Slashdot Mirror

It's not libel if it's true

Except that it is NOT true. You pointing out that Uber doesn't insure drivers while they are NOT working for Uber, doesn't negate the fact that they do insure them when they ARE working for Uber.

You know, you should probably lay off the libel there, friend.

It's not libel if it's true:

Currently, commercial coverage that Uber buys for its UberX freelance drivers, who use their own cars and must maintain their own personal auto insurance, kicks in at the point when a ride request is accepted through the company's smart phone app.

Pending legislation advanced last week by the Assembly and supported by the insurance industry in New Jersey would require that Uber's commercial coverage take effect as soon as the drivers log into the mobile app and make themselves available to passengers seeking rides.

If an accident occurs during the gap between when the driver logs on to the app and when he or she accepts a request for a ride, the driver's personal auto insurance company sometimes denies those claims, Mohrer acknowledged. But he said the company has additional insurance to cover those situations, "All rides on the Uber platform have insurance when commercial activity is actually happening," Mohrer said.

The legal situation with Uber being a commercial vehicle, and their insurance situation is not ever as clear as Uber claims it to be.

The problem with Uber is the delusional owners who like to assert that they are not covered under laws which are designed to cover exactly what they do.

So, sorry, as long as Uber says "we're not a cab company, we're a tech company" they don't also get to pretend they're a legally licensed transportation company.

Uber is just a company who has an app, and takes a cut of people running mostly as bootleg cabs.

http://www.nbc40.net/story/25555423/new-jersey-sued-accused-of-ignoring-02-gun-law
http://www.northjersey.com/news/new-jersey-sued-accused-of-ignoring-2002-gun-law-1.1019058

The FAA seems to have a database of issue with ~ 119,000 of the 357,000 aircraft in the U.S. registry ie. "questionable registration"
Then people wonder about small jets too .

Don't know about sperm donors, but a bill is working it's way through the New Jersey legislature that will allow people who were adopted as children to unseal their records ... a reversal of the law at the time of the adoption.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/96449329_Flawed_adoptee_bill.html

Fair enough. I used to live in a town with tons of small one off restaurants. Now, I would generally consider these places as not needing to post nutritional information because most places of this kind use fresh ingredients that are properly seasoned to begin with because good food is their business. Would it be helpful? Absolutely.

Unlike the chains, most of these types of places are also not trying to pass crap (covered in salt to hide the flavor) as edible food. This is why when I think of a nutrition signs I immediately think of chains and not the small local bistro up the street serving the perfectly seared grouper and side of asparagus. Now I'm getting hungry lol...

Also, I did make a mistake and say ingredients instead of nutritional information. That could have thrown you off. It does look like the government may push a national law through with the healthcare bill. So while it's not a US wide thing now, it's spreading.

New York City health officials looking for a new way to fight obesity began requiring chain restaurants to post calorie counts for the likes of burgers, pizza and doughnuts in 2008. Similar laws have since been approved in more than a dozen places, including Philadelphia and California. Congress is considering a national measure as part of health care reform.

Looks like a lot of places have laws in place for chain restaurants.

New York City health officials looking for a new way to fight obesity began requiring chain restaurants to post calorie counts for the likes of burgers, pizza and doughnuts in 2008. Similar laws have since been approved in more than a dozen places, including Philadelphia and California. Congress is considering a national measure as part of health care reform.

I'm not 100% sure these include sodium content, but usually the basic calorie count includes, calories, fat, trans fat, carbs, and sodium.

you mistake correlatiom for causation. The high cost of living in CA, NY, DC, NJ, etc do not necessarily cause high salaries, though they are correlated to high salaries.

It's tangential to my argument. When I'm speaking casually I don't necessarily go through a big effort to make the distinction, but I don't mistake the two.

But, even if we accept your premise that there is no problem here because the differences are due to the progressive tax system... would it not then follow that federal "aid" to these areas should also be higher, since the cost of providing services in those areas is higher?

The whole point of a progressive tax system is to put a disproportionately higher burden on the wealthy, so it doesn't necessarily follow.

Let's look at some numbers. Going by http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html we see that Connecticut was one of the "best" states in 2005, paying $11522 and receiving $8795 per person. Arkansas was one of the "worst" states, paying $5030 and receiving $7364 per person.

So you are right, there does seem to be some effort to make up for cost of living differences, since Connecticut receives more aid per person than Arkansas. Let's see if it's enough.

According to this report, the average salary in Connecticut is $47k versus Arkansas with $26k.

Tax revenue increase is 138% (11522 vs. 5030), but the average salary increase is only 80% (only, heh). The lovely progressive tax system at work.

