power in the midst of the Gilded Age, so for someone really smart and technologically-inclined from Serbia (not exactly an industrial power at the time), it was certainly a "land of opportunity" relative to his current home. It wasn't like he was sailing off to some undeveloped continent full of tribal natives.
Exactly. People and companies involved in IP seem to keep making the same mistake over and over: believing that IP laws from their country are applicable everywhere.
Maybe, but I honestly doubt that it would go that far. I could see certain brands doing that, and getting away with it. Others will avoid it because their customers won't accept it, or they might try it and it'll end up in disaster because it'll be like phone makers trying to copy Apple and finding out the hard way that Apple buyers just buy Apple stuff and their own customers don't want an Apple clone.
What Jesus may or may not have advocated is completely irrelevant to the Christian religion. The religion is defined by its adherents, and their actions. Your ex's family is a good example of how typical Christians are these days (at least in America, things could be different elsewhere).
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are not the arbiter of who qualifies as "Christian". There are over a billion people claiming to be Christian in this world, and your definition is the epitome of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Christians are people who claim to be Christian, and who practice the religion, regardless of how different it may be from your personal ideal or your interpretation of its roots.
As for the evangelicals, who the hell cares what they think
Considering they're a huge portion of the American populace, and they vote, I'd say that all Americans should care what they think. We could very well get an evangelical President later this year. We just suffered through 8 years of an evangelical President from 2001-2008.
Get a Mazda. They're all running an infotainment system now made by Johnson Controls which runs on Linux. The root password is "jci". While Slashdotters are busy whining about cars being unhackable, Mazda enthusiasts are busy hacking their cars on the Mazda forums.
I'll admit, it's not the greatest system (but then, which car's infotainment really is?), as it's laggy at times, probably because a lot of it is implemented in JavaScript, but it's entirely hackable.
Given the possibility of greater longevity there might be actual grease fittings on the suspension, to make the ball joints and tie rod ends last longer.
I doubt it. They've had sealed units for decades now, and they generally last 100k+, easily long enough to last the warranty period. It doesn't cost that much to replace a ball joint or tie rod end. And things that need to be greased like that (when they have fittings) tend to actually need new grease more frequently, which won't exactly be popular.
There will be tires and brake pads and rotors.
Actually, real electric cars don't need brake service as much, because they use regenerative braking so much. You only actually use the brake pads when you need greater braking than the regen, which usually means emergency stops.
and possibly even transmission fluid to change if the manufacturer attempts to run the electric motor in an efficient RPM at every possible speed.
No. Look at Teslas; they have a single-speed gearbox, but no transmission. You don't need transmissions with well-designed EVs. Transmissions only add weight, complexity, and a lot of inefficiency. With gas engines, they're necessary because the powerband is so narrow and they're so inefficient already so being able to control their operation speed is critical to both performance and fuel economy, but electric motors aren't nearly as limited.
There probably won't be hydraulic-assist steering
You haven't been around cars in a long time, have you? Cars don't have hydraulic steering any more; that went out 10 years ago. They all have electric steering now.
or belt-driven HVAC
EVs and many hybrids have had electric HVAC for years. It's nothing new.
and without engine coolant
Teslas have engine (motor) coolant. The electric motor generates enough heat that it needs its own cooling system. It's not nearly as complex as a typical gas-engine cooling system of course, but it is there, and it's used to heat the batteries.
the cabin temperature control will probably use sealed electric heatpumps with reverser valves that operate like a residential heatpump for both cold and hot.
Already done.
You really should do some reading about Teslas. You sound like you just traveled through time from about 2003. Half the stuff you're talking about as future possibilities are already here.
So dealerships that fail to migrate to the model of doing this kind of service may fail.
They *will* fail. Your carwash/service-center idea sounds good, but there's not nearly as much profit in it as what a current dealership makes. Businesses cannot go from high profit to lower profit and survive; it's utterly impossible. They just fold. Your carwash idea means that lots of independently-owned (or owned by competing corporations) businesses will be able to service all cars, and that doesn't work with the dealership business model. (And business models cannot ever change either, it's utterly impossible. When a business model stops working, the business folds instead of changing the model.) I for one look forward to all these dealerships shutting down; they're been ripping people off for decades and deserve to die.
