Slashdot Mirror
Google's Waze Jumps Into the Ride-Sharing Business
An anonymous reader writes: Waze, the online mapping company owned by Google, is testing a ride-sharing service in Israel called RideWith. The service will allow commuters to pay drivers for rides to and from work. This is a hard limit — drivers can give no more than two rides per day. If the restriction remains after the initial test, it could be a simple way to avoid pseudo-professional drivers, and all the taxi-related legal problems that go with them (see: Uber). "RideWith calculates a cost based on the anticipated fuel consumption and 'depreciation' based on mileage, and the driver is free to accept or decline the ride accordingly." One can't help but speculate about future involvement with Google's autonomous car project.
If the restriction remains after the initial test, it could be a simple way to avoid pseudo-professional drivers, and all the taxi-related legal problems
You don't know much about taxi unions or city regulatory agencies, do you?
In no way does it avoid anything except making 100% a driver cannot make a living through this. So it's a lose-lose.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Right? Am I right? Tell me! I am right, right?
>> This is a hard limit — drivers can give no more than two rides per day.
That's not carpooling in the sense that many carpoolers give 3+ people a ride to somewhere.
Time for Uber business sharks to step aside. But thanks, Uber, for all the unethical business practices that created the legal precedent for this business model. Fortunately, Uber will be remembered as the evil company that did not care about driver income or passenger safety. Uber managed to destroy its brand before their business segment even took off.
By the way, you can't make a living wage driving full-time for Uber either
Hey guess what THAT DOESN'T MATTER.
The last Uber driver I had, was also a comedian/writer (Los Angeles). He didn't need a living wage, he wanted a part time job with a ton of flexibility to supplement income.
There are a LOT of people like this (including, perhaps you've heard of them, TEENAGERS). The next time someone says "that doesn't make a living wage" the correct response is to punch them in the mouth.
P.S. on a side note those claiming things like Uber cannot make a living wage are generally ALSO simply too lazy to work the amount required to live on what is offered. I have also met Uber drivers who DO live on uber income only, so your statement that Uber drivers do not make a living wage is false by example.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Will they go after the car pools next?
No because those are free. It's the presence of money in any form or amount that triggers the primal instinct by the state (and taxi unions) to control or kill.
What would be nice is a kind of Tinder for car sharing, where you could put in a starting point, and ending point - people could read your profile and see a rough distance from their own starting and ending points, and swipe right if you seemed like someone they would want to ride with...
There would be no money in that (for the drivers anyway) so the taxis/state would lay off.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It says to or from work is one ride. It does not state that you can pick up only one person on that trip. This is exactly carpooling.
Actually, I'll do it for you.
"I'm getting what I want as cheap as possible, screw everyone else and damn the consequences."
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
"One can't help but speculate about future involvement with Google's autonomous car project."
Why? This is now. Google's autonomous car project is a fun research project that will probably never see any real applications. Sure, a lot of the technology developed as part of it will make its way into products, but we'll likely never see autonomous cars sharing public roads with human drivers.
Look, Google has taken most of world's advertising revenue and used it to fund a bunch of fun, geeky projects. It's kinda like when Bell took all the communications revenue and did the same (or IBM/mainframes, HP/ink cartridges, etc). Almost nothing Google has done outside of search has made any revenue or had any life outside of the lab. That's a good thing - that's what research is all about. It's unfortunate that the PR machines and the media don't really grasp this and tout research as fully realized products that are just a few years away. Commercial pressure devalues research and places unrealistic expectations on the programs.
Just let research be research and stop pretending every project will change the world!
By the way, you can't make a living wage driving full-time for Uber either
Hey guess what THAT DOESN'T MATTER.
The last Uber driver I had, was also a comedian/writer (Los Angeles). He didn't need a living wage, he wanted a part time job with a ton of flexibility to supplement income.
There are a LOT of people like this (including, perhaps you've heard of them, TEENAGERS).
Considering the safety record of teenagers, they are absolutely the last ones that should be driving a gypsy cab like Uber.
And as for the part time job thing, well, there are plenty of people that sell a little pot on the side or do some escort work on weekends, but those are still illegal, just as operating as an unlicensed taxi is.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The only reason to introduce violence into an argument is because you know you can never be competent to take part in it.
There are a LOT of people like this (including, perhaps you've heard of them, TEENAGERS).
Yeah! Lets put drivers half way through their graduated licensing programs on the streets, driving parts of town they don't know, with random strangers as passengers. Great idea.
