Slashdot Mirror

http://pandodaily.com/2013/11/12/vice-investigates-soylent-finds-rats-and-mold/

It's being sold as a supplement so they don't have to prepare it in a facility that meets FDA rules for food preparation.

This is a typical food fad fraud organization.

Apple doesn't serve targeted ads,

Really? What am I opting out of then?

and it doesn't have a financial interest in the content of my emails

No, just a paternalistic one. Who knows what phrases will send your emails silently into the void. I'll pass on an email service that doesn't deliver 100% of email received to the intended recipient (into a spam folder is acceptable).

What he's talking about isnt a routing problem, it's drivers taking a break. The yellow cabs will sit at JFK for a bit (for example) then grab a $50-100 fare. Not a bad wage, considering. Routing is more of an issue with Livery. Livery (per-arranged, dispatched car service), is not allowed to pick up a street hail. And are often not "in line" at the airports. Yellow cabs can be hailed on the street and Uber offers little value over raising one's arm in the air.

Really though, Uber's problem was that they didn't want to play by the rules. There is special insurance and licenses for both Livery and yellow cab drivers in NYC, and it works pretty damn well. This is mandated by the TLC. Uber didn't want to have to bother with all that. That's why they got the boot. They also wanted to turn yellow cabs into Livery which would pretty much fuck the system and cause all prices to skyrocket as a lot of yellow cabs would sit on their asses for an hour then grab that $100 fair from midtown, rather than putting someone in the seat as soon as it becomes vacant (and actually spending that hour working).

Also Uber's contempt for regulation and public safety laws and even their own employees has been well documented:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/nyregion/as-ubers-taxi-hailing-app-comes-to-new-york-its-legality-is-questioned.html?_r=1&
http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/17/whos-the-real-bully-uber-or-new-york/
http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/

Funny there are still Slashdotters (like you) making the same idiotic "screw those entrenched powers!" comments that are made fun of in one of the above links.

Incidentally I took 3 yellow cabs today, 2 subways, and a commuter rail. I have used them all countless times before (also Livery/car services). The NYC transportation systems work amazingly well. I have always paid a fair price and 98% of the time had nice drivers.

So what the fuck value does Uber bring to the table? Very little. For Livery and off-hours there is a use for them, and maybe for scheduling a ride, sure. But they need to play by the rules.

Finally, is the TLC a bunch of saints? Of course not -- they most certainly have some corrupt fat-cat bureaucratic interests, as do some of the Livery companies. But that's not *all* they are, they also have some good regulations.

People (especially on Slashdot) need to stop thinking in one-dimensional black and white. Government is neither good nor bad, but has elements of both. Uber wanted to cry "look at the entrenched bully!" while being just as big assholes themselves, with the added benefit of ignoring laws and charging a premium for it all.

I just hope they have improved over the last year as they are persistent assholes, that's for sure.

What he's talking about isnt a routing problem, it's drivers taking a break. The yellow cabs will sit at JFK for a bit (for example) then grab a $50-100 fare. Not a bad wage, considering. Routing is more of an issue with Livery. Livery (per-arranged, dispatched car service), is not allowed to pick up a street hail. And are often not "in line" at the airports. Yellow cabs can be hailed on the street and Uber offers little value over raising one's arm in the air.

Really though, Uber's problem was that they didn't want to play by the rules. There is special insurance and licenses for both Livery and yellow cab drivers in NYC, and it works pretty damn well. This is mandated by the TLC. Uber didn't want to have to bother with all that. That's why they got the boot. They also wanted to turn yellow cabs into Livery which would pretty much fuck the system and cause all prices to skyrocket as a lot of yellow cabs would sit on their asses for an hour then grab that $100 fair from midtown, rather than putting someone in the seat as soon as it becomes vacant (and actually spending that hour working).

Also Uber's contempt for regulation and public safety laws and even their own employees has been well documented:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/nyregion/as-ubers-taxi-hailing-app-comes-to-new-york-its-legality-is-questioned.html?_r=1&
http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/17/whos-the-real-bully-uber-or-new-york/
http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/

Funny there are still Slashdotters (like you) making the same idiotic "screw those entrenched powers!" comments that are made fun of in one of the above links.

Incidentally I took 3 yellow cabs today, 2 subways, and a commuter rail. I have used them all countless times before (also Livery/car services). The NYC transportation systems work amazingly well. I have always paid a fair price and 98% of the time had nice drivers.

