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.

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'.

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.

'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.

...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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.