I wonder what commercial passenger insurance costs for a teenager who hasn't even got their full license yet. Probably more than they'll ever make driving for uber.
My main problem with this is it's a Google sub-project, and as much as I love their core products, they do have a habit of pulling things as soon as you become dependant on them (reader, AppInventor, and health for three examples I did depend on until they vanished). OK any company can pull a product, but it seems to be a favourite Google pass time.
living wage
Is a flat out lie. Yeah it sound great and triggers emotional responses (fear, anger) of simpleminded people who can't see beyond "Single Mom with three kids" working in a Min Wage job, because they are completely unqualified for any other kind of job. We aren't allowed to talk about why she has three kids from four fathers (well, we know two of the kids fathers, the third is in dispute until Paternity test is done). The point being, "living wage" is a simpleton view of the world, and is wholly unworkable and creates more problems than it solves.
And while I am talking about it, there is no point convincing people who believe in the "Living Wage" lie to change their view, because they can't, any more than my wife can stop fearing spiders. It is an emotional response, and no amount of logic matters at that point.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Will the system deal tolls or will the driver ask others to chip in / pay for them? also your auto insurance may say if you are using this you are not covered at all.
This is the idea I came up with a few weeks ago on another Uber thread that would fix everything: registered destinations. A driver registers a destination for their trip, and only then are they shown potential "customers/fares/ridesharers/etc"-who have also registered a destination-along their route within a slight variance depending on trip length (driving across a city it might be a block or 2, across state several miles). They can only pick up a new passenger once they have reached their original destination and registered a new one or, if they had a passenger get off during their previous trip, a new passenger registers with an applicable destination.
This kind of system would ensure that you are in fact ridesharing, ie. picking up passengers who are going to the same general area you are or a place you will pass along the way as opposed to working as an unlicensed taxi. Throw in a "fare" based on mileage/depreciation/a little extra for your time as opposed to Uber's surge pricing and you get rid of the issue of people taking this on as a job because it suddenly is not worth the effort. You still get compensated enough to offset the gas and depreciation of your car that you would be doing anyway, and at the end of the week you might have enough money to go out for a good dinner or maybe even enough for a trip for 2 to the movies.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
When god covers all your expenses and then some.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Really? When's the last time someone went to jail for talking about that?
Or by "not allowed to talk about it", did you really mean "my convenient self-serving narrative is not instantly and universally accepted as true and relevant"?
Bravo on your cow impression, though I think that everybody pretty much figured out already that cows go moo and think everything that moves is another cow.
No, it's because often force is the only argument that works with any duration (or effect) on idiots.
Idiots by definition, cannot and will not learn so higher order appeal is lost on them...
Thus has it been historically also.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
driving parts of town they don't know, with random strangers as passengers. Great idea.
Actually it turns out is a pretty great idea, it's called Uber (and Lyft).
It's almost universally loved by customers, because in many cities TAXI DRIVERS don't know where anything is either. In the last several taxis I've been in even giving a well-known place name (like Long Beach in Los Angeles) was ignored as they typed in the exact address into a GPS...
Since an Uber driver will find a way to where I am going the same way a taxi driver would, except there's no chance of error because I enter the place on my own device instead of them typing it in through a shitty GPS UI, an Uber driver is vastly more likely to get me where I am trying to go, sooner.
And given the way most taxi drivers drive I frankly would in fact rather be driven by a teenager.
As for the "random stranger" thing that part simply shows your unending ignorance into how Uber and Lyft actually work. It's not strangers that meet, it's two vetted individuals.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Because, if we talk about why a woman has three kids of unknown paternity at all, it reflects badly on her life choices and since that is her choice, we as a society must accept it. Anything else is "hate".
As in, this fictitious woman, I must hate her for even mentioning she might exist somewhere, as you have already implied in your post ... " my convenient self-serving narrative is not instantly and universally accepted as true and relevant"
The fact is, there is such a person, somewhere out there. The fact that you can't figure out hyperbole mixed in with my point, is proof that you are incapable of having a rational discussion. Your response is one of pure emotion. (I rest my case)
And there is probably more than one, since similar people are trotted out by the "Living Wage" proponents all the time. So, if it isn't true, then the "living wage" people are lying about it being "normal" and we don't need a "living wage" to help support this non-real person.
The lie is either we accept anecdotal evidence or we don't. Pick one. If it is acceptable for proponent of the cause you support ("living wage") then it is equally acceptable to use that as a case against it.