If people are dumb enough to willingly buy into this business model, I don't see what the problem is. Cars like that (with non-transferrable licenses) will likely have horrible resale value, so we'll probably see a more severe version of what we've already had: Japanese cars avoiding this silliness and holding their resale value extremely well, and American cars implementing these ideas and having awful resale values. (I'm not really sure which way Euro cars would go, probably more like the Americans but people will buy into it anyway because most Euro cars in this country are luxury models and luxury buyers tend to be pretty stupid about stuff like this because they have money to burn.) Just look at Jeeps for example: they really could pull off your "pay for a license or per-use for 4x4 capability". Jeep buyers will buy Jeeps no matter what: their prices are insane, considering how little you get for your money, and they have incredible resale values because their buyers are basically religious fanatics about them (like Apple cultists, only much worse; at least iDevices actually have a lot of features and attractive design unlike Jeeps). Jeep could easily implement the stuff you're talking about, and dumbass 20-something men will happily line up to spend every last dime they own on them.
your designers in the US are building in China, but they're designing 1000s of kilometres away from their factories, designers in Shenzhen are a subway ride away from them, they can pop over and tweak a process to save money and time to market
And this is exactly why we're toast as far as these technologies are concerned.
It's worth pointing out that the U.S. became the industrial powerhouse it is by ignoring European patent and copyright law during the late 1800s/early 1900s, and illegally building tools and products based on European designs.
This is incorrect. My understanding is that US IP laws did not protect European works, so US companies were doing nothing illegal according to US law at the time.
Honestly, there is a valid argument about cities subsidizing stadiums to bring in other businesses and get economic benefits that way. I don't agree with them, because I think if you look at the actual numbers for these projects in recent years it hasn't turned out well for the taxpayer, but the argument has some merit.
However, the big problem is the idea that local governments should be funding sports crap, but then neglecting or privatizing other, far more important infrastructure. If a city has all the other infrastructure well-maintained and well-run and then wants to build a stadium or arena and the taxpayers want it, then ok, but first thing's first. Instead, what we seem to see is cities pouring billions into stadiums that no one really wants, with a "build it and they will come" mentality, while other infrastructure like roads and bridges is decaying. And of course these days some infrastructure we could all really use is municipal internet service like they have in Chattanooga, but very few places have it.
BTW - If you think the Christian religion is all about money, private jets and big pretty buildings, you are woefully ignorant of the truth. In my view, these things are about as far from the Christian ethic and belief as you can get.
Wrong: No True Scotsman fallacy. Countless churches are like this, especially the ever-more-popular megachurches, and millions of Christians attend these churches and give money to these preachers.
Hey, if you want to hand out money to people for doing bullshit work, go right ahead. I want no part of it, and especially not from people who have a terrible reputation for ripping people off. Auto dealerships have some of the worst customer service reputations in modern society. Why the hell do you want to support this and force people to support these con artists?
It sounds like you're basically supporting communism really. They used to do this stuff in eastern-bloc countries: have a factory building wooden crates, and then take all the wooden crates to the other side of the factory to be disassembled, and then take all the wood back to the other side to be assembled into crates...
If you want to set up make-work projects, you could at least do something like Roosevelt's WPA and do some genuinely useful public works projects with them instead of having them harm society through evil sales tactics and unnecessary repair work.
Except that Catholics aren't real Christians, according to all the evangelicals in America.
They also prosecuted Galileo for supporting heliocentrism instead of geocentrism. How is that "always supporting science"? From Wikipedia: "In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to be 'foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture.'" Doesn't sound very scientific to me. He ended up spending the rest of his life under house arrest and his scientific opinions being silenced.
Maybe **you** should read up on history before defending a religion.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, your reply is a bit like someone from Somalia complaining about the sorry state of their country, and then someone from Norway popping up and saying "why can't you just be like us?" Yes, we all know the Nordic countries are the nicest in the world. Not every place else can be like that.