Anyway, if we use a cost-of-living calculator, we see that the cost of living difference is even less. This tool suggests that $26k/year in Arkansas is about $36k/year in Connecticut, for an average cost of living increase of only 38%. So tax revenue increase is definitely far outstripping COLA.

Connecticut's aid is only 19% more per person than Arkansas, so that doesn't quite make up for cost of living. But it's clear (to me anyway) that the majority of Connecticut's "federal tax deficit" is legitimate since they get *almost* the same amount of aid (cost-adjusted) even though they have 80% higher salaries (58% higher cost-adjusted) on *average*.

Now in reality, the top 10% of Connecticut tax payers probably pay more than the rest of the state combined. In any case, according to this Java tool, a single person who earns $47k (Connecticut's average, remember) pays $6700 in federal income tax (not $11k, Connecticut's average). So the average Connecticut person is still getting a net positive from federal tax spending. (Paying $6700 in tax and getting $8750 back.) This supports my original argument that comparisons between states are pretty much meaningless. The average person in each state benefits. The poor benefit even more.

Also, if the numbers were easily available, I would dig into how that aid is broken down between welfare and wasteful projects versus things that actually improve the state (business development, infrastructure, etc). I would wager that Connecticut receives a higher proportion of "good" aid and that Arkansas receives more welfare aid that, while helping some people, isn't going to do much for Arkansas in the long run.

Check the federal funds report

That report covers (according to page 7):

• Retirement and disability ($739 billion)
• Other direct payments ($569 billion)
• Grants ($494 billion)
• Procurement contracts ($409 billion)
• Salaries and wages ($243 billion)
• Direct loans ($24 billion)
• Guaranteed or insured loans ($160 billion)
• Insurance ($1.1 trillion)

Only the "grants" section (%13 of the total) can be considered "welfare". See page 13 for explanation of what "grants" means in the context, and table 4 (on page 30) for the grants-distribution. And now come the surprises. For example, one of the most Illiberal state of the Union — Vermont — received $2.19 per person, New York — $2.34. Although Alaska got twice as much at $4.59, another "red" state such as Missouri — only $1.47 per person.

What was that about lies, damn lies, and then statistics?..

Check the federal funds report (latest data is 2006, published early July). Note that Louisiana and Mississippi figures are abnormal compared to historical data due to Katrina, and this only covers expenditures, not federal taxes paid from the state in question.

If you want to see balance of payment figures, check this link out. New Jersey (my home state), for example, only receives $0.61 for every dollar remitted to the federal government.

Here's a nice slideshow that shows 25 years of historical BOP rankings for each state (flash required).

The correlation between "red state" and "high ranking in funds received vs. remitted" is extremely strong... I'd seen a map of red/blue states where the data was plugged in that made it ridiculously apparent, but couldn't find the link quickly & can't be bothered to do the same myself right now. I'm sure it's around somewhere if you care to spend some time googling.

Funny, though, how it's primarily due to the higher incomes in the blue states and the progressive tax system... and the Republicans are the ones against a progressive tax system that benefits their states. Just goes to confirm that the rural poor in the US vote against their own economic interests.

Check the federal funds report (latest data is 2006, published early July). Note that Louisiana and Mississippi figures are abnormal compared to historical data due to Katrina, and this only covers expenditures, not federal taxes paid from the state in question.

If you want to see balance of payment figures, check this link out. New Jersey (my home state), for example, only receives $0.61 for every dollar remitted to the federal government.

Here's a nice slideshow that shows 25 years of historical BOP rankings for each state (flash required).

The correlation between "red state" and "high ranking in funds received vs. remitted" is extremely strong... I'd seen a map of red/blue states where the data was plugged in that made it ridiculously apparent, but couldn't find the link quickly & can't be bothered to do the same myself right now. I'm sure it's around somewhere if you care to spend some time googling.

Funny, though, how it's primarily due to the higher incomes in the blue states and the progressive tax system... and the Republicans are the ones against a progressive tax system that benefits their states. Just goes to confirm that the rural poor in the US vote against their own economic interests.

Laptops are an essential part of the learning experience for students. The essentials they have learned in my district include sending e-mail of their classmates in various states of undress. The administration continues to think that laptops are the greatest things since toast. The students disagree. Never mind the high cost -- both direct outlays, additional staff, and training time.

Interestingly enough, I just read an article on NJ's increase in traffic fatalities. Here's the most interesting quote from that article:
Inattentive driving was blamed for 20 percent of the fatal accidents that occurred on interstate highways in 2004. Excessive speed was named in only one.
(from this story)

Also I think this device is kindof pointless, the parents that would want to monitor their child's speed, probably don't care about their privacy in the first place so they would probably rather choose something that would constantly monitory their speed. (and location)

And I mean come on, like kids aren't going to be able to figure out how to block the reception.