Please don't try to convince me that the proponents don't use such people in their propaganda.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes....
FYI, I realize that I violated my own rules on talking to supporters of "Living Wage" because they are simpletons. In simple terms, for my point to be valid, there must exist more than zero people that fit this description, and for your point to be valid there has to be none. Having watched any number of day time talk shows "Who's your baby's daddy?" I am confident that there exists at least one that resembles ...
https://www.google.com/search?...
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Actually it turns out is a pretty great idea, it's called Uber (and Lyft).
I was commenting specifically on having it operated by teenagers. Do try to keep up.
Driver inexperience + pressure of a random stranger + parts of town they don't know == bad idea.
It has nothing to do with knowing the location of the destination address or the best route there. It has everything to do with not knowing the roads. Not being an expert at merging, not being expert at parallel parking, not being expert at sizing up complex, unfamiliar intersections.
Saying, "no problem they have a GPS" is like saying we should let teenagers fly passenger jets because they have autopilots.
And given the way most taxi drivers drive I frankly would in fact rather be driven by a teenager.
Nice rhetoric. Studies show cab drivers are less crash prone than regular drivers per hour behind the wheel. Teenagers (new drivers) are significantly more crash prone than the average.
As for the "random stranger" thing that part simply shows your unending ignorance into how Uber and Lyft actually work. It's not strangers that meet, it's two vetted individuals.
Two 'vetted individuals' that have never met before are still strangers.
The last Uber driver I had, was also a comedian/writer (Los Angeles). He didn't need a living wage, he wanted a part time job with a ton of flexibility to supplement income.
Makes perfect sense to me. There are lots of people whose lifestyles don't permit a regular job, but could use a flexible income supplement.
The next time someone says "that doesn't make a living wage" the correct response is to punch them in the mouth.
That's a rather violent, not to mention criminal, response. I think not.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
This is a comforting lie that idiots tell themselves when confronted with the fact I noted above.
Like all idiots, you immediately gravitated to it because it's an easy excuse to avoid thinking.
You want to punch them because you KNOW you're losing the argument, and are too stupid to have any chance of winning it. No other reason can ever be possible.
The fact that you can't figure out hyperbole mixed in with my point, is proof that you are incapable of having a rational discussion. Your response is one of pure emotion. (I rest my case)
Too late to rest it - it expired just after you started it.
This is great:
Nice rhetoric.....
right after saying
Saying, "no problem they have a GPS" is like saying we should let teenagers fly passenger jets because they have autopilots.
Sorry, the "3 kids from 4 fathers" quip was a dead give away. I'm heartened at least that you've formed your opinions about the working poor from the likes of Jerry Springer (and, no doubt, COPS) and are willing to admit it.
Touche :)
I think your location's inability to get a taxi service running speaks more about where you are from than the awesomeness that is Uber. Where I live taxis are clean, cheap, the drivers know where you want to go, and have great training. Uber was hounded out of town because they were screwing up the current, working system, to the detriment of customers and drivers alike.
Hyperbole does not a rational argument make. You do yourself a great disservice by even attempting to equate the two.
This is great for the world and people getting together and carpooling is wonderful for the environment, however as a business model it falls into a much smaller category. After finding a carpool group that works people will likely stop using the app and just pay each other and exchange information since going to work is pretty much an every day occurrence. This effectively will cut out the middle-man for any really successful matches.
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why'd you agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course not: It's impossible to dispute HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
Since my points in favor of hosts SINGLE FILE native kernelmode faster part show hosts doing more w/ less vs. so-called 'competitors' many part messagepassing + cpu/ram use overheads laden slower usermode FAR MORE COMPLEX 'solutions' doing less than hosts do for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity!
---
* QUESTION:
DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , or a MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer it!
As per your usual you'll avoid every question, or lie & You've been EXPOSED in your "motives" in the last link just above, lol!
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
I bother you? Then WHY DON'T YOU DO IT & use 'em? Answer that!
(You stalk/harass me instead!)