AFAIK it's not like an Uber driver can't also work for a competitor (that's an interesting question actually)
They do. I've only taken a handful of Lyft & Uber rides, but even in that smallish sample I had several who had two phones, one for each service, and were driving for them both. There's nothing preventing a driver from working for multiple services at a time, they just can't drive paying riders from different services at the same time.
You have no clue what you're talking about. Taxis have a monopoly (really a cartel) because they have to buy a "medallion" for $1M to allow them to offer taxi service. There's a limited number of these medallions, driving prices up, and restricting competition. You can't just paint a car yellow, put a taximeter in, and start driving people around for fares.
No, it's not. Have you ever even used Uber or Lyft? A lot of drivers drive for both services, simultaneously!! Once the legal hurdles have been cleared, anyone with a little VC funding could easily put together a competitor. It's not hard, it's just a stupid smartphone app that takes advantage of existing mapping services. Some smart college kids in CS could make a clone in a week, and you can run the backend on Amazon. There's no natural monopoly here at all; if Uber raises prices too much a competitor will easily undercut them. The only real barrier to entry in this market is the legality, and that's what Uber's involved in tackling. Once they've done that, it'll be wide open to anyone who wants to start a similar service.
As for nobody wanting to use a different app, they're already using Lyft. And it's a lot easier to get set up with an account on a ride-sharing service than it is to move all your auctions to a different online auction service.
WTF are you talking about? Have you not been reading the news about Lyft? They just got $500M from GM.
Secondly, what makes you think another competitor wouldn't pop up immediately if Uber jacked up its prices to ridiculous levels? The huge capital costs of buying a fleet of cars? Oh yeah, they don't have that, because it's just a smartphone app. Anyone with a little VC funding could easily put together the service Uber has. The thing that keeps competitors out is the network effect, or chicken-and-egg effect, like for Ebay: all the drivers are there, so the passengers use it, and the drivers use it because all the passengers are there, etc. Jack up the prices too much and that'll fall apart fast. We already have a lot of drivers doing both Uber and Lyft simultaneously; it's not like you're stuck with one or the other.
I'll give you an example: according to the Belgian above, people in Belgium mostly love Uber and hate the taxi cartel. However, the government has shut down Uber and continues to back the taxi cartel. That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
It's the only solution available. That's why people like it here so much. The existing taxi services are so ridiculously horrible that we'll take anything that's noticeably better, and Uber fits the bill very, very well. It's not perfect by any means, but we can't have perfection in an imperfect world, and in a nation as corrupt as the US (see: taxi companies and their legally-granted monopolies), we have to take what we can get.
Do you have a better solution to propose?
What about women being able to walk around alone in public without worrying about mobs of men sexually assaulting, robbing, and raping them? Shouldn't that be a goal of a truly civilized society too?
Or should women in your society be expected to "dress modestly"?
-1 Stupid. Europe is subsidizing its own "pipedream". No one is forcing you to buy BMWs and Mercedes and Mieles.
I think there's a lot to criticize about European policy (like the idea of the Euro, with countries as different as Germany and Greece trying to share a monetary policy), but there's just as much to criticize about the USA, where they bail out "too big to fail" banks and give their executives huge bonuses for driving the economy into the ground.
It depends on the time period, and which group of people you're talking about.
When the Irish came over during the famine, they didn't come for "greater opportunity", they came because their local economy was a disaster and they were starving (thanks to the asshole British). They were then mistreated and abused in their new home, but at least there was work for them and they could eat.
When the Puritans came over, they came because they were a bunch of wacky religious nuts who were unliked by the local populace in Europe and they wanted a place to practice their silliness without being hassled about it. At that time, there was no "America" as a nation, it was unsettled.
When Tesla came over, America was a rising industrial power in the midst of the Gilded Age, so for someone really smart and technologically-inclined from Serbia (not exactly an industrial power at the time), it was certainly a "land of opportunity" relative to his current home. It wasn't like he was sailing off to some undeveloped continent full of tribal natives.