So what the fuck value does Uber bring to the table? Very little. For Livery and off-hours there is a use for them, and maybe for scheduling a ride, sure. But they need to play by the rules.

Finally, is the TLC a bunch of saints? Of course not -- they most certainly have some corrupt fat-cat bureaucratic interests, as do some of the Livery companies. But that's not *all* they are, they also have some good regulations.

People (especially on Slashdot) need to stop thinking in one-dimensional black and white. Government is neither good nor bad, but has elements of both. Uber wanted to cry "look at the entrenched bully!" while being just as big assholes themselves, with the added benefit of ignoring laws and charging a premium for it all.

I just hope they have improved over the last year as they are persistent assholes, that's for sure.

That isn't Sam. Caption from http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/12/ff-john-mcafees-last-stand/all/ "McAfee’s girlfriend Amy Emshwiller, now 18."

http://pandodaily.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/sam-3.jpg?w=584&h=328 Is Samantha Vanegas from http://pandodaily.com/2013/02/23/we-go-on-a-double-date-with-john-mcafee-and-samantha-vanegas/

Why did you decide to camp out in Portland, Oregon for 18 months? What was it about Portland that brought you there?

They 100% do it on purpose:

Travis Shrugged: The creepy, dangerous ideology behind Silicon Valley’s Cult of Disruption
http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/

What can we do to incentivize hardware manufacturers to be less "evil"? I have an iPhone, and Apple has screwed me over; this is my story: http://www.anderson-net.com/~nathan/apple-broke-my-phone (also see http://pandodaily.com/2012/11/23/apples-stick-in-the-mud-routine-is-getting-old). I know, I know...you can say "I told you so" if you want to.

As a customer of theirs, I'm sure I'm well in the minority in terms of how I use my devices, and as long as most of their customers have no problem with how they do business and they continue to rake in money hand-over-fist, Apple losing me as a customer is a mere drop in the bucket for them. If the loss of my money and goodwill as a prior customer is not enough, and other people continue to desire and to buy their products, how can we communicate to companies like Apple that the "open" way is a better way, and do so in a language they can understand and respond to?

-- Nathan

If there’s any industry willing to quash innovation and progress to save its stodgy existence, it’s book publishing. Sales reps have become incredibly adept at the care and feeding of the university faculty that they depend upon to adopt their books. even private industrial leaders and economic pragmatists like Alan Greenspan have begun to criticize the decline of traditional liberal arts education and the rise of the corporate university as economically and socially disastrous.

Good luck on your quest.

post-humously make sure

From your grammar, I presume that English is probably not your first language - So please, take this in the collegial spirit it's intended - I'm not trying to grammar nazi you, just correcting the term because your post made me do a double-take and laugh.

The proper term for this would be "ex post facto" ("after the fact," or, more usefully, "enforced retroactively"). "Posthumous" refers specifically to "after death" - I certainly HOPE that the Ex-PATRIOT act isn't calling for Mr. Saverin to be killed. :)

In point of fact, ex post facto laws are specifically disallowed for the Federal government by Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed," and to the States by Section 10 of the same Article: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

Now, they can pass a law to change this loophole in the future, but they CANNOT say, "We passed it today, therefore you owe us money for your stock sales 5 years ago." So it's likely - though not a sure bet - that Mr. Saverin will get away with this move and pay very little in taxes: if he sells his shares off before this bill is signed into law, they would be unable to retroactively apply it to his sale. If they tried to collect from him in that fashion, he could probably fight it in court, and win. However, it may discourage other people from doing the same thing.

As far as I'm concerned, I think it's a tasteless and rather slimy move by Mr. Saverin, but, hey, it's legal - I don't fault him for not paying more than he's required to by law - very few people pay more than they're required to, even the rich liberals who would love to see taxes raised across the board. The solution is to "patch" the law so the exploit is prevented in the future, not to bitch at him for using it. I believe he owes America a lot for the opportunities afforded to him here (see here for a thoughtful writeup), but the laws DO allow what he's doing, and so while I'd say "You're a fucking slimy ingrate," I'd also say "and it's unfortunately your legal right to be one."

Yes, yes - because Google has a long patent trolling history and Mozilla is obviously at the top of their "To sue" list.

Yahoo wasn't a patent troll either, until it was. And Mozilla would very quickly become enemy no1 at Google if they ever switched to Bing or another search engine. It'd be all-out war.