OBVIOUSLY you don't & you're a "ne'er-do-well" troll & you have "other motivations" (the QUESTION above you'll AVOID TO NO END, "Gosh, I wonder WHY?" (not!)):
---
I make creating a superior more efficient solution EASIER (That's more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
APK
P.S.=> See Dave420 the "pot puffing clown" SQUIRM - evasions galore will ensue (as well as effete downmods via sockpuppets to *try* vainly "hide it" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )... apk
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why'd you agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course not: It's impossible to dispute HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
Since my points in favor of hosts SINGLE FILE native kernelmode faster part show hosts doing more w/ less vs. so-called 'competitors' many part messagepassing + cpu/ram use overheads laden slower usermode FAR MORE COMPLEX 'solutions' doing less than hosts do for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity!
---
* QUESTION:
DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , or a MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer it!
As per your usual you'll avoid every question, or lie & You've been EXPOSED in your "motives" in the last link just above, lol!
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
I bother you? Then WHY DON'T YOU DO IT & use 'em? Answer that!
(You stalk/harass me instead!)
OBVIOUSLY you don't & you're a "ne'er-do-well" troll & you have "other motivations" (the QUESTION above you'll AVOID TO NO END, "Gosh, I wonder WHY?" (not!)):
---
I make creating a superior more efficient solution EASIER (That's more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
APK
P.S.=> See Dave420 the "pot puffing clown" SQUIRM - evasions galore will ensue (as well as effete downmods via sockpuppets to *try* vainly "hide it" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )... apk
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why'd you agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course not: It's impossible to dispute HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
Since my points in favor of hosts SINGLE FILE native kernelmode faster part show hosts doing more w/ less vs. so-called 'competitors' many part messagepassing + cpu/ram use overheads laden slower usermode FAR MORE COMPLEX 'solutions' doing less than hosts do for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity!
---
* QUESTION:
DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , or a MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer it!
As per your usual you'll avoid every question, or lie & You've been EXPOSED in your "motives" in the last link just above, lol!
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
I bother you? Then WHY DON'T YOU DO IT & use 'em? Answer that!
(You stalk/harass me instead!)
OBVIOUSLY you don't & you're a "ne'er-do-well" troll & you have "other motivations" (the QUESTION above you'll AVOID TO NO END, "Gosh, I wonder WHY?" (not!)):
---
I make creating a superior more efficient solution EASIER (That's more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
APK
P.S.=> See Dave420 the "pot puffing clown" SQUIRM - evasions galore will ensue (as well as effete downmods via sockpuppets to *try* vainly "hide it" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )... apk
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why'd you agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course not: It's impossible to dispute HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
Since my points in favor of hosts SINGLE FILE native kernelmode faster part show hosts doing more w/ less vs. so-called 'competitors' many part messagepassing + cpu/ram use overheads laden slower usermode FAR MORE COMPLEX 'solutions' doing less than hosts do for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity!
---
* QUESTION:
DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , or a MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer it!
As per your usual you'll avoid every question, or lie & You've been EXPOSED in your "motives" in the last link just above, lol!
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
I bother you? Then WHY DON'T YOU DO IT & use 'em? Answer that!
(You stalk/harass me instead!)
OBVIOUSLY you don't & you're a "ne'er-do-well" troll & you have "other motivations" (the QUESTION above you'll AVOID TO NO END, "Gosh, I wonder WHY?" (not!)):
---
I make creating a superior more efficient solution EASIER (That's more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
APK
P.S.=> See Dave420 the "pot puffing clown" SQUIRM - evasions galore will ensue (as well as effete downmods via sockpuppets to *try* vainly "hide it" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )... apk
The three kids from multiple fathers can be talked about all you want. As a catholic, i let God judge and try to help my fellow humans.
Our demand is that, however you badmouth someone, you deal with the reality that exists. If that means three innocent kids need to eat and their caretaker needs assistance to give them the stable environment that will allow them to thrive and make better choices; we would like t o deal with that situation.
Cheap storage VM.
Hyperbole makes a good point, with fictitious examples, so that I can say things without being called "hater" or other kneejerk term the left drags out when they are actually losing a discussion on facts.
In this case, the fake person is part hyperbole, but examples abound enough to make the point. The Hyperbole part doesn't negate from my point, because it is semi fictitious. My point was, and still remains.
Because, if we talk about why a woman has three kids of unknown paternity at all, it reflects badly on her life choices and since that is her choice, we as a society must accept it. Anything else is "hate".
You see, if we start talking about the families (or lack thereof) and the lack of structure and the other poor life choices, and look at the facts of why these people are in such bad shape, the only conclusion will be, Socialism failures have destroyed the Black Families and three generations of the "great society" as done exactly what Johnson said it would, create a voting class that is enslaved to the status quo of voting for white liberal men and Uncle Tom blacks who perpetuate that enslavement.