Exactly. People and companies involved in IP seem to keep making the same mistake over and over: believing that IP laws from their country are applicable everywhere.
It's like they say about porn: if you like stronger stuff than me you're a pervert, and if you like weaker stuff you're a prude.
That's like drivers: if you're driving faster than me, you're a maniac, but if you're driving slower than me, you're a moron.
Maybe, but I honestly doubt that it would go that far. I could see certain brands doing that, and getting away with it. Others will avoid it because their customers won't accept it, or they might try it and it'll end up in disaster because it'll be like phone makers trying to copy Apple and finding out the hard way that Apple buyers just buy Apple stuff and their own customers don't want an Apple clone.
What Jesus may or may not have advocated is completely irrelevant to the Christian religion. The religion is defined by its adherents, and their actions. Your ex's family is a good example of how typical Christians are these days (at least in America, things could be different elsewhere).
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are not the arbiter of who qualifies as "Christian". There are over a billion people claiming to be Christian in this world, and your definition is the epitome of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Christians are people who claim to be Christian, and who practice the religion, regardless of how different it may be from your personal ideal or your interpretation of its roots.
Go read about the No True Scotsman fallacy.
As for the evangelicals, who the hell cares what they think
Considering they're a huge portion of the American populace, and they vote, I'd say that all Americans should care what they think. We could very well get an evangelical President later this year. We just suffered through 8 years of an evangelical President from 2001-2008.
Get a Mazda. They're all running an infotainment system now made by Johnson Controls which runs on Linux. The root password is "jci". While Slashdotters are busy whining about cars being unhackable, Mazda enthusiasts are busy hacking their cars on the Mazda forums.
I'll admit, it's not the greatest system (but then, which car's infotainment really is?), as it's laggy at times, probably because a lot of it is implemented in JavaScript, but it's entirely hackable.
Given the possibility of greater longevity there might be actual grease fittings on the suspension, to make the ball joints and tie rod ends last longer.
I doubt it. They've had sealed units for decades now, and they generally last 100k+, easily long enough to last the warranty period. It doesn't cost that much to replace a ball joint or tie rod end. And things that need to be greased like that (when they have fittings) tend to actually need new grease more frequently, which won't exactly be popular.
There will be tires and brake pads and rotors.
Actually, real electric cars don't need brake service as much, because they use regenerative braking so much. You only actually use the brake pads when you need greater braking than the regen, which usually means emergency stops.
and possibly even transmission fluid to change if the manufacturer attempts to run the electric motor in an efficient RPM at every possible speed.
No. Look at Teslas; they have a single-speed gearbox, but no transmission. You don't need transmissions with well-designed EVs. Transmissions only add weight, complexity, and a lot of inefficiency. With gas engines, they're necessary because the powerband is so narrow and they're so inefficient already so being able to control their operation speed is critical to both performance and fuel economy, but electric motors aren't nearly as limited.
There probably won't be hydraulic-assist steering
You haven't been around cars in a long time, have you? Cars don't have hydraulic steering any more; that went out 10 years ago. They all have electric steering now.
or belt-driven HVAC
EVs and many hybrids have had electric HVAC for years. It's nothing new.
and without engine coolant
Teslas have engine (motor) coolant. The electric motor generates enough heat that it needs its own cooling system. It's not nearly as complex as a typical gas-engine cooling system of course, but it is there, and it's used to heat the batteries.
the cabin temperature control will probably use sealed electric heatpumps with reverser valves that operate like a residential heatpump for both cold and hot.
Already done.
You really should do some reading about Teslas. You sound like you just traveled through time from about 2003. Half the stuff you're talking about as future possibilities are already here.
So dealerships that fail to migrate to the model of doing this kind of service may fail.