Hi Guys,

A Michelle Reutty of New Jersey is being persecuted for standing up for our Amendment IV right. When you have a moment, read the article by the New Jersey Media, and then please send an email, or better yet, make a phone call to any or all of the involved:

The Librarian:

Michele Reutty, Director Free Public Library of Hasbrouck Heights 320 Boulevard, Hasbrouck Heights NJ 07604 E-mail: reutty@bccls.org TEL: 201-288-0488 FAX: 201-288-6653

The Criticizers:

Mayor Ronald R. Jones Borough of Hasbrouck Heights 320 Boulevard Hasbrouck Heights, NJ 07604 USA Phone: (201)-288-4111

Police Chief Michael Colaneri Hasbrouck Heights (Bergen County) 248 Hamilton Avenue Hasbrouck Heights, NJ 07604-1811 Phone: (201) 288-1000 Fax: (201) 288-1691

Bergen County Prosecutor's Office 10 Main Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Mon-Fri (201) 646-2300 After Hours (201) 646-2700

I know Mrs. Reutty would appreciate any kind words, and I'm confident that [my state-izens] bothering to call concerning a New Jersey issue will dampen the criticizers' enthusiasm.

Thank you for your time,
- [my name]

Feel free to copy-paste-modify my email as you see fit, but get your friends involved, and DO IT RIGHT NOW.

Hello Michele,

I just read about your recent episode with law enforcement. I do not normally email strangers, but I wanted to thank you for requesting a subpoena before handing private data to law enforcement.

It saddens me to think that much of this country just reacts to fear and emotional pleas. Though I am an engineer at heart, I am very grateful to the librarians, history teachers, and government teachers in this country who do what they can to help us remember the past. Thank you for reminding folks through your actions that we have laws, regulations, and the Constitution for a reason.

The news report I read stated that your punishment may be as harsh as a 30-day unpaid suspension. I hope that you are instead praised by your community. I would prefer to see citizens like you serve in government rather than the mayor who called your actions "a blatant disregard for the Police Department."

I realize you have many emails to read as hundreds of thousands of people, if not a million, have heard of your actions by now. Hopefully you have a lot of encouraging words to read. I don't care what anyone says; you are not helping the terrorists. ;')

I first read about you on these two web sites.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/22/22 51209
http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3Z jczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2MDYmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTY5NTE 1NjImeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkz

Good luck,
Josh Smith

Northern NJ towns are already regretting that hasty cave-in, according to this article. The state law Segway lobbyists pushed through prohibits towns from banning any "electric personal assistive mobility devices,'' says that story--the law " was passed after Segway, maker of the "Human Transporter,'' lobbied New Jersey's Legislature and others throughout the country."

So what's the problem? As a result, New Jersey towns have been unable to deal with the latest fad among local teenagers, electric scooters, which they ride on the sidewalks.

Note that the scooters now terrorizing North Jersey pedestrians are not "assistive devices" that deserve protection by the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)--neither is the Segway. These are vehicles you have to stand up on to drive. But affluent parents who bought these toys for their teens are calling on the protection of the ADA to keep them on the sidewalks and out of traffic. We can expect to see the same with the Segway.

San Francisco plans to fight back, according to this Examiner article. Senior-citizen activists and walkers protested they don't want to share their space with a 95 lb machine traveling 12 mph. "The whole point of sidewalks is to separate vehicles from pedestrians," says Walk San Francisco director Michael Smith.

IMO, the Segway is a pyramid scheme waiting to tumble. Early investors put up the cash for a massive publicity and lobbying campaign. They now have until March to lure unsuspecting buyers to buy their Segways, and unsuspecting investors to buy their stock.

In March it's all over. Once Segways hit the sidewalks, the pyramid crumbles. Whoever has money in Segways in March will take the hits for liability claims that already have class-action lawyers licking their chops. State legislators will quickly rescind Segway laws, and Segway owners will be riding their white elephants in the street--if they feel like admitting they own this year's version of Edsel.

We are useing MySQL in the backend for our classifieds section as well as a yellow pages type directory section. The pages are created dynamically via php. If we had to use a solution like MS Sql or Oracle we would blow our entire budget on licensing costs.

After we were able to prove their reliabilty, scalabilty, buzz word of choice, then were we able to say that it was free (as in beer). Still, one needs to buy support for those moments when everything seems to go bonkers.