But I am a racist white person who thinks black people are a lot more capable than liberals think they are.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
What is it with people trying to undercut drivers who scrape out a living working 12 hour days?
try to help my fellow humans
There is help, and there is help.
I don't find perpetuating enslavement to social welfare state as being "helpful". In fact, the results of this weekend in Chicago seem to suggest that it is actually harmful.
REAL help requires more than "Yet Another Handout Porgram" and real changes to the systems in place that actually CAUSE the problems in the first place. But like surgery, there is pain involved and great deal of rehab afterwards.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
So, nuts to anyone who needs help, so we can screw those 19% that stay on welfare long term, which is not more then 5 years.
Cheap storage VM.
So, binary logic is the only option! Yay!
It is all or nothing. Right?
I don't know, how about we design a welfare system the TRIES to keep the family intact, instead of making it more valuable to break it up. How about we tie welfare to education, getting a job, and progressing on an upward trend, rather than sitting at home eating junk food watching Oprah. Why don't we create a welfare system that pays less for additional kids, instead of more, so that we stop subsidizing single parenthood with unknown paternity?
And your assumption that if we don't do something it will be worse than what we are doing is really irritating, and quite frankly is ignorant given the last 50 years of the "great society" which has seen ZERO improvement. We have spent TRILLIONS with nothing to show for it (See Chicago for example).
For your point to even be partially valid, you have to provide examples of success beyond anecdotal evidence that the status quo is actually good for black communities. My proof, is the black communities themselves. The fact that we call them "black communities" shows that we have racial apartheid funded by the welfare system.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Sorry you fail to see your own binary logic. How can you support more kids with less money? How can you claim our social programs are a loss, and what "Chicago event" are you referring to?
Welfare success stories: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
https://www.nytimes.com/books/...
http://occupywallst.org/forum/...
There are plenty more.
Cheap storage VM.
How can you support more kids with less money?
You can't. And that is kind of the point.
I don't deny "welfare success stories" I simply suggest that they are the exception, not the rule. I know most kids raised in drug addicted parental households don't succeed. I also know of a few kids that grew up that way that succeeded in spite of it. And everyone of them didn't get shit for help from the government welfare systems, they were helped by kind people who saw a bad situation and helped out kids who wanted and appreciated it.
Chicago Event happens practically daily, but specifically was about the 10 people killed over the weekend, that doesn't get news because it wasn't a white nutjob waving a confederate flag. It is mostly black on black, and yet there aren't any "Black Lives Matters" protests. I wonder why?
http://heyjackass.com/
My question is, when is the "black" community going to realize that they haven't been helped one bit by Rich White Plantation Democrats, who while claiming to care for them, have kept them as political slaves?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I'm a bit troubled by your obsession with "the black community" I live in a pretty mixed community, and I've seen all colors on welfare. I used to do work in several schools in my area and there were not less issues in the predominately white lower income schools, compared to the black. There was definitely one I remember, I was told there were alot of white supremacists in the area.
Your also correct that most kids in drug addicted households don't succeed. I fail to see how that is related to welfare, since most welfare recipients can't afford recreational drugs. They usually can't afford needed drugs.
And, your kids who "didn't get shit for help from the government welfare systems, they were helped by kind people who saw a bad situation and helped out kids who wanted and appreciated it."
Those kids probably would have been far past any help without the government help you deride. They are like Craig T. Nelson, except they were on foodstamps and welfare AND someone helped them.
Cheap storage VM.
My obsession with the "black community" is about why they keep repeating the same thing over and over again, expecting different results, namely voting for the same people.
I feel really sorry that they have bought the lie that (D) politicians care about them, while denying them the things that would REALLY help their community, like school choice and opportunities to succeed. But how can you keep a free people as slaves unless you create a system of utter dependance and despair?
The greatest racism I've seen is the subtle insidious kind that says "you can't progress without our help". This is complete bullshit and is the very thing that enslaves them to this day.
And heaven forbid should a black person succeed and say the same thing I am, because then the real attacks begin ... "not black enough", "uncle Tom", "house N****R", "acting white" (whatever that means) ...
I don't mind people calling me a racist for saying black people don't need help from white people, I really don't. It simply proves my point, white people saying black people need white people's help are nothing short of modern plantation masters.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You know, the us/them, black/white is old. I worry about people, not black people or white people.
Cheap storage VM.