They *will* fail. Your carwash/service-center idea sounds good, but there's not nearly as much profit in it as what a current dealership makes. Businesses cannot go from high profit to lower profit and survive; it's utterly impossible. They just fold. Your carwash idea means that lots of independently-owned (or owned by competing corporations) businesses will be able to service all cars, and that doesn't work with the dealership business model. (And business models cannot ever change either, it's utterly impossible. When a business model stops working, the business folds instead of changing the model.) I for one look forward to all these dealerships shutting down; they're been ripping people off for decades and deserve to die.
If people are dumb enough to willingly buy into this business model, I don't see what the problem is. Cars like that (with non-transferrable licenses) will likely have horrible resale value, so we'll probably see a more severe version of what we've already had: Japanese cars avoiding this silliness and holding their resale value extremely well, and American cars implementing these ideas and having awful resale values. (I'm not really sure which way Euro cars would go, probably more like the Americans but people will buy into it anyway because most Euro cars in this country are luxury models and luxury buyers tend to be pretty stupid about stuff like this because they have money to burn.) Just look at Jeeps for example: they really could pull off your "pay for a license or per-use for 4x4 capability". Jeep buyers will buy Jeeps no matter what: their prices are insane, considering how little you get for your money, and they have incredible resale values because their buyers are basically religious fanatics about them (like Apple cultists, only much worse; at least iDevices actually have a lot of features and attractive design unlike Jeeps). Jeep could easily implement the stuff you're talking about, and dumbass 20-something men will happily line up to spend every last dime they own on them.
your designers in the US are building in China, but they're designing 1000s of kilometres away from their factories, designers in Shenzhen are a subway ride away from them, they can pop over and tweak a process to save money and time to market
And this is exactly why we're toast as far as these technologies are concerned.
It's worth pointing out that the U.S. became the industrial powerhouse it is by ignoring European patent and copyright law during the late 1800s/early 1900s, and illegally building tools and products based on European designs.
This is incorrect. My understanding is that US IP laws did not protect European works, so US companies were doing nothing illegal according to US law at the time.
Honestly, there is a valid argument about cities subsidizing stadiums to bring in other businesses and get economic benefits that way. I don't agree with them, because I think if you look at the actual numbers for these projects in recent years it hasn't turned out well for the taxpayer, but the argument has some merit.
However, the big problem is the idea that local governments should be funding sports crap, but then neglecting or privatizing other, far more important infrastructure. If a city has all the other infrastructure well-maintained and well-run and then wants to build a stadium or arena and the taxpayers want it, then ok, but first thing's first. Instead, what we seem to see is cities pouring billions into stadiums that no one really wants, with a "build it and they will come" mentality, while other infrastructure like roads and bridges is decaying. And of course these days some infrastructure we could all really use is municipal internet service like they have in Chattanooga, but very few places have it.
BTW - If you think the Christian religion is all about money, private jets and big pretty buildings, you are woefully ignorant of the truth. In my view, these things are about as far from the Christian ethic and belief as you can get.
Wrong: No True Scotsman fallacy. Countless churches are like this, especially the ever-more-popular megachurches, and millions of Christians attend these churches and give money to these preachers.
Hey, if you want to hand out money to people for doing bullshit work, go right ahead. I want no part of it, and especially not from people who have a terrible reputation for ripping people off. Auto dealerships have some of the worst customer service reputations in modern society. Why the hell do you want to support this and force people to support these con artists?
It sounds like you're basically supporting communism really. They used to do this stuff in eastern-bloc countries: have a factory building wooden crates, and then take all the wooden crates to the other side of the factory to be disassembled, and then take all the wood back to the other side to be assembled into crates...
If you want to set up make-work projects, you could at least do something like Roosevelt's WPA and do some genuinely useful public works projects with them instead of having them harm society through evil sales tactics and unnecessary repair work.
Except that Catholics aren't real Christians, according to all the evangelicals in America.
They also prosecuted Galileo for supporting heliocentrism instead of geocentrism. How is that "always supporting science"? From Wikipedia: "In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to be 'foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture.'" Doesn't sound very scientific to me. He ended up spending the rest of his life under house arrest and his scientific opinions being silenced.
Maybe **you** should read up on history before defending